Off Topic Coronavirus

[Uber_Hoop]

The unbiased, balanced view of Gary Neville eh?

I think he’s entitled to his opinion the same as you or I, Col.

I am also of the opinion that Johnson lacks the credibility to announce lockdowns (if that is what he does). However, I would be opposed to locking down anyway. I would assume Ratboy, being a Labour supporter, would support increased restrictions. Starmer offers nothing other than he’d do these things sooner, harder, and for longer.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

I don't think the public will go friggin' mental over New Year, even if the Govt don't bring in more restrictions...judging by the lack of the usual crowds at the Boxing Day Sales.

 

[Stroller]

I think he’s entitled to his opinion the same as you or I, Col.

I am also of the opinion that Johnson lacks the credibility to announce lockdowns (if that is what he does). However, I would be opposed to locking down anyway. I would assume Ratboy, being a Labour supporter, would support increased restrictions. Starmer offers nothing other than he’d do these things sooner, harder, and for longer.

Have Covid restrictions become a party-political issue then?

It's a tricky one, but I'd sooner Johnson took notice of Chris Whitty than 'Brexit hard man' Steve Baker and his bonkers mates.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Have Covid restrictions become a party-political issue then?

Where did you get that idea?

 

[Stroller]

Where did you get that idea?

Col.

 

[Stroller]

Where did you get that idea?

Oh, and you.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

The unbiased, balanced view of Gary Neville eh?

Can someone update the approved source list?

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Oh, and you.

Ah, OK, I’ll take the bait, Comrade.

What I did (accurately, I think) was made the point that throughout this sorry episode Labour has called for tougher restrictions to have been brought in, always earlier than the government, and to have been in place for longer. I presume that Neville, who makes no secret of his political allegiances, would therefore support such measures. I’ve never seen him speak out against lockdowns and other restrictions in his tweets, rather he has made a point instead of publishing announcements to show what a compassionate employer he is during such periods in terms of his support of his staff during these phases.

Of course, a considerable number of Conservative MPs voted against the latest measures… but these are all apparently bonkers.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Ah, OK, I’ll take the bait, Comrade.

What I did (accurately, I think) was made the point that throughout this sorry episode Labour has called for tougher restrictions to have been brought in, always earlier than the government, and to have been in place for longer. I presume that Neville, who makes no secret of his political allegiances, would therefore support such measures. I’ve never seen him speak out against lockdowns and other restrictions in his tweets, rather he has made a point instead of publishing announcements to show what a compassionate employer he is during such periods in terms of his support of his staff during these phases.

Of course, a considerable number of Conservative MPs voted against the latest measures… but these are all apparently bonkers.

Neville would, I’d guess, support tougher measures if “the science” supported them, assuming hospitality and other sectors hit again were protected.

I don’t think he’s wrong to say that Johnson has zero credibility now. Whether totally anti any restrictions, in favour a full lockdown fining people for daring to sit alone in a park or anything in between, he’s completely taken the piss out of the serfs.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Neville would, I’d guess, support tougher measures if “the science” supported them, assuming hospitality and other sectors hit again were protected.

I don’t think he’s wrong to say that Johnson has zero credibility now. Whether totally anti any restrictions, in favour a full lockdown fining people for daring to sit alone in a park or anything in between, he’s completely taken the piss out of the serfs.

What has become pretty clear regarding “the science” is that there are two main components: (1) there’s the factual side built around the studies of the virus and what becomes known about its variants, and (2) there’s the mathematical projection side that used models based on what’s known. These generally seem to be ‘worst case’ scenarios. I can’t really blame “the scientists” for that - who’d want to call ‘best case’ or ‘most likely’ case and get it horrendously wrong? That’s where governments have to make the call - considering the science, but not necessarily going with the worst case, but being prepared to adapt when the facts change.

I agree with you about Johnson, though. If you believe in a course of action then you and your team have to be scrupulously compliant and lead the way, otherwise why should the rest of us?

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Probably not wrong.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

What has become pretty clear regarding “the science” is that there are two main components: (1) there’s the factual side built around the studies of the virus and what becomes known about its variants, and (2) there’s the mathematical projection side that used models based on what’s known. These generally seem to be ‘worst case’ scenarios. I can’t really blame “the scientists” for that - who’d want to call ‘best case’ or ‘most likely’ case and get it horrendously wrong? That’s where governments have to make the call - considering the science, but not necessarily going with the worst case, but being prepared to adapt when the facts change.

I agree with you about Johnson, though. If you believe in a course of action then you and your team have to be scrupulously compliant and lead the way, otherwise why should the rest of us?

And that’s fine. If there are two options and one will lead to X more deaths than the other but also creates a load of other problems, economic and otherwise, then fine, be honest about it. Just don’t come out with another slogan about following the science and then ignore your own science because it’s not all that fun.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

And that’s fine. If there are two options and one will lead to X more deaths than the other but also creates a load of other problems, economic and otherwise, then fine, be honest about it. Just don’t come out with another slogan about following the science and then ignore your own science because it’s not all that fun.

I 100% agree with that.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

I 100% agree with that.

You’re a smart man, Uber.

 

[rangercol]

What has become pretty clear regarding “the science” is that there are two main components: (1) there’s the factual side built around the studies of the virus and what becomes known about its variants, and (2) there’s the mathematical projection side that used models based on what’s known. These generally seem to be ‘worst case’ scenarios. I can’t really blame “the scientists” for that - who’d want to call ‘best case’ or ‘most likely’ case and get it horrendously wrong? That’s where governments have to make the call - considering the science, but not necessarily going with the worst case, but being prepared to adapt when the facts change.

I agree with you about Johnson, though. If you believe in a course of action then you and your team have to be scrupulously compliant and lead the way, otherwise why should the rest of us?

Johnson and the government have certainly lost most of their credibility and rightly so.
However, I think they're getting it right thus far with this latest variant.
As you say, following the factual side of the science is correct, but making huge decisions on worst case models can't go on. Too much damage has been done in other areas of health including mental health and the economy.
Unless Omicron is proved to be deadly and likely to cause serious illnesses and put the dear old NHS on its last legs we shouldn't bring in more restrictions imo.

 

[bobmid]

More or less restrictions is far removed from having a certain political allegiance. Plenty of mps/voters believe in both sides of the arguement, hence why Johnson is really stuck between a rock and a hard place this time. Some of it is his/governments own doing, some of it is just the pure ignorance of people in general. The latter is where the real arguements start.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

More or less restrictions is far removed from having a certain political allegiance. Plenty of mps/voters believe in both sides of the arguement, hence why Johnson is really stuck between a rock and a hard place this time. Some of it is his/governments own doing, some of it is just the pure ignorance of people in general. The latter is where the real arguements start.

I think we can all agree that the best thing he can do now is throw himself in front of a combine harvester.

 

[qprbeth]

Some restrictions now are fine, some will break the economy

So wearing a mask inside the stadium today, will not upset me ( some it will obviously)...it will not materially effect the economy. Closing restaurants, pubs, cinemas, non essential shops etc. will.

 

[Stroller]

Ah, OK, I’ll take the bait, Comrade.

What I did (accurately, I think) was made the point that throughout this sorry episode Labour has called for tougher restrictions to have been brought in, always earlier than the government, and to have been in place for longer. I presume that Neville, who makes no secret of his political allegiances, would therefore support such measures. I’ve never seen him speak out against lockdowns and other restrictions in his tweets, rather he has made a point instead of publishing announcements to show what a compassionate employer he is during such periods in terms of his support of his staff during these phases.

Of course, a considerable number of Conservative MPs voted against the latest measures… but these are all apparently bonkers.

Neville said that Johnson had lost all credibility in making pronouncements on Covid and he was absolutely right. Why sholdn't he be allowed to say so? Whether Johnson's approach to Omicron is correct or not remains to be seen, but his earlier record of ignoring 'the science' until he had no other choice doesn't bode well.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Neville said that Johnson had lost all credibility in making pronouncements on Covid and he was absolutely right. Why sholdn't he be allowed to say so? Whether Johnson's approach to Omicron is correct or not remains to be seen, but his earlier record of ignoring 'the science' until he had no other choice doesn't bode well.

I think you think we’re disagreeing on this point, matey-peeps.