Coronavirus

[Solid Air]

Anyway, its done now so no point continuing to grumble.

I'd have done it differently, but those 'in charge' were ****ing winging it, I understand that and always did.

I think we'd have ended up in the same place death wise whichever route we'd have taken, but a good deal fewer businesses and livelihoods would have been lost by not locking us all up.

Can't prove that though, of course.

the Swedish model of small restrictions and recommending actions that the Govt consider sensible was a much better model however i think it wouldn't work here because a huge chunk of our population don't do sensible.

 

[Peej]

the Swedish model of small restrictions and recommending actions that the Govt consider sensible was a much better model however i think it wouldn't work here because a huge chunk of our population don't do sensible.

the spread of the virus was linked to how dense population was, many of ours are dense.

 

[Treble]

Anyone deemed clinically vulnerable.

As in, genuinely at risk. Were anyone with any degree of asthma deemed to be so? If so, then they have a decision to make.

As for the second point, it's self policed. By the person at risk. If that means their family are worried for their welfare, they make that decision also and are supported. Not the whole population stay indoors just in case, the at risk person self isolates, instead of absolutely everyone having to do it.

I don't think any country did do this, no. It was all out or none out. No doubt it is simpler to make everyone or no one do it, as the option of only those genuinely at risk or affected having to do it wasn't explored, but that doesn't make it right.

There is a far higher %age of the population, based on your own figure above, not at risk than at risk.

It's nice the way you're describing it but completely impractical. We're talking millions who would've been described as clinically vulnerable. That would've affected countless families with at least one member of the family classed as vulnerable.

And then what happens? You isolate the whole family or the individual? If it's the whole family, then the majority of households would likely have to lockdown anyway. If it's the individual alone it would never work which is why whole households were told to isolate when one member tested positive.

And if we allowed ppl to decide themselves and police themselves you'd have a free for all with ppl being off work anyway.

Add to that, if you had a person in your household who was vulnerable, you and every other member of the family could be as responsible as you want, go out and you'd be relying on everyone else out there being responsible too which as we know they weren't.

Let's not forget during the lockdown most on here were criticising the general public for not using their common sense, I remember that very well as the government were getting lambasted for the idiocy of many.

The level of administration and oversight in trying to deal with the complexity of 1, 2 or any number of household members deciding for themselves randomly whether to isolate, businesses having to deal with it, and then claim furlough, as well as deal with staffing and everything associated with it would've been insane.

I dare say all of that is why no country entertained the idea. It would've been a mess and tbh pointless.

I know in theory it's a nice, neat way of dealing with it but in reality it's not how it works. It isn't like all the vulnerable ppl lived together and all the fit and healthy folk lived separately with no interaction.

 

[Treble]

I've got nothing to back it up, but I'd assume the unhealthy state of our nation is due to the reliance of fast food. I can remember the first time I went to the states, I was shocked by their obesity levels, ie visually see - often many of them would also be in mobility scooters. It was no surprise with all you can eat restaurants. Sadly with more and more introduction in the UK of fast food outlets, then delivery, so you haven't even got to get off your arse to even get it, saw our health decline. I've seen some arguments that people have to eat junk because that is all they can afford, well I'm pretty damn sure I could cook some healthy substantial meals with good produce from the amount of money spent on fast food, and yes that would be more than 30p lol.

Convenience rather than cheap imo. Manchester is fcking extortionate for fast food and takeaway. I can't see anyone doing it to budget.

And if it's processed take aways which some are then probably dopamine rush and whatever additives that keep you hungry and wanting more.

I can cook what I could buy from a take away and it'll be healthier and cheaper. So imo the only reason not to is about the quick fix.

 

[Chief]

It's nice the way you're describing it but completely impractical. We're talking millions who would've been described as clinically vulnerable. That would've affected countless families with at least one member of the family classed as vulnerable.

And then what happens? You isolate the whole family or the individual? If it's the whole family, then the majority of households would likely have to lockdown anyway. If it's the individual alone it would never work which is why whole households were told to isolate when one member tested positive.

And if we allowed ppl to decide themselves and police themselves you'd have a free for all with ppl being off work anyway.

Add to that, if you had a person in your household who was vulnerable, you and every other member of the family could be as responsible as you want, go out and you'd be relying on everyone else out there being responsible too which as we know they weren't.

Let's not forget during the lockdown most on here were criticising the general public for not using their common sense, I remember that very well as the government were getting lambasted for the idiocy of many.

The level of administration and oversight in trying to deal with the complexity of 1, 2 or any number of household members deciding for themselves randomly whether to isolate, businesses having to deal with it, and then claim furlough, as well as deal with staffing and everything associated with it would've been insane.

I dare say all of that is why no country entertained the idea. It would've been a mess and tbh pointless.

I know in theory it's a nice, neat way of dealing with it but in reality it's not how it works. It isn't like all the vulnerable ppl lived together and all the fit and healthy folk lived separately with no interaction.

That's not entirely what I said.

I said you self police if you are deemed clinically vulnerable.
As in, you have an actual medical condition that makes you vulnerable to this. Your family also get to decide if this is the case, and is then supported in their decision.

You don't just decide you're vulnerable, with nothing to substantiate that.

Nor decide whether you have to isolate, that wasn't the point. If you had it, then you stay off work till it's gone. That still applies, which is quite reasonable.

The amount of people clinically vulnerable is nowhere near what you are alluding to, at all. For the vast majority, this didn't affect them.

As has been shown.

 

[Treble]

That's not entirely what I said.

I said you self police if you are deemed clinically vulnerable.
As in, you have an actual medical condition that makes you vulnerable to this. Your family also get to decide if this is the case, and is then supported in their decision.

You don't just decide you're vulnerable, with nothing to substantiate that.

Nor decide whether you have to isolate, that wasn't the point. If you had it, then you stay off work till it's gone. That still applies, which is quite reasonable.

The amount of people clinically vulnerable is nowhere near what you are alluding to, at all. For the vast majority, this didn't affect them.

As has been shown.

So who gets to decide who's clinically vulnerable? Who takes that responsibility? And how long would that take?

I've previously stated close to 6 million diagnosed with asthma, 7 million with heart disease, 300k with cancer. That was a quick search. There are probably a whole host of conditions still out there I wouldn't know about.

I didn't mean isolating after getting the virus, I'm saying locking down those who are vulnerable individually or as part of a family. Individually is unworkable and as a family would lead to all sorts of problems in managing it if it's not a blanket lockdown.

It didn't affect them because of the measures we took, whether it was the lockdown or the vaccine. Before the vaccine everytime the lockdown was eased the deaths went up.

Which leads me back to my first point, if you're the government, or a medical professional, and you're at the start of a pandemic with only a general idea of who might be susceptible to being killed by the virus, who are you going to deem clinically vulnerable? It's a massive risk and a fck up on a scale akin to what we saw with the care home fiasco, just waiting to happen.

So even if those millions I've quoted weren't as vulnerable as you say, there was no way of knowing that at the start which is when you're making these decisions about lockdown.

 

[brb]

You don't have to be clinically vulnerable in the true sense of the word nor have covid or an affected family member to have to self isolate. The period of isolation was one month originally if you had to go into hospital, that would be two weeks prior and two weeks after, it was later reduced but in the early days it was at least 4 weeks. The isolation was to avoid you bringing the virus into a clinical environment, and also protect you after any surgery. The rules around it were quite strict, you weren't even allowed on public transport or even to go in a taxi (to and from the hospital).

 

[Treble]

I'm done with it tbh

Some think we could've lockdown the vulnerable and elderly and the rest of us could just carry on. I think it would've been nigh on impossible to do practically bcos vulnerable ppl happen to like living in the same home as fit and healthy folk.

I'm really not that invested in it to care anymore

 

[Chief]

So who gets to decide who's clinically vulnerable? Who takes that responsibility? And how long would that take?

I've previously stated close to 6 million diagnosed with asthma, 7 million with heart disease, 300k with cancer. That was a quick search. There are probably a whole host of conditions still out there I wouldn't know about.

I didn't mean isolating after getting the virus, I'm saying locking down those who are vulnerable individually or as part of a family. Individually is unworkable and as a family would lead to all sorts of problems in managing it if it's not a blanket lockdown.

It didn't affect them because of the measures we took, whether it was the lockdown or the vaccine. Before the vaccine everytime the lockdown was eased the deaths went up.

Which leads me back to my first point, if you're the government, or a medical professional, and you're at the start of a pandemic with only a general idea of who might be susceptible to being killed by the virus, who are you going to deem clinically vulnerable? It's a massive risk and a fck up on a scale akin to what we saw with the care home fiasco, just waiting to happen.

So even if those millions I've quoted weren't as vulnerable as you say, there was no way of knowing that at the start which is when you're making these decisions about lockdown.

Well, there are such things as medical records and history, you just named plenty of them, but as you say it's done now so it's all hypothetical anyway.

 

[luvgonzo]

Some ****ing long posts on here, @brb needs to sort a maximum word count.

 

[aberdude]

Some ****ing long posts on here, @brb needs to sort a maximum word count.

trebs got a long winded way of saying he hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about….Matt Hancock got a brother on here it seems

 

[brb]

It could be you……one day

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66111090

I wondered originally if he'd had dodgy transactions go into his account or it was due to anyone he was linked with, under a due diligence check - but now it appears it's due to his views. I think with us fast tracking into a cashless society, this is a very concerning stance for any bank to have. People might not agree with my political views or my ethical views, should someone refuse me a bank account on the back of those views - I think the government pushing for three months notice in future is not good enough. Especially now as the individual will have to declare everytime he opens a new account, that he has been refused a bank account before. The private bank in Farage's scenario was one that got heavily fined after the financial crisis, due to bad business practises, so should we refuse them the right to operate as a result.

Anyway, is this for real...

You must log in or register to see media

 

[aberdude]

I wondered originally if he'd had dodgy transactions go into his account or it was due to anyone he was linked with, under a due diligence check - but now it appears it's due to his views. I think with us fast tracking into a cashless society, this is a very concerning stance for any bank to have. People might not agree with my political views or my ethical views, should someone refuse me a bank account on the back of those views - I think the government pushing for three months notice in future is not good enough. Especially now as the individual will have to declare everytime he opens a new account, that he has been refused a bank account before. The private bank in Farage's scenario was one that got heavily fined after the financial crisis, due to bad business practises, so should we refuse them the right to operate as a result.

Anyway, is this for real...

You must log in or register to see media

the great reset is happening in plain sight but the masses have been told it’s all a conspiracy theory so there’s nothing to worry about our government got our backs go back to bed here’s some more American gladiators

You must log in or register to see media

 

[aberdude]

Dai calling it 25 years ago….of course he’s nuts

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Diego]

I wondered originally if he'd had dodgy transactions go into his account or it was due to anyone he was linked with, under a due diligence check - but now it appears it's due to his views. I think with us fast tracking into a cashless society, this is a very concerning stance for any bank to have. People might not agree with my political views or my ethical views, should someone refuse me a bank account on the back of those views - I think the government pushing for three months notice in future is not good enough. Especially now as the individual will have to declare everytime he opens a new account, that he has been refused a bank account before. The private bank in Farage's scenario was one that got heavily fined after the financial crisis, due to bad business practises, so should we refuse them the right to operate as a result.

Anyway, is this for real...

You must log in or register to see media

I have asked this question before but nobody answered.
If his account has been closed and other banks are refusing to open one for him where is all his money now? did the bank make up a big bag of cash and hand it over to him or is it still in their vault/books and inaccessable.

 

[brb]

I have asked this question before but nobody answered.
If his account has been closed and other banks are refusing to open one for him where is all his money now? did the bank make up a big bag of cash and hand it over to him or is it still in their vault/books and inaccessable.

I think the banks have the power to temporary freeze your money if it was because of a due diligience failure, but as this wasn't I assume he will just be expected to move his money. I wonder if they move it into a special holding account, until it's decided where the funds will be redirected to. It's a bigger problem than it seems on face value, I'd dread to think what such a refusal does to his credit rating. While some will probably laugh because of who it is, I suspect the banks will be embarrassed by this, especially knowing now that parliament will have to take action against them, it's not a good look, at time when they are trying to fast track cashless. I did warn of this after what the Canadian government did, people really need to take this problem more seriously.

 

[Treble]

I have asked this question before but nobody answered.
If his account has been closed and other banks are refusing to open one for him where is all his money now? did the bank make up a big bag of cash and hand it over to him or is it still in their vault/books and inaccessable.

Wasn't he offered a bank account with Natwest, the parent bank?

I did find it funny though to learn he himself has historically made the case that businesses ought to be able to operate however they please and serving who they please.

Probably fighting woke which it turns out is only woke until it comes back to bite you on the arse

 

[BobbyD]

I have asked this question before but nobody answered.
If his account has been closed and other banks are refusing to open one for him where is all his money now? did the bank make up a big bag of cash and hand it over to him or is it still in their vault/books and inaccessable.

when hsbc closed my main account down they sent me a cheque (i think thats what they did). I believe you can take a cheque into a bank and cash it

 

[brb]

Wasn't he offered a bank account with Natwest, the parent bank?

I did find it funny though to learn he himself has historically made the case that businesses ought to be able to operate however they please.

Probably fighting woke which it turns out is only woke until it comes back to bite you on the arse

Yeah that's correct he was offered a Natwest account is what I heard as well.

 

[brb]

when hsbc closed my main account down they sent me a cheque (i think thats what they did). I believe you can take a cheque into a bank and cash it

This sounds well dodgy, what you been up to Bobby?

wtf are cheques.