Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! Vol 3
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
Well he 'sounded' very knowledgeable and the audience were listening intently but if you analyse what he was saying it was mostly guff.
He insisted they were following 'science' to beat the virus but it transpired that no temp checks were being carried out at Heathrow because it gives false positives.
Here's a bit of science - it would also detect 'true' positives, so as it stands they're slipping into the country undetected. Truth be known they simply haven't got the resources to check, pull, test every over-temp passenger that walks through Heathrow arrivals every day.
Secondly, it was a keep calm and carry on attitude with regards to attending things like football matches because as it's in the open air you'd 'only' be infecting those in your immediate vicinity.
WTF, that'd be 6 lucky people that'd go home to unknowingly infect the rest of their family. And because they wouldn't know they'd got it because of the incubation period, infect their work colleagues too. And so on and so forth.
Highly irresponsible.
Interested to hear what you think should be done? Someone is detected as having a temperature in airport arrival. They get swabbed and isolated. Swab result takes up to 18 hours to come back, so their banged up for that time. If positive - into isolation for 2/3 weeks? If negative, you need to re-swab after 24 hours as it is possible to have the virus but swab negative for the first 24 hours. then another 18 hour wait, then release as twice negative or isolate if positive. Airports, ports and the channel tunnel just don't have the facilities/resources to do all that. And imagine the chaos caused by it all!He insisted they were following 'science' to beat the virus but it transpired that no temp checks were being carried out at Heathrow because it gives false positives.
Here's a bit of science - it would also detect 'true' positives, so as it stands they're slipping into the country undetected. Truth be known they simply haven't got the resources to check, pull, test every over-temp passenger that walks through Heathrow arrivals every day.
Secondly, it was a keep calm and carry on attitude with regards to attending things like football matches because as it's in the open air you'd 'only' be infecting those in your immediate vicinity.
WTF, that'd be 6 lucky people that'd go home to unknowingly infect the rest of their family. And because they wouldn't know they'd got it because of the incubation period, infect their work colleagues too. And so on and so forth.
Highly irresponsible.
Cobnapint said:
Well he 'sounded' very knowledgeable and the audience were listening intently but if you analyse what he was saying it was mostly guff.
He insisted they were following 'science' to beat the virus but it transpired that no temp checks were being carried out at Heathrow because it gives false positives.
Here's a bit of science - it would also detect 'true' positives, so as it stands they're slipping into the country undetected.
No, that's not science, that's your opinion. The science with coronavirus is that it can be asymptomatic for up to four weeks - so you could stroll through Heathrow with the virus and no amount of temperature checks will show it up.He insisted they were following 'science' to beat the virus but it transpired that no temp checks were being carried out at Heathrow because it gives false positives.
Here's a bit of science - it would also detect 'true' positives, so as it stands they're slipping into the country undetected.
That's what happened in Italy - the root of the outbreak in the North apparently being someone who 'felt fine' for a couple of weeks and went out and about and socialised for that time.
So, no, your opinion is not science.
Cobnapint said:
Truth be known they simply haven't got the resources to check, pull, test every over-temp passenger that walks through Heathrow arrivals every day.
Truth be known, it won't prevent the disease from entering the country undetected, but it would massively inconvenience every single person passing through every major airport in the UK. Very, very expensive and utterly pointless.In addition the 'false reassurance' of being checked would encourage people to think that they do not have to self monitor and take appropriate precautions - so it could potentially do much more harm than good.
Cobnapint said:
Secondly, it was a keep calm and carry on attitude with regards to attending things like football matches because as it's in the open air you'd 'only' be infecting those in your immediate vicinity.
WTF, that'd be 6 lucky people that'd go home to unknowingly infect the rest of their family. And because they wouldn't know they'd got it because of the incubation period, infect their work colleagues too. And so on and so forth.
Highly irresponsible.
I think you haven't got the medical background, nor the understanding of epidemic spread that the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government has. Note that not only did Hancock give the advice, but the Doctor on the panel (and a number of health professionals in the audience) agreed with the measures being taken.WTF, that'd be 6 lucky people that'd go home to unknowingly infect the rest of their family. And because they wouldn't know they'd got it because of the incubation period, infect their work colleagues too. And so on and so forth.
Highly irresponsible.
Wow a QT not dominated by brexit and it had to by due to imminent mass extinction event.
Interesting at the end when tory boys said let the investigation of psycho patel take place before deciding she is guilty!
The sort of think labour kept telling the rabid friends of Israel when they were trying to investigate the AS issues.
Anyway roll on the end of everything lol.
Interesting at the end when tory boys said let the investigation of psycho patel take place before deciding she is guilty!
The sort of think labour kept telling the rabid friends of Israel when they were trying to investigate the AS issues.
Anyway roll on the end of everything lol.
Thought Hancock had a good QT. Calm, measured, and in control.
Celeb doc was OK, Beckett was ok (Labour are sorely missing young politicians of her calibre), Journo was OK, and amusing.
But Moran? Given her own history I'm amazed she has the chutzpah to so piously judge Priti Patel guilty before the investigation has been concluded. (and no matter Moran's subsequent protestations to the contrary, it was absolutely clear what her feelings were)
Celeb doc was OK, Beckett was ok (Labour are sorely missing young politicians of her calibre), Journo was OK, and amusing.
But Moran? Given her own history I'm amazed she has the chutzpah to so piously judge Priti Patel guilty before the investigation has been concluded. (and no matter Moran's subsequent protestations to the contrary, it was absolutely clear what her feelings were)
Liokault said:
I only watched 5 mins. I had to turn off after the weird woman in the audience, who didn't realise that she could put her hand down, blamed COVID-19 on Brexit then on climate change. No one challenged her!
Some people are so stupid it is simply a waste of time to challenge them. markyb_lcy said:
Liokault said:
I only watched 5 mins. I had to turn off after the weird woman in the audience, who didn't realise that she could put her hand down, blamed COVID-19 on Brexit then on climate change. No one challenged her!
Some people are so stupid it is simply a waste of time to challenge them. I will have to watch it on i player or the Saturday re run I think on BBC Parliament.
Though there is currently a facebook post going round to avoid some local chinese and Mandarin restaurants because..........
Tuna said:
I think you haven't got the medical background, nor the understanding of epidemic spread that the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government has. Note that not only did Hancock give the advice, but the Doctor on the panel (and a number of health professionals in the audience) agreed with the measures being taken.
So basically - if it's ok to go to the match, and it's ok to not carry out checks at entry points - apart from giving advice about hand washing - there are NO measures being taken whatsoever.NoddyonNitrous said:
Interested to hear what you think should be done? Someone is detected as having a temperature in airport arrival. They get swabbed and isolated. Swab result takes up to 18 hours to come back, so their banged up for that time. If positive - into isolation for 2/3 weeks? If negative, you need to re-swab after 24 hours as it is possible to have the virus but swab negative for the first 24 hours. then another 18 hour wait, then release as twice negative or isolate if positive. Airports, ports and the channel tunnel just don't have the facilities/resources to do all that. And imagine the chaos caused by it all!
Well imagine the chaos, exactly.The point I'm trying to make is that although it sounds like MH is all nice and calm and has got this thing in hand, beyond 'taking the advice of the CMO', having regular COBRA meetings, and repeating the 'our NHS is able to cope' mantra (which it won't be if it gets out if hand) - the government are actually 'doing' nothing. And the reason they're doing nothing is there's very little you can do except lock the whole country down for a fortnight. And that ain't gonna happen.
markyb_lcy said:
“Our NHS is able to cope”
I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
Although, ironically, if that was its sole/main focus as it might have to be for 6-8 weeks (source - Prof W), I suspect it'd do rather well.I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
markyb_lcy said:
“Our NHS is able to cope”
I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
Correct. The NHS, right from your GP, to beds, nurses, consultants, ambulance crews, A&E, all of it, is completely overrun by it's present sans-COVID population. So claims that it is able to cope (unless you stop doing everything else) are completely false.I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
Bonefish Blues said:
markyb_lcy said:
“Our NHS is able to cope”
I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
Although, ironically, if that was its sole/main focus as it might have to be for 6-8 weeks (source - Prof W), I suspect it'd do rather well.I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
Cobnapint said:
So basically - if it's ok to go to the match, and it's ok to not carry out checks at entry points - apart from giving advice about hand washing - there are NO measures being taken whatsoever.
Technically, the virus is here and will spread. Delaying the spread through the population should help reduce the overall impact - and self isolation and hygiene are about it for the moment.- for the moment* limiting public groups is not going to have much impact, except in certain circumstances - exhibitions indoors for instance are a higher risk. There may be a case for doing so when the virus has spread enough in particular communities, but there is no point in closing football matches and schools right now. The cost and social impact (and panic) of doing so are far worse than a handful of people getting ill.
markyb_lcy said:
Bonefish Blues said:
markyb_lcy said:
“Our NHS is able to cope”
I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
Although, ironically, if that was its sole/main focus as it might have to be for 6-8 weeks (source - Prof W), I suspect it'd do rather well.I’ve never heard anything so hilarious in my life. It clearly isn’t coping even without the strain of Coronavirus.
markyb_lcy said:
Cupramax said:
Not if you’ve been told to do something and either defiantly or ignorantly failed to do so. I think these people need to step into the world others exist in, perhaps I’m a bit hardened to it working in manufacturing situations but pleasantries on failure are few and far between.
So bullying is fine if it’s used as a tool to get things done?Or shouting, swearing and belittling people isn’t bullying if someone is refusing to do something? What else is acceptable, maybe physical violence? Where exactly do you draw the line of acceptability in workplace management?
Edited by markyb_lcy on Friday 6th March 00:11
Tuna said:
Technically, the virus is here and will spread. Delaying the spread through the population should help reduce the overall impact - and self isolation and hygiene are about it for the moment.
Technically, yes. And the number of cases they are commenting on/reacting to today will have been contracted up to ten days ago, so the solutions (if they ever come out with any) will always be behind the game.- for the moment* limiting public groups is not going to have much impact, except in certain circumstances - exhibitions indoors for instance are a higher risk. There may be a case for doing so when the virus has spread enough in particular communities, but there is no point in closing football matches and schools right now. The cost and social impact (and panic) of doing so are far worse than a handful of people getting ill.
If you want to nip it in the bud you've got to let the economy take a short term hit. It's the only sure way. For a health secretary to say it's ok to go to the match because it's 'only' the people around you that are at risk is just stupid. Imagine if the whole stadium did that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff