(10-11-2020, 08:23 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest.

(10-11-2020, 09:06 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 08:23 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 05:49 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 09:33 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 08:25 AM)billybassett Wrote: Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

What holes? Please elaborate. 
Back up your stats mine are as accurate as you’re going to get.
Define lockdown? You can go to school, college, uni, gyms, play sport, go to work, go to the shops, go on holiday here and abroad, go to the pub, go to a restaurant, go to a gallery, go to the cinema, go to some theatre’s, go to the pub! Since those things have been allowed the infection rate has logically gone up. 

Back your claims up as as far as I can see your argument isn’t so much full of holes as a ginormous logic free chasm.

You posted an article from the independent and some ons data. Hardly claims. You have then drawn some spurious claims from them and called them truth. You haven't a clue. I'm lucky enough to be married to someone who works in a global pharmaceutical company with plenty of eminent scientists.

As far as I can see on this politics bored you are a labour man and a consistent conservative critic. Yet your own views on what has happened over the last 7 months and how to manage it is so clearly aligned to the Tory view that it's must be a bit humiliating for you to actually agree.

You're a sheep in this matter. You've had the wool pulled over your eyes. You've yet to have the adult brains or gumption to ask why are they really doing this and understand more widely the actual science. Unfortunately you're only capable of expressing critically rather than critical thinking. But that's ok because there's plenty out there who can do the thinking for you and lobby the right people with the right facts to make sure we don't go down the pan alongside you.

(10-12-2020, 10:06 AM)Fido Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 09:06 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 08:23 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 05:49 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 09:33 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

What holes? Please elaborate. 
Back up your stats mine are as accurate as you’re going to get.
Define lockdown? You can go to school, college, uni, gyms, play sport, go to work, go to the shops, go on holiday here and abroad, go to the pub, go to a restaurant, go to a gallery, go to the cinema, go to some theatre’s, go to the pub! Since those things have been allowed the infection rate has logically gone up. 

Back your claims up as as far as I can see your argument isn’t so much full of holes as a ginormous logic free chasm.

You posted an article from the independent and some ons data. Hardly claims. You have then drawn some spurious claims from them and called them truth. You haven't a clue. I'm lucky enough to be married to someone who works in a global pharmaceutical company with plenty of eminent scientists.

As far as I can see on this politics bored you are a labour man and a consistent conservative critic. Yet your own views on what has happened over the last 7 months and how to manage it is so clearly aligned to the Tory view that it's must be a bit humiliating for you to actually agree.

You're a sheep in this matter. You've had the wool pulled over your eyes. You've yet to have the adult brains or gumption to ask why are they really doing this and understand more widely the actual science. Unfortunately you're only capable of expressing critically rather than critical thinking. But that's ok because there's plenty out there who can do the thinking for you and lobby the right people with the right facts to make sure we don't go down the pan alongside you.

That's Derek in a fuggin nutshell.

(10-12-2020, 11:15 AM)billybassett Wrote: Hopefully the tide will turn to sanity at some point instead of the devastating hot air and bluster spouted as fact by Bojo and his pal Derek.

(10-12-2020, 11:55 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-12-2020, 11:15 AM)billybassett Wrote: Hopefully the tide will turn to sanity at some point instead of the devastating hot air and bluster spouted as fact by Bojo and his pal Derek.

Don't hold your breath.

The only good that has come of this whole thing is that it's further exposed how useless and self serving polticians of all parties are.

(10-12-2020, 11:55 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-12-2020, 11:15 AM)billybassett Wrote: Hopefully the tide will turn to sanity at some point instead of the devastating hot air and bluster spouted as fact by Bojo and his pal Derek.

Don't hold your breath.

The only good that has come of this whole thing is that it's further exposed how useless and self serving polticians of all parties are.

(10-12-2020, 03:31 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote:

(10-12-2020, 11:55 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-12-2020, 11:15 AM)billybassett Wrote: Hopefully the tide will turn to sanity at some point instead of the devastating hot air and bluster spouted as fact by Bojo and his pal Derek.

Don't hold your breath.

The only good that has come of this whole thing is that it's further exposed how useless and self serving polticians of all parties are.

The problem with  posts is i don't understand what it is you want to see happen.

On the face of it, it appears that you advocate a let the virus have free reign and bugger the consequences.

The trouble is i suspect when the consequences happen you will be running away from taking responsibility for them.

Fundamentally my disagreement with you is that not to take some action against the spread of covid, will lead to a situation where the NHS will be overwhelmed, and it will simply not have the necessary resources to meet the demand placed on it by the UK public. This will not just adversely affect covid patients, but all patients. 

My issue with BB and Proth on this, is that you don't seem concerned by this scenario at all.

(10-12-2020, 03:31 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote:

(10-12-2020, 11:55 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-12-2020, 11:15 AM)billybassett Wrote: Hopefully the tide will turn to sanity at some point instead of the devastating hot air and bluster spouted as fact by Bojo and his pal Derek.

Don't hold your breath.

The only good that has come of this whole thing is that it's further exposed how useless and self serving polticians of all parties are.

The problem with  posts is i don't understand what it is you want to see happen.

On the face of it, it appears that you advocate a let the virus have free reign and bugger the consequences.

The trouble is i suspect when the consequences happen you will be running away from taking responsibility for them.

Fundamentally my disagreement with you is that not to take some action against the spread of covid, will lead to a situation where the NHS will be overwhelmed, and it will simply not have the necessary resources to meet the demand placed on it by the UK public. This will not just adversely affect covid patients, but all patients. 

My issue with BB and Proth on this, is that you don't seem concerned by this scenario at all.

(10-11-2020, 09:06 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 08:23 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 05:49 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 09:33 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-11-2020, 08:25 AM)billybassett Wrote: Still no answer. Didn't think so. How very conservative and Cummings of you. Avoid the future cost at your own present gain. You need to take a hard look in the mirror.

I've never said it's not more deadly, it is. Can't possibly say whether it's 1.5, 2 or 3 until it's passed that's purely scaremongering. The point you so clearly want to avoid is the answer to my question.

Is 50000 , 100000 or more excess deaths over the next 10 years a price worth paying to save those now?

Those numbers are quotes from the ONS. You can say at this point that the virus is killing three times as many people as flu and pneumonia. Why do you persist with the idea that I’m exaggerating or facilitating the sensationalisation of the threat? The only numbers I’ve used are from the ONS or local Public Health teams who are not the Press or in need of grabbing headlines. 

With regards to your question it’s not very clear what you’re asking or where and what will cause these excess deaths. If it is through a lack of Cancer diagnosis etc then I will answer the question. 

Let’s think about this logically if those patients who aren’t or can’t seek help do get the medical help...

That will place them in the same vulnerable bracket as those currently or recently more accurately placed on the shielding list. That means that allowing ‘everything to go back to normal’ will place those people you wish to be looked after more at risk or locked within their own homes until they recover or sadly pass away from the underlying illness. 

Add to them the increase in those who will need medical support due to the medium and long term effects of the virus. They are already planning Long Covid clinics. 

Those same people will find themselves suffering from metal health problems including depression, getting themselves into debt, families breaking up, exhaustion. All the things you’re say you’re concerned with will happen at the expense of the freedoms of the fittest. 

This should not be a choice between protecting one group of people over another. We are all connected in one way or another and the mark of a decent society is to try and support each other and compromise our own wishes for the good of others. We must find a middle way of managing the risk that does not mean leaving thousands of people under house arrest. At one point smoking was seen as a good idea in public places, restaurants and pubs etc it’s no longer socially acceptable. 

Normal is not static it changes and adapts to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. 

If you want to vent your frustrations at the situation fine but aim it towards the party that has been in power for over a decade overseeing an NHS that was pitifully under prepared for the pandemic, a Track and Trace system that is world beating in so much as it’s world beatingly poor, confusing messages etc and the behaviour of those who have done wtf they like during the whole pandemic.

Literally don't know where to start with this more holes than a collander and still never answers the question I asked. Just deflected again.

If you can't see what 7 months of lockdown and local lockdowns hasn't done but still want the same for the next 7 you're past helping.

What holes? Please elaborate. 
Back up your stats mine are as accurate as you’re going to get.
Define lockdown? You can go to school, college, uni, gyms, play sport, go to work, go to the shops, go on holiday here and abroad, go to the pub, go to a restaurant, go to a gallery, go to the cinema, go to some theatre’s, go to the pub! Since those things have been allowed the infection rate has logically gone up. 

Back your claims up as as far as I can see your argument isn’t so much full of holes as a ginormous logic free chasm.

You posted an article from the independent and some ons data. Hardly claims. You have then drawn some spurious claims from them and called them truth. You haven't a clue. I'm lucky enough to be married to someone who works in a global pharmaceutical company with plenty of eminent scientists.

As far as I can see on this politics bored you are a labour man and a consistent conservative critic. Yet your own views on what has happened over the last 7 months and how to manage it is so clearly aligned to the Tory view that it's must be a bit humiliating for you to actually agree.

You're a sheep in this matter. You've had the wool pulled over your eyes. You've yet to have the adult brains or gumption to ask why are they really doing this and understand more widely the actual science. Unfortunately you're only capable of expressing critically rather than critical thinking. But that's ok because there's plenty out there who can do the thinking for you and lobby the right people with the right facts to make sure we don't go down the pan alongside you.