Restrictions

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
cronemeister said:
Isn't it the prime ministers duty to do what's best for this country? Nearly 5000 people have tested positive for C-19 today...who the **** is going to make sure them same 5000 people self isolate like good little boys and girls? No one that's who!. Short of shutting literally and absolutely EVERYTHING for two weeks and confining literally EVERYBODY to barracks for 2 weeks there is no other way to stop it. The sooner bojo realises this and sorts out a test and trace scheme that actually works....nothing else will.

The more we increase our testing figures the more positive tests we are going to have...thats just simple ****ing math.

People will still **** off on holiday and we're still letting holidaymakers into this country...its ****ing madness.

Shut the whole ****ing country down for 2 weeks...simple as that. I'd rather stay indoors for 2 weeks than have to wear a mask and vacate boozers at 10pm for 6 months any day...hands up if you would too!
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's laughable. "Only essential travel". You can't get holiday refund. You can get on an airplane.

We have 5,000 cases because there are ****ing tests. France routinely finds 10,000 a day. No lockdown.

We struggle because we lack, as a population, a basic sense of selflessness and intelligence. We don't believe in other people, we don't have community spirit. In addition, finance companies aren't doing anything, just asking for their money, so mortgage payments/rent/other debt doesn't go away, but your salary does.

A barely veiled attempt to destabilise the West and we are, predictably, bumbling around with no defiance and no answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cronemeister and Commachio
cronemeister said:
Isn't it the prime ministers duty to do what's best for this country? Nearly 5000 people have tested positive for C-19 today...who the **** is going to make sure them same 5000 people self isolate like good little boys and girls? No one that's who!. Short of shutting literally and absolutely EVERYTHING for two weeks and confining literally EVERYBODY to barracks for 2 weeks there is no other way to stop it. The sooner bojo realises this and sorts out a test and trace scheme that actually works....nothing else will.

The more we increase our testing figures the more positive tests we are going to have...thats just simple ****ing math.

People will still **** off on holiday and we're still letting holidaymakers into this country...its ****ing madness.

Shut the whole ****ing country down for 2 weeks...simple as that. I'd rather stay indoors for 2 weeks than have to wear a mask and vacate boozers at 10pm for 6 months any day...hands up if you would too!
Click to expand...


I agree, but all we can do is what we're being asked to.
 
I'm self-employed, I need to keep working, I haven't had a penny in state handouts from the government. I will continue to work to pay bills. I will also continue to play golf <laugh> at my club if it shuts down again (three months the last time, no compensation given). I will be sensible and wear a mask when required but they can shove their restrictions and millions more will think the same. Oh and it looks like we are going to lose £270 on our planned Krakow trip for this weekend. Honestly, do not book anything for the next nine months, you could lose your money.
 
mickeybnufc said:
Just get on with life,most people will act sensibly,look at Sweden no probs,let people make their own decisions,it'll all come out in the wash
Click to expand...
But in real terms this is aimed at those who won’t/don’t act sensibly. Those who believe it can’t affect them. Those who didn’t abide by social distancing when out in Pubs. Those that don’t self isolate when they’re requested to do so. And so on and so on.

Bolton was supposed to have undergone additional restrictions as a result of ONE person not quarantining when returning from a foreign holiday and going out on a pub crawl.

We as a population have consistently shown we will follow rules but not advice and guidance.

It is a serious issue and the virus does kill. At least with flu we have a vaccine. We don’t yet with this virus. I struggle to follow the arguement that we are over reacting. We have approx 45000 extra deaths as a result of this virus in about 6 to 7 months and that is with the lockdown and the restrictions in place. How many more would it have been without the lockdown and the restrictions?

It is hard and the economic effect has been unfair particularly on some groups. But I would happily abide by the restrictions and their effect despite the economic effect (I am self employed) if this saves lives. I have an 87 yo father who is too worried to go out even though he can because on the few times he did too many people seemed oblivious to social distancing rules.

People may not like it but, as the Rolling Stones once said, you can’t always get what you want.
 
captain wrong said:
It's all about controlling the nhs and ensuring it can cope with demand. It's important people just do what they're ****ing told imo
Click to expand...

You are correct that lockdown was, in the governments opinion, necessary to allow NHS services get capacity. This was achieved months ago. Indeed the vast vast majority of that capacity was never ever used. Many of the hospitals set up remained empty. I would say in their defence they didn't know how bad it was going to get, so the fact they over egged that pudding is not really an issue.

So no its absolutely nothing to do with controlling the NHS and coping with demand. If they are saying that then they are telling you porkies. I don't think they are though are they? I think these distancing and other measures are to suppress it again. However I'm not sure where the sense in that lies given they've conceded they can't get rid off it completely. The rise in cases in simply down to the testing which is ****e and inaccurate, and we are doing a lot more of. More tests = more cases obviously. So I'm not really sure what the current goal is.
 
Warm Pouch said:
You are correct that lockdown was, in the governments opinion, necessary to allow NHS services get capacity. This was achieved months ago. Indeed the vast vast majority of that capacity was never ever used. Many of the hospitals set up remained empty. I would say in their defence they didn't know how bad it was going to get, so the fact they over egged that pudding is not really an issue.

So no its absolutely nothing to do with controlling the NHS and coping with demand. If they are saying that then they are telling you porkies. I don't think they are though are they? I think these distancing and other measures are to suppress it again. However I'm not sure where the sense in that lies given they've conceded they can't get rid off it completely. The rise in cases in simply down to the testing which is ****e and inaccurate, and we are doing a lot more of. More tests = more cases obviously. So I'm not really sure what the current goal is.
Click to expand...


^^^
Flat earther
 
The #Cans Master said:
But in real terms this is aimed at those who won’t/don’t act sensibly. Those who believe it can’t affect them. Those who didn’t abide by social distancing when out in Pubs. Those that don’t self isolate when they’re requested to do so. And so on and so on.

Bolton was supposed to have undergone additional restrictions as a result of ONE person not quarantining when returning from a foreign holiday and going out on a pub crawl.

We as a population have consistently shown we will follow rules but not advice and guidance.

It is a serious issue and the virus does kill. At least with flu we have a vaccine. We don’t yet with this virus. I struggle to follow the arguement that we are over reacting. We have approx 45000 extra deaths as a result of this virus in about 6 to 7 months and that is with the lockdown and the restrictions in place. How many more would it have been without the lockdown and the restrictions?

It is hard and the economic effect has been unfair particularly on some groups. But I would happily abide by the restrictions and their effect despite the economic effect (I am self employed) if this saves lives. I have an 87 yo father who is too worried to go out even though he can because on the few times he did too many people seemed oblivious to social distancing rules.

People may not like it but, as the Rolling Stones once said, you can’t always get what you want.
Click to expand...

Not really. We produce annual vaccines for 3-4 of 70 odd strains. Hence it still kills loads of people every year. We've learnt to live with flu basically and accepted the deaths. That's life. Or rather death.

We also don't have 45,000 additional deaths. Due to misrecording etc, we don't know how many additional deaths we have. We need to stop using flawed statistics to justify everything one way or the other. Unfortunately that has been cattled by whoever advised people to misrecord deaths.
 
Roland Deschain said:
China have attempted to shut down capitalism and the fat headed twat is helping them with it.

In France, they have nearly twice as many cases but “only” 40 deaths per day for a population of 66m. Their response? Deal with it, act sensibly and get on with life. Too much is impacted by restrictions.

We have nearer 10 deaths and have gone mental. It’s leading to civil war if unchecked.
Click to expand...
In France the numbers ending up in hospital, though currently low, are increasing exponentially. We just know about the virus at an earlier stage in the wave this time. At current rate of increase, hospitalizations in France will hit March/April levels in about eight weeks time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joelinton's Right Foot, Rum & Black for 2 and Munson.
Warm Pouch said:
Not really. We produce annual vaccines for 3-4 of 70 odd strains. Hence it still kills loads of people every year. We've learnt to live with flu basically and accepted the deaths. That's life. Or rather death.

We also don't have 45,000 additional deaths. Due to misrecording etc, we don't know how many additional deaths we have. We need to stop using flawed statistics to justify everything one way or the other. Unfortunately that has been cattled by whoever advised people to misrecord deaths.
Click to expand...
Wrong on extra deaths.


All Persons
You must log in or register to see images

Taken from PHE report upto w/e 4/9/20. You can argue not Covid etc but they are the deaths above the projected number of deaths forecast based on previous years. It has been split by colouring re Covid and others but they all are extra deaths above forecast. Yes there may be a slight variance from forecast in any event but Not to this extent and the one obvious factor different from previous years is Covid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeordieHalfbreed and Joelinton's Right Foot
The bit that makes no sense to me is why pubs and restaurants are open at all if it is dangerous after 10pm. It's either dangerous or it's not. I also don't understand why it's ok to be in a pub indoors 2 metres away from someone but not at a sports event outdoors 5 metres away from someone.
 
Nev said:
The bit that makes no sense to me is why pubs and restaurants are open at all if it is dangerous after 10pm. It's either dangerous or it's not. I also don't understand why it's ok to be in a pub indoors 2 metres away from someone but not at a sports event outdoors 5 metres away from someone.
Click to expand...

In fairness when they looked into the risks it was clear that the longer people have been drinking the less likely they were to safely distance and sanitise. Funnily it was decided that later in the evening people are more drunk and hug/kiss/etc when they shouldn't be. I think we all know that inhibitions go more at those sorts of times and that is when people are more likely to spread all sorts, I'm frankly a touch surprised people question it. Like I'm sure many on here I used to work in a pub and there's a huge difference at 7pm than 11pm in how people are behaving.

Like this guy who runs venues commenting on the BBC: 'Closing pubs at 10pm halves your takings'
Isn't that sort of the problem and the reason why they need to close early? If he reckons half the drinking is done in the one hour after 10pm it kind of gives the game away.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GeordieHalfbreed and Rum & Black for 2
haslam said:
In fairness when they looked into the risks it was clear that the longer people have been drinking the less likely they were to safely distance and sanitise. Funnily it was decided that later in the evening people are more drunk and hug/kiss/etc when they shouldn't be. I think we all know that inhibitions go more at those sorts of times and that is when people are more likely to spread all sorts, I'm frankly a touch surprised people question it. Like I'm sure many on here I used to work in a pub and there's a huge difference at 7pm than 11pm in how people are behaving.

Like this guy who runs venues commenting on the BBC: 'Closing pubs at 10pm halves your takings'
Isn't that sort of the problem and the reason why they need to close early? If he reckons half the drinking is done in the one hour after 10pm it kind of gives the game away.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough and good points. I just assumed a lot of people would go out earlier, especially students and those currently at home. I still think there are lots of inconsistencies which to be fair is probably down to trying to not kill off trade altogether while still tightening regulations. It''s not an easy task to balance things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeordieHalfbreed, Munson. and haslam
Nev said:
That's fair enough and good points. I just assumed a lot of people would go out earlier, especially students and those currently at home. I still think there are lots of inconsistencies which to be fair is probably down to trying to not kill off trade altogether while still tightening regulations. It''s not an easy task to balance things.
Click to expand...

T
 
Warm Pouch said:
You are correct that lockdown was, in the governments opinion, necessary to allow NHS services get capacity. This was achieved months ago. Indeed the vast vast majority of that capacity was never ever used. Many of the hospitals set up remained empty. I would say in their defence they didn't know how bad it was going to get, so the fact they over egged that pudding is not really an issue.

So no its absolutely nothing to do with controlling the NHS and coping with demand. If they are saying that then they are telling you porkies. I don't think they are though are they? I think these distancing and other measures are to suppress it again. However I'm not sure where the sense in that lies given they've conceded they can't get rid off it completely. The rise in cases in simply down to the testing which is ****e and inaccurate, and we are doing a lot more of. More tests = more cases obviously. So I'm not really sure what the current goal is.
Click to expand...
Votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warmir Pouchov
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back