Which is genuinely an achievement if we’re at anything like 60k-odd people and 80k tests.
Fudging the numbers so blatantly on the last day of April gave the cult some much-desired positive news. Doesn’t matter that it was complete bollocks.
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
-
Which is genuinely an achievement if we’re at anything like 60k-odd people and 80k tests.
Fudging the numbers so blatantly on the last day of April gave the cult some much-desired positive news. Doesn’t matter that it was complete bollocks.
CCJ, I might of missed it somewhere but I did ask a couple of times what you see as the positives from the government during this crisis.......are you still thinking or did I miss it ?
Genuine question ‘cos I just feel they’ve been piss poor and the only positive I personally (as a lefty) can see, is the way the Nightingale Hospital was set up in such a short time. Some might be knocking it’s as a ‘white elephant’, but the way it was set up at such short notice was truly remarkable......have you got anymore ?
Name names Col........we all need to wash ourselves of our sins.......it’s the new way.
I think to be fair setting up the 'Furlough' scheme in such a short time frame and perhaps less so the self-employed scheme were achieved just about as quickly as possible. There are still too many caught outside the remit who will face a wipe-out though. It's very easy to pick holes in everything they do but this is unprecedented. If it were a school report they'd probably be worth no more than a 'D'...
He's a Hero don't you knowThe Dog Collar is in the post mate...
Hancock on the wireless talking about potential rules for the over 70s and vulnerable post lockdown. Essentially he repeated the rules as they are now and didn’t say much about the future.
Anyone on here object if the government issues guidance or strong advice or whatever, and then allows individuals, no matter how vulnerable, to make their own minds up (or for their legal guardians to do it on their behalf if they are unable to make a decision)? Maintain social distancing rules for all, workplace rules, universally applicable stuff fine, beyond that, individuals make the call. Lots of discussion about the elderly and as Hancock says there is clear evidence that age is a risk factor. Also those with ‘underlying health conditions’ - but not all of those are in special measures for some reason.
If the over 70s and those already identified as vulnerable are told, rather than advised, that they can’t do things that everyone else can because they are at special risk, then I assume that ALL groups at particular risk (and we are sadly gathering lots of data on this) would be subject to the same rules (there is a lot of crossover between these groups, so the total number is less than the sum here) -
Over 70s (though the over 60s are at higher risk than younger people, so why not them too?) 10m over 65.
People with diabetes 3.5m
Heart disease 7.4m
COPD 1.2m
Asthma 5.4m
Overweight/obese - 63% of adults are overweight/obese, let’s be reckless and keep this to the obese - 29% of adults and 15% of kids. Got to be over 20 million. Keep those kids out of school!
As we have been told BAME, and especially black people, are at greater risk.
And so are men.
So, I’d be interested to hear from others what they think about the compulsory element of future rules aimed at different parts of the population, and also who they should be aimed at.
As I have mentioned before, if my Mum (and everyone else’s mum, dad, gran or whoever) isn’t allowed to make her own mind up based on sober and comprehensive information I will consider it to be an affront to civilisation.
Record numbers of the population have trust in the government apparently - 60%.
Anyone on here object if the government issues guidance or strong advice or whatever, and then allows individuals, no matter how vulnerable, to make their own minds up (or for their legal guardians to do it on their behalf if they are unable to make a decision)? Maintain social distancing rules for all, workplace rules, universally applicable stuff fine, beyond that, individuals make the call. Lots of discussion about the elderly and as Hancock says there is clear evidence that age is a risk factor. Also those with ‘underlying health conditions’ - but not all of those are in special measures for some reason.
If the over 70s and those already identified as vulnerable are told, rather than advised, that they can’t do things that everyone else can because they are at special risk, then I assume that ALL groups at particular risk (and we are sadly gathering lots of data on this) would be subject to the same rules (there is a lot of crossover between these groups, so the total number is less than the sum here) -
Over 70s (though the over 60s are at higher risk than younger people, so why not them too?) 10m over 65.
People with diabetes 3.5m
Heart disease 7.4m
COPD 1.2m
Asthma 5.4m
Overweight/obese - 63% of adults are overweight/obese, let’s be reckless and keep this to the obese - 29% of adults and 15% of kids. Got to be over 20 million. Keep those kids out of school!
As we have been told BAME, and especially black people, are at greater risk.
And so are men.
So, I’d be interested to hear from others what they think about the compulsory element of future rules aimed at different parts of the population, and also who they should be aimed at.
As I have mentioned before, if my Mum (and everyone else’s mum, dad, gran or whoever) isn’t allowed to make her own mind up based on sober and comprehensive information I will consider it to be an affront to civilisation.
Record numbers of the population have trust in the government apparently - 60%.
I'm sorry you feel like that, Col.
I was merely referring to the fact that you have on several occasions suggested that people shouldn't be criticising the government or their advisors over their handling of the pandemic. It seems to me that this criticism is perfectly legitimate and necessary.
I don't believe that there should, or could, be any compulsion in future rules. In fact I'd have preferred that everybody had been allowed to make up their own minds from the outset. I heard someone on the radio yesterday who used to work for the WHO (roadie, I think) saying that there was nothing 'magic' in the two metre rule and that in fact the likelihood of contracting the virus was much more to do with the length of time that you were in contact with a carrier. Very early in the piece I read something which suggested that you would need to be in close contact with a carrier for perhaps fifteen minutes to contract the virus. This was subsequently discredited of course, but I've never really believed that passing within two metres of someone in the street could put me, or them, in any danger.
That is not the damning figure though Westy.
Total deaths for week ending 24 April = 21,997
Subtract the seasonal average of 10,500 = 11,497
Subtract the official govt figure for that week 4,930 = 6,567
Bottom line there is that more people are dying outside of hospital, probably virus related, than are in! 6,567 over the official government number in one week.
Total deaths for week ending 24 April = 21,997
Subtract the seasonal average of 10,500 = 11,497
Subtract the official govt figure for that week 4,930 = 6,567
Bottom line there is that more people are dying outside of hospital, probably virus related, than are in! 6,567 over the official government number in one week.
In the five weeks up to 24th April 90,392 people were officially registered as dying in England and Wales. The normal figure in that period would be 52,500.
So, in England and Wales as of 11 days ago it is fair to assume that the virus had accounted for around 37,892 extra deaths in England and Wales alone.
Based on the governments own figures provided by the Office of National Statistics
So, in England and Wales as of 11 days ago it is fair to assume that the virus had accounted for around 37,892 extra deaths in England and Wales alone.
Based on the governments own figures provided by the Office of National Statistics
Rather pissed off today as not for the virus would now be flying to Cyprus. I shall just have to sit out on the decking with a G & T and pretend for 2 weeks...
