CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)

[anonymous-user]

981C said:

I'm going to bid for that...it might be 20 years since I last touched Java and C++ but that makes me suitably qualified I think.

Did you once babysit for one of the current cabinet members? Run the village shop where they live? Mate of a mate? If so, simply register a ltd company with a random SIC code totally unrelated to the product or service and send them an invoice for £115m over WhatsApp. Should be paid within 7 days.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

[981C]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Did you once babysit for one of the current cabinet members? Run the village shop where they live? Mate of a mate? If so, simply register a ltd company with a random SIC code totally unrelated to the product or service and send them an invoice for £115m over WhatsApp. Should be paid within 7 days.

Yeah, and if I don't win I'll sue them for discrimination under PCR 2006.

[Brave Fart]

Blue62 said:

Cheltenham and the Liverpool v Athletico game convinced me at the time that Johnson was going for herd. Equally the decision to send people back into care homes demonstrates how muddled the thinking was, then as now.

Agreed, and my bolding is especially true. I don't think Boris has any clue about leadership, and Team Boris never had a clear strategy to begin with. As soon as social media started screaming for a lockdown, and the zero covid loons on SAGE and elsewhere started to "advise" Boris, it became inevitable that he / the government would panic, and change course.
They also decided to "follow the science", thereby absolving themselves of any blame.
And so we entered a pattern of U-turns, leaks, dodgy graphs and confusion that endures today.

[Ashfordian]

Blue62 said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

I am not one for conspiracy theories but it is on public record that Johnson and Vallance did indeed talk about herd immunity right at the beginning.

Rather than the tweets, my take is that he finally got round to looking at some of the models that has been prepared and saw that potentially 500k could die.

Clearly, he didn’t want to be responsible for that on his watch as the optics would not look great and his legacy would be tainted- no politician wants to see that.

Rather than question and challenge the models, for fear of showing his ignorance, he decided to “follow the science” which would give him the ability to through them under the bus as required and save his legacy.

And here we are now.

Don’t often agree with you but that’s my take also, allowing Cheltenham and the Liverpool v Athletico game convinced me at the time that Johnson was going for herd. Equally the decision to send people back into care homes demonstrates how muddled the thinking was, then as now.

That was the "experts" who are now telling us to wear masks and get the vaccine not seeing/realising that a Coronavirus is highly aerosol transmissible and not realising that hospitals were already one of the main areas of transmission.

[Ashfordian]

Alucidnation said:

Ashfordian said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

survivalist said:

Agreed. The problem with that is the scientists cottoned on to him and started becoming more and more risk averse. It’s how we’ve ended up where we are.

No reasoned debate, just people shouting about the scary virus.

Exactly- and even more so after Johnson had his own near death experience with the virus.

This. And it was not just his weight that would have contributed to his experience but he did not do the sensible thing and completely rest up as needed.

His actions contributed to his illness which has negatively affected 67m of us!

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

Nice attempt at twisting what I said

Did an overweight 55 year old man rest up when he caught the virus?

No. So fatigue and stress contributed to how ill he got from the virus.

[Alucidnation]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

[TheJimi]

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

[Leicester Loyal]

vonuber said:

Who in their right mind would get their children tested before going back to school?

You'd have to have a fetish for punishing them.

Not allowed back without a negative test are they?

[Alucidnation]

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[TheJimi]

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's not hindsight, it's on-fking-going!

Yesterday, I drove about 9miles to visit my parents, and risked a fine to do so.

This afternoon, I'll be driving a similar distance, to go for a walk and a change of scenery. Also risking a fine.

Do you honestly think, that right now, that is proportionate and fair? Or even sensible?

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 7th March 13:29

[Twinfan]

Leicester Loyal said:

vonuber said:

Who in their right mind would get their children tested before going back to school?

You'd have to have a fetish for punishing them.

Not allowed back without a negative test are they?

Yes they are. All testing, including for staff, is voluntary.

[DaveV6]

Leicester Loyal said:

Not allowed back without a negative test are they?

Testing of kids is voluntary, my son is not testing.

[vonuber]

DaveV6 said:

Testing of kids is voluntary, my son is not testing.

Neither is mine who is going back tomorrow. Stupid thing is her sister has been at nursery all the time anyway without nary a peep about testing.

[Alucidnation]

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's not hindsight, it's on-fking-going!

Yesterday, I drove about 9miles to visit my parents, and risked a fine to do so.

This afternoon, I'll be driving a similar distance, to go for a walk and a change of scenery. Also risking a fine.

Do you honestly think, that right now, that is proportionate and fair? Or even sensible?

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 7th March 13:29

Is it fair that you openly choose to ignore the rules, whilst most other people are following them?

[Smollet]

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's not hindsight, it's on-fking-going!

Yesterday, I drove about 9miles to visit my parents, and risked a fine to do so.

This afternoon, I'll be driving a similar distance, to go for a walk and a change of scenery. Also risking a fine.

Do you honestly think, that right now, that is proportionate and fair? Or even sensible?

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 7th March 13:29

Is it fair that you openly choose to ignore the rules, whilst most other people are following them?

He isn’t ignoring any rules from what I’ve seen

[Boringvolvodriver]

I came across this article which appears to be about the effect of the vaccines in healthy people

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/1/36/htm

Now I am no expert, far from it, but if I have read it correctly it is saying that covid 19 can give rise to heart and blood pressure issues, which covers the long covid side of things that is talked about.

The researchers appear to be saying that they don’t know if giving the vaccine to healthy people will illicit the same response and that more work is required on this area.

Could anybody with a better understanding of the science have a read and see whether I am reading it right.

Thanks.

[TheJimi]

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's not hindsight, it's on-fking-going!

Yesterday, I drove about 9miles to visit my parents, and risked a fine to do so.

This afternoon, I'll be driving a similar distance, to go for a walk and a change of scenery. Also risking a fine.

Do you honestly think, that right now, that is proportionate and fair? Or even sensible?

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 7th March 13:29

Is it fair that you openly choose to ignore the rules, whilst most other people are following them?

No critical thought whatsoever, just blind slavish devotion to "The Rules"

I'd expect nothing less of you.

But just to elaborate, if I had to follow the rules to the letter, that would have meant that I wouldn't have seen my parents who live less than 10 miles away, since around October last year, and as things stand, with no end in sight, since Scotland is going back to "levels" which makes travelling outwith ones LA area, verboten.

I actually have been largely following the rules, with notable exceptions as detailed above.

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 7th March 14:05

[Alucidnation]

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Alucidnation said:

tigamilla said:

Alucidnation said:

So, as well as it all being the fault of Boris anyway, it's now even more his fault because he got ill with the virus?

He has admitted (can't remember where I saw I) that his personal experience with getting ill had a pretty big impact on the response. So yes in a way, if he hadn't got ill, we might have taken a somewhat different approach.

Fair enough, although I can’t think of what his different approach would have been.

Maybe a bit more of balanced approach rather than shutting down the economy. Something along the lines of properly protecting the vulnerable, having a working track and trace system, providing proper financial support for people to isolate if tested positive and letting the economy function. Add in some limited social distancing rules for larger gatherings etc and possibly reduced numbers in public spaces.

Allowing healthy people to work and for businesses to be open would have made more sense subject to the above.

That sounds reasonable, but many other countries have been near enough in line with regards to restrictions etc.

That doesn't qualify that it is/was the correct approach.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's not hindsight, it's on-fking-going!

Yesterday, I drove about 9miles to visit my parents, and risked a fine to do so.

This afternoon, I'll be driving a similar distance, to go for a walk and a change of scenery. Also risking a fine.

Do you honestly think, that right now, that is proportionate and fair? Or even sensible?

Edited by TheJimi on Sunday 7th March 13:29

Is it fair that you openly choose to ignore the rules, whilst most other people are following them?

No critical thought whatsoever, just blind slavish devotion to "The Rules"

I'd expect nothing less of you.

I’ll take that as a no.

[Jasandjules]

Leicester Loyal said:

Not allowed back without a negative test are they?

What makes you say that? Masks and tests are all voluntary.

Goodness only knows what kind of psychological damage is being done to children and would be done to children who think they need to be tested twice a week to be "safe". I fear the mental harm done by this corrupt, inept inbred Govt will be felt for years to come, as well as the economic ruin.