Off Topic Coronavirus
- Thread starter Sooperhoop
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Looking back I found this quote "Mr Johnson, 55, and Ms Symonds, 32, announced in March that they were expecting a baby in "early summer",".
I don't think I would call late April as "early summer". I suspect that baby is early ...5-6 weeks early.
My youngest was 7 weeks early, without effect (well a little jaundice I must admit) but well.
Boris really is an all action whirlwind...Pandemic, coronovirus, baby, brexit
I don't think I would call late April as "early summer". I suspect that baby is early ...5-6 weeks early.
My youngest was 7 weeks early, without effect (well a little jaundice I must admit) but well.
Boris really is an all action whirlwind...Pandemic, coronovirus, baby, brexit
Yeah. They will stop the insults when people stop trading with them or at least cut down on the amount of crap they make?
I didn’t say he was. Probably should be.
I think deep down you think Starmer has more about him than you give him credit for on here.
Sadly I don't. As I said he is better than the last bloke... but then that isn't hard.
All of his forensic detail and smart information will get lost in his monotone delivery. He has already been described by an ex-Labour MP as "talking with all the passion of a Speak Your Weight machine", and being "so wooden, birds try to nest in him".
You know yourself once Boris starts mumbling and quoting Latin people like him and listen to him. Starmer doesn't have the same appeal. He is not charismatic and will turn people off even if he is taking sense.
Anyway, we should leave this for the politics thread.
We need both, and we need to know what level of immunity having antibodies delivers. The WHO says perhaps none (though as they spend all day staring at pictures of Lily I’m not sure I have confidence in their judgement); though you would have thought possessing antibodies would give you some protection, even if only for a few months (which is the case I think with flu).
Other places, including Spain, Italy and the US are using antibody tests and in the US it’s in the right way random testing of the population in New York to see what proportion of the populace have had it (about 25% they reckon). I would prefer this approach to individuals getting tested in the expectation of special privileges based on a possibly false belief that if they’ve had it they can’t get it again. I know it would be interesting to know if you’ve had it, but at the moment it’s seems pretty meaningless on an individual basis. As soon as someone authoritative says. ‘Hey, if you’ve had this thing and have antibodies you are very unlikely to get it again this year, and if you do it will be a mild version’ this situation changes radically. I don’t think there is any chance that anyone will have permanent immunity and I think even a vaccine might be temporary.
The longer this goes on the less we seem to know about this virus. Good science tends to take time (I know scientists who have been working on the same potential medicine for over a decade) but time is in pretty short supply at the moment.
You're involved in the health business, Stan, and know the nuances of public and private interaction. But it seems to me, the general principle is that private care homes act autonomously outside a pandemic situation. I can't see why government should be responsible for the way private companies act, beyond enacting and enforcing any mandatory regulations passed by Parliament where there is a need for care providers to keep extra stock for emergency situations.
We're not to allowed to say that the public are stupid, though.
They’re being asked (forced?) to care for people who clearly need hospital treatment though.
I was worried he was going to find a calendar month to not have time off in May but good timing Carrie. Chequers is ideal for a bit of baby bonding time. Raab’s at the wheel.
But that's within a pandemic situation. As I've said, that brings in different factors. What was being discussed was government's responsibility to ensure private companies stockpile in non-emergency situations. That must be a matter for parliament as a whole, and government then enforce whatever laws are passed on private care home stockpiling (if any).
I was going to reply to this but then I saw
You appear to have changed the goalposts here, as all previous discussion about responsibility to stockpile PPE in care homes has been in the context of the pandemic, the pandemic that no one had mentioned to care home operators until it was on us and no one could get PPE and then, seemingly to demonstrate just how vital PPE is, infected patients were discharged, consciously and deliberately, into these settings where those most vulnerable to a fatal infection happen to live.
In this country care homes are regulated and inspected by the Care Quality Commission, an admittedly dysfunctional and useless organisation but nevertheless the arm and voice of government in the sector, which is in fact a privatised element of public sector social care provision. The CQC sets the standards and guarantees the quality for residents, 50% of whom are entirely taxpayer funded. The CQC could have instructed care homes to stockpile PPE at any time, pandemic or not. No need for Parliament to be involved.
Last edited:
They are not but surely you would agree that people warm to charismatic people like Boris. I remember that during the election a poll was done on what women thought of the 2 leaders and Boris was something like 80-90% more popular than Corbyn.
Wrong thread, methinks.
