- Messages
- 7,673
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IIRC they would bought at a high price and sold at a low price.
and the site receives a small commission
Reached the peak,lock down could start to be eased
- Thread starter mikew
- Start date
IIRC they would bought at a high price and sold at a low price.
- Messages
- 4,083
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem with the kids is they can't cope like us without being part of their little community. I watched a video about a young lad who was finding it so hard not being at school being with his friends, no PE to get rid of energy, no challenges. At 12 years old he decided to hang himself. Whilst it's a single incident kids can't mentally cope with being locked in like adults can. We can rationalise the reason why. Kids think they are invincible, they aren't used to being trapped, learning from home, not physically seeing other people. FaceTime is a fantastic invention but it's not the same.
I'm feeling the strain living on my own but to kids their mates are their world.
I'm feeling the strain living on my own but to kids their mates are their world.
OP
- Messages
- 5,548
- Name
- mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No answer to that its horrendous,
- Messages
- 2,346
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
You should just be thankful that this thread has not turned into the daily bickering about governments
On a serious note, I think the general assumption is that the majority of children that catch the virus will be asymptomatic which would almost seem to defeat the purpose of this current lockdown if they return schools then spread the virus like wildfire. I think most children will be able to cope and recover fairly well from missing out on school for a few months, therefore I would suggest they don't return for a while yet.
- Messages
- 2,346
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
That is the huge worry about sending them back now. Although a lot of grandparents might end up watching children when their parents return to work, there would probably be less chance of children catching the virus if they remain within the family circle. As with all other lockdown questions there is no easy answer and a lot of difficult decisions ahead.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,624
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
It was reported on the news today that the north east has surpassed London, I suppose by the number testing positive per head of population. That's no surprise if what I see on my road and what people have told me is typical. People just seem to think the rules don't apply to them. It beggars belief.
- Messages
- 1,338
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Actually the UK General Public were the biggest beneficiaries because if the Banking System hadn't been bailed out it would have crashed and then you would have seen chaos. Maybe you should stop reading the Guardian.
- Messages
- 9,200
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that just ignoring you will be more beneficial.
- Messages
- 1,338
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Given the total lack of anything meaningful in your comments other than a bigoted view point the feeling is totally mutual.
- Messages
- 1,849
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OH FER C..... ... ....
- Messages
- 544
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In what way - "not necessarily?"
- Messages
- 544
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem with testing is that it is as valid as an MOT.
In other words - useless.
In other words - useless.
OP
- Messages
- 5,548
- Name
- mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry struggling to see the sense in this post, no MOTs would see a return to dangerous crap cars running around.
Ok it will only tell you if you have the virus at that moment, you could catch it 30min later , i see it as one more piece of info to add to the info gathering.
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How. If i am a nurse I have a test, its ok so i can go to work, if it fails I stay at home. No test = I infect more people!!
What the points in a cancer smear test then? Someone could be clear today and have it next week?
- Messages
- 9,200
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes.
It seems to me that there's a problem with perceptions being skewed by watching too much TV fiction. Some viewers have been led to believe that there really are tests which "prove" things. In the real world, results are seldom clear cut and experienced assessment is the best that can be achieved.
More to the point, as you say: It's possible to be clear when the blood is drawn but infected a few hours later.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Then:
Followed by:
Love it.
The only reason the government led* by That Idiot™ are saying the lockdown might be eased, is because Capitalism. Because of the impact this is having on the very wealthy. That's all. It is patently obvious now, if it weren't before ffs, that this government really, really, really don't care about anyone but themselves and their rich chums. If the people of the UK had any collective bals, they'd stand up and say 'no; we're not going back to work/socialising etc until the scientists and health experts tell us it's safe to do so'. IE, act with a bit of common sense and collective responsibility.
But too many people are idiots.
*I say 'led'....
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a load of b*****ks. What about all the people who could lose their jobs? It's going to hurt them far more than the very wealthy. Loss of some jobs may not even be immediate, a poor economy could last years and more jobs could be lost as a result.Then:
Followed by:
Love it.
The only reason the government led* by That Idiot™ are saying the lockdown might be eased, is because Capitalism. Because of the impact this is having on the very wealthy. That's all. It is patently obvious now, if it weren't before ffs, that this government really, really, really don't care about anyone but themselves and their rich chums. If the people of the UK had any collective bals, they'd stand up and say 'no; we're not going back to work/socialising etc until the scientists and health experts tell us it's safe to do so'. IE, act with a bit of common sense and collective responsibility.
But too many people are idiots.
*I say 'led'....
That is also risking peoples mental and physical health.
No one has to go out socialising, it isn't mandatory.
I am back to work on Monday, it should have been this week but a system failure meant it had to be postponed. Many of my workmates did return Monday this week, some returned the week before. With all the precautions that have been put in place, we are safer from infection, than when doing the weekly shop.
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Correct! The avergae person is going to lose far more than the rich. Not to mention that without getting the economy back on track, how are we supposed to pay for things!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692 is a great read - we can get the country back to some form of normality for a lot of us. The only other option is to stay locked down for 18 months!!!
Gremlin
Houdini
- Messages
- 17,736
- Name
- Ingrid
- Edit My Images
- No
Too many people are worried about how they can survive financially,, it's already been said the furlough scheme
will be reducing payments by the end of July and may have stop altogether.
People of working/middle class still have bills to pay and are not working due to no fault of their own, with no idea
whether they will still have jobs to return to
The government just cannot continue to pay out billions to suppoert everyone so it will be down to family credit and a lot of people losing their homes etc
- Messages
- 10,522
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is why a UBI is now essential. It's going to be the case that the state will have to look after more people. Lots of industries and jobs just won't exist. Until things are rebuilt folk shouldn't be left to just rot or starve. That's what the state is for. It is affordable when the tax dodgers are forced to pay in. No more off shore cheating or other nonsense should be allowed.
Tenants can't be evicted so it seems perfectly reasonable that no repossessions should happen either for at least 18 months. I don't see things getting anywhere sensible any earlier than that.
Tenants can't be evicted so it seems perfectly reasonable that no repossessions should happen either for at least 18 months. I don't see things getting anywhere sensible any earlier than that.
- Messages
- 9,200
- Edit My Images
- No
This is worryingly true. We do need to start bringing the country back to life but we also need to remember that we have the worst death record apart from the US.
Perhaps the best thing would be to enforce the distance rules much more harshly on the basis that breaking them puts others at risk of serious harm. I've just been to one of the local village shops. I was unhappy at the aggression exhibited by young men in their work clothes to whom keeping their distance seemed to be seen as unnecessary.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And how much do you think this UBI is going to pay each person, if it is to cover peoples living expenses. Even as much as the state pension wouldn't even cover my bills, That is without food too. According to reports a third of the country has recieved furlough payments and that has cost over £8bn in a little over a month. Somehow I can't see the tax evasion making up £8bn a month.
- Messages
- 10,522
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It will easily cover it. Tax dodging was estimated to be anything between 70 billion a year and 120 billion. That's just what they know about so I'd bet those that are even more devious are avoiding more. Off shoring is legal but denies the UK even more tax money.
- Messages
- 104,465
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I struggle with the orthodoxy around the "economy". I'm not usually given to quoting Ronald Reagan but he said "Economists are people who see something in practice and wonder if it will work in theory". Look back over the last 10 or 20 years and economists have been worse than weather forecasters at getting things right.
Food is still being grown, minerals are still being mined so value is still being created. The "economy" is a relative thing, we will suffer economically if we operate in a different way to other countries so if there was international agreement to say raise taxes or print money then the net economic impact would be minimal.
Food is still being grown, minerals are still being mined so value is still being created. The "economy" is a relative thing, we will suffer economically if we operate in a different way to other countries so if there was international agreement to say raise taxes or print money then the net economic impact would be minimal.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not everyone that has recieved the furlough payment will have recieved the full £2.5k, the average will be alot lower and yet it has come to £8bn in one month for just a third of the working population. That's £96bn per year, or £288bn per year for the whole of the UK working population.
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Think about it from a local level. Restaurant staff can’t work. They may be on fulough but probably won’t account for tips so worse off. Even aside from that, people have and will lose jobs and income. If fulough carries on the. Sort of great (although leaves a big debt) but if the government stop or reduce this then lots of people will be out of work. This will apply mainly to people in the leisure industry but even the software company where I work may let people go in the medium term. That’s all people out of work, losing homes, family breakup.... yes the economy is important.
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It’s a long answer but we would probably always be near the top of deaths for a number of reasons like social mobility, the fact we have a lot of passing people (unlike say NZ) and various other factors. Yes, we could/should have done things differently and I would say deaths are higher than they needed to be,
In the main the distance rules seem to be followed, hence why we are Past the peak. Of course a few will ignore but you had that in other countries too. As has been mentioned, better shielding of those at risk and the rest of us getting closer to normal is a low risk thing to do.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's not just restaurant staff it can effect. I do shift work and get shift allowance of 1/5th or 1/8th depending on what shift I am on. My employer makes up the extra 20% that the furlough doesn't pay, but as I am not at work, it is only flat money, no shift allowance as a result, i am down around £360 a month on my take home pay. Not using my car much means i have saved around £60, but that still leaves me around £300 down, i am fortunate, i can still put money into a savings account each month. Alot of my work colleagues are alot younger with bigger mortgage payments etc. They are going to be in a worse off position, £300 missing each month is going to hit them hard.
You're right in what you say and it doesn't matter at what end of the pay scale people are a poor economy causing job losses for one will have a roll on effect into others losing their jobs.
- Messages
- 104,465
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter if the governement bails everyone at at fully salary for the next year and prints money to do it, as long as other countries do a similar thing. The pound won't go down against the Euro or Dollar if those countries devalue by a similar amount.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Very inappropriate time out
Do you really think the current shower of s*** care about ordinary working people? All the Masses are to them, are profit generators. This government really couldn't care if millions died. They really, really couldn't. They've already proven that by cutting the NHS to ribbons. But they DO care about protecting their wealth. Sick and dead people can't generate profits. So it's in their interests to keep at least most of them alive. There is more than enough actual wealth in the UK, to provide all the PPE etc needed, all the healthcare needed, and to provide everyone with at least a basic living in terms of rents and mortgages paused (in many cases, suspending those causes no economic damage in the long term anyway), food provided and care for those who need it, for many months, if not years. Have you any idea of how much money is leeched out of us all? Trillions. Quadrillions. Quintillions. All sitting in offshore bank accounts. Funny how UK governments always seem to find money down the back of the sofa when some funny foreign brown people threaten to stop the flow of oil revenue, isn't it? Yet they can't supply NHS and care staff with PPE? Really?
The jobs will still be there; the need for industry and services won't have stopped. The Capitalist machine will continue to rumble on...
You clearly don't even understand basic virology, in spite of the wealth of information available, and you think I'm talking b*****ks?
Bottom line; if this government really cared about us, and wanted to ensure the least damage caused by this virus, it would have acted weeks before it did, and it wouldn't even be talking about easing restrictions until the scientists, you know, those pesky 'experts', said doing so was a good idea. It would have provided ALL NHS, care, delivery etc staff with PPE. The only thing that will affect the decision making process, is what suits the most wealthy. End of.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
The government could easily postpone a lot of payments for big 'defence' contracts, for stuff like HS2, and to foreign companies. It could just say 'look, it's tough s***, there's a crisis on and we need to think about people first'. And then have more than enough to support the nation (which is it's actual f*****g job ffs). It could also make sure all those massive corporations and billionaires paid their taxes properly. That would generate quite a fair bit of cash.
But it won't. Because, Capitalism.
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The jobs will still be there; the need for industry and services won't have stopped. The Capitalist machine will continue to rumble on...
You clearly don't even understand basic virology, in spite of the wealth of information available, and you think I'm talking b*****ks?
Bottom line; if this government really cared about us, and wanted to ensure the least damage caused by this virus, it would have acted weeks before it did, and it wouldn't even be talking about easing restrictions until the scientists, you know, those pesky 'experts', said doing so was a good idea. It would have provided ALL NHS, care, delivery etc staff with PPE. The only thing that will affect the decision making process, is what suits the most wealthy. End of.
If we keep lockdown, that means services will stop as they are not open!!! If pubs are deemed to reisky to open until 2021, then I doubt people will still have those jobs!!
If you bother to read https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692 there are scientists who say that we can minimise damage and escape much of lockdown.
Everyone has said that the people getting harmed most with lockdown are the young and lower paid! They are not the wealthy.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
I do actually. A bit more than a vague BBC article....
There is a difference between doing the 'right' thing in terms of protecting as many people as possible, in order to ease pressure on the NHS etc (via the Lockdown™), with it's associate short term economic impact (much of which could be alleviated with correct government intervention and support); and easing restrictions as soon as possible, which could well have a far greater negative long term impact on society. I accept it's always going to be a balance, but this government will want the flow of money to resume as soon as possible. It's really got nothing to do with wanting to protect ordinary individuals. Not everything has to be about money.
If we lift restrictions too early, and there is a second, much more destructive wave (as many scientist are warning about), and our NHS collapses under the strain, then what do we do?
Yeah, see; easy to see things only in the short term, isn't it?
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do actually. A bit more than a vague BBC article....
There is a difference between doing the 'right' thing in terms of protecting as many people as possible, in order to ease pressure on the NHS etc (via the Lockdown™), with it's associate short term economic impact (much of which could be alleviated with correct government intervention and support); and easing restrictions as soon as possible, which could well have a far greater negative long term impact on society. I accept it's always going to be a balance, but this government will want the flow of money to resume as soon as possible. It's really got nothing to do with wanting to protect ordinary individuals. Not everything has to be about money.
If we lift restrictions too early, and there is a second, much more destructive wave (as many scientist are warning about), and our NHS collapses under the strain, then what do we do?
Yeah, see; easy to see things only in the short term, isn't it?
No, you simply ensure that the vulnerable are shielded - this will minimise any drain on the NHS. The rest of us are not badly affected by this, so we are not likely to end up with loads of fit 30 year olds in hospital.
In your case we basically need to keep lockdown tikll we get a vaccine!
- Messages
- 20,394
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do actually. A bit more than a vague BBC article....
There is a difference between doing the 'right' thing in terms of protecting as many people as possible, in order to ease pressure on the NHS etc (via the Lockdown™), with it's associate short term economic impact (much of which could be alleviated with correct government intervention and support); and easing restrictions as soon as possible, which could well have a far greater negative long term impact on society. I accept it's always going to be a balance, but this government will want the flow of money to resume as soon as possible. It's really got nothing to do with wanting to protect ordinary individuals. Not everything has to be about money.
If we lift restrictions too early, and there is a second, much more destructive wave (as many scientist are warning about), and our NHS collapses under the strain, then what do we do?
Yeah, see; easy to see things only in the short term, isn't it?
And what we do is try things in stages, no-one is saying lift everything tomorrow.