The virus. PPE. Part 2

Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I really cannot understand what the problem is with being asked to self isolate when you come back from a country where
the virus is in the increase, it makes sense to me, if someone on the plane is found to have then at least it may stop others spreading before they know they have.
Peple on here have be moaning about the lack of response of the government and how long it takes them to
react to these virus threats, now they have . and fast, still people are moaning
Everyone knew there was a risk this might happen, and now they are having to take the consequences, who knows
it may have been british tourist that caused it
That’s fine but the government then need to bail out the entire travel industry and ban overseas travel for a significant period of time. Can’t have it both ways and things like this will cause more in the Industry to go bust and cause hundreds of thousands of job losses.
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Don`t go to Spain on holiday is the easy answer to this.


Which magazine travel editor Rory Boland said reimposing quarantine rules on British tourists travelling to Spain will leave many people in a difficult position with their employers.

"If you have an employer that says you'll lose your job if you don't come in, the government says you've got to quarantine, what do you do?"

Mr Boland said it was "almost certain" that many holidaymakers who jetted off to Spain just as schools broke for up for the summer holidays, "would not have travelled if they had known they'd be required to quarantine when they return".

He said it was "extraordinary" that No 10 did not make the decision "48 hours ago [or] 24 hours ago" after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said ministers received virus data from Spain on Friday.

"It is impossible for holidaymakers to have any confidence in booking holidays if the government is going to announce new quarantine measures at 20:00 BST on a Saturday that come in at midnight - that's four hours notice."
But that also means don’t book anywhere as Italy or Greece could be in the same boat 2 or 4 weeks from now!
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
He's one of the governing 'elite' so the rules for the resto of us won't apply to him. He will need to test his eyesight or something......
Maybe it will be Spanish lessons for Brexit negotiations.

What are the odds on him getting snapped down the shops on his return!
 
Messages
13,122
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Is getting on a train to visit Paris or Brussels inherently more risky than catching a train to London for the same reason ?
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,546
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
But that also means don’t book anywhere as Italy or Greece could be in the same boat 2 or 4 weeks from now!

If you want to have a swim with Great White sharks then that`s fine, but if you want to be safe at home then even better. If folk go away and then catch the virus I`d say Tough as many have died but it was your choice to take the risk.
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
If you want to have a swim with Great White sharks then that`s fine, but if you want to be safe at home then even better. If folk go away and then catch the virus I`d say Tough as many have died but it was your choice to take the risk.
Depends on the person. The risk is minimal for many people so it’s not really having a swim with great white sharks is it? What’s the fatality rate for people in their 20s for example?

Two of my best mates are (not sure if plans have now changed) were due to go on a big family trip to somewhere in Spain in a few weeks. Their dad was really pushing it even though I think he is now over 80. His rationale was that he may only have a few more years left so happy to take a small increase in risk to do this big holiday.

I guess each person has their own motivators and you will get some who to some take far too much of a risk and others who become risk adverse. I have friends at both extremes.
 
Messages
5,465
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Depends on the person. The risk is minimal for many people so it’s not really having a swim with great white sharks is it? What’s the fatality rate for people in their 20s for example?
Ah the usual old "but young people will be fine" stance :oops: :$ next you'll be back to the economy and how its suffering etc ad nauseum. But yeah, just ignore the people that are continuing to die and suffer due to that attitude eh?
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
35,716
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
If you want to have a swim with Great White sharks then that`s fine, but if you want to be safe at home then even better. If folk go away and then catch the virus I`d say Tough as many have died but it was your choice to take the risk.

5 human fatalities (worldwide) from Great White attacks last year. Probably safer than staying at home!
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,546
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Depends on the person. The risk is minimal for many people so it’s not really having a swim with great white sharks is it? What’s the fatality rate for people in their 20s for example?

Two of my best mates are (not sure if plans have now changed) were due to go on a big family trip to somewhere in Spain in a few weeks. Their dad was really pushing it even though I think he is now over 80. His rationale was that he may only have a few more years left so happy to take a small increase in risk to do this big holiday.

I guess each person has their own motivators and you will get some who to some take far too much of a risk and others who become risk adverse. I have friends at both extremes.
5 human fatalities (worldwide) from Great White attacks last year. Probably safer than staying at home!

Ok then, throw in a lot of Chum and only have 10 Great Whites and 5 Bull sharks and 8 Tiger sharks. Fancy your chances then ?
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok then, throw in a lot of Chum and only have 10 Great Whites and 5 Bull sharks and 8 Tiger sharks. Fancy your chances then ?
Against sharks, no, against Covid, yes. The risk for many people are extremely low - https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age

So many people, especially those in their 20s will probably see more risk in the plane crashing than dying from Covid.

On the other hand you have my in laws. Multiple health conditions, around 80, I would say my father in law would defiantly die if he got it, my mother in law 80% chance. They are not taking risks. They are still not getting closer to the grandkids outside than 2-3m, don't go to the shops, in fact, don't go anywhere that may put them at risk. Actually she did take a trip to a garden centre 6 weeks ago and had a panic attack or something with wearing a mask so that has put her off doing anything else. They do that because they know the risks and take appropriate actions. For them, the risk is probably akin to walking off an 8 story balcony!

It looks like the outbreaks in Spain are at a local level like the UK - by all means stop people travelling to Barcelona region, but Canaries for example have not seen any change according to the Spanish.
 

Gremlin

*looks down* Yep, I'm a girl!
Messages
16,643
Name
Ingrid
Edit My Images
No
Two of my best mates are (not sure if plans have now changed) were due to go on a big family trip to somewhere in Spain in a few weeks. Their dad was really pushing it even though I think he is now over 80. His rationale was that he may only have a few more years left so happy to take a small increase in risk to do this big holiday.

I guess each person has their own motivators and you will get some who to some take far too much of a risk and others who become risk adverse. I have friends at both extremes.
That is their personal choice but it may affect a lot of people if they do come back infected
Not only causing illness and death but financial problems and another lockdown, which many can't afford.

If things take off again they won't be having a big family trip anywhere

People keep moaning about how things have been handled and yet show utter contempt when
things are done that help protect the general population, that is both hypocrisy and selfishness
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
That is their personal choice but it may affect a lot of people if they do come back infected
Not only causing illness and death but financial problems and another lockdown, which many can't afford.

If things take off again they won't be having a big family trip anywhere

People keep moaning about how things have been handled and yet show utter contempt when
things are done that help protect the general population, that is both hypocrisy and selfishness
That is the dilemma we are in - we do risk a second spike, in fact I am sure we will have one. But if we don't open things back up again we will also see financial problems in the same way as another lockdown.

On a very small level we are seeing that with soft play areas but that could easily now include travel and hospitality and if those industries died what problems would that cause. Or you continue a very strict lockdown, but that too will cause problems and until there is a vaccine, means you cannot open much up again. That could be the end of the year, it may be another 18 months away - what is the non financial cost of that happening to hundreds of thousands of families?

Either way, we are screwed! Now there could some some middle ground but very hard to call where that sits. Of course we will see cases increase coming out of lockdown and I don't think anyone thought otherwise.

Hence my in-laws are taking no chances - they even anti-bac shopping they get delivered!
 
Last edited:

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,546
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Against sharks, no, against Covid, yes. The risk for many people are extremely low - https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age

So many people, especially those in their 20s will probably see more risk in the plane crashing than dying from Covid.

On the other hand you have my in laws. Multiple health conditions, around 80, I would say my father in law would defiantly die if he got it, my mother in law 80% chance. They are not taking risks. They are still not getting closer to the grandkids outside than 2-3m, don't go to the shops, in fact, don't go anywhere that may put them at risk. Actually she did take a trip to a garden centre 6 weeks ago and had a panic attack or something with wearing a mask so that has put her off doing anything else. They do that because they know the risks and take appropriate actions. For them, the risk is probably akin to walking off an 8 story balcony!

It looks like the outbreaks in Spain are at a local level like the UK - by all means stop people travelling to Barcelona region, but Canaries for example have not seen any change according to the Spanish.

Or the most easiest way to say is, if other folk in family are very high risk Don`t put them in danger for the sake of a holiday ?
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Or the most easiest way to say is, if other folk in family are very high risk Don`t put them in danger for the sake of a holiday ?
They have told their 2 kids and 5 kids to do what they would normally do and they are not in any danger. The only thing they are really missing out on is coming round to respective houses for meals etc... and having to rely on deliveries rather than going to tesco themselves.
 
Messages
5,465
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Depends on the person. The risk is minimal for many people so it’s not really having a swim with great white sharks is it? What’s the fatality rate for people in their 20s for example?
Ah the usual old "but young people will be fine" stance :oops: :$ next you'll be back to the economy and how its suffering etc ad nauseum. But yeah, just ignore the people that are continuing to die and suffer due to that attitude eh?
But if we don't open things back up again we will also see financial problems in the same way as another lockdown.
As predicted :oops: :$ :oops: :$
 
Messages
941
Name
dean
Edit My Images
Yes
That is the dilemma we are in - we do risk a second spike, in fact I am sure we will have one. But if we don't open things back up again we will also see financial problems in the same way as another lockdown.

On a very small level we are seeing that with soft play areas but that could easily now include travel and hospitality and if those industries died what problems would that cause. Or you continue a very strict lockdown, but that too will cause problems and until there is a vaccine, means you cannot open much up again. That could be the end of the year, it may be another 18 months away - what is the non financial cost of that happening to hundreds of thousands of families?

Either way, we are screwed! Now there could some some middle ground but very hard to call where that sits. Of course we will see cases increase coming out of lockdown and I don't think anyone thought otherwise.

Hence my in-laws are taking no chances - they even anti-bac shopping they get delivered!
It shows what's possible with proper leadership but unfortunately we have Boris and his buddies and that's about as far away from proper leadership as you can get, and then there's all the doom merchants with their Oh we can't do that attitude, can't do it we never even tried it's funny how a lot of people who are so positive that Brexit will be great for the country if only people would stop being so negative were also some of the ones that shouted the loudest and were so negative against a total lockdown and quarantine when ever anyone brought it up.
 
Messages
17,234
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
It shows what's possible with proper leadership but unfortunately we have Boris and his buddies and that's about as far away from proper leadership as you can get, and then there's all the doom merchants with their Oh we can't do that attitude, can't do it we never even tried it's funny how a lot of people who are so positive that Brexit will be great for the country if only people would stop being so negative were also some of the ones that shouted the loudest and were so negative against a total lockdown and quarantine when ever anyone brought it up.
True but NZ is not the UK. A better comparison would be Germany and the UK. There is no reason why we could not have been in a similar boat to them.

Happy to be corrected but I don’t think their lockdown was any longer than ours on total or any harsher. Just a week or two earlier (I was in Germany March 1st and they were doing nothing different to us at the time having been in some very crowded pubs that weekend!)

Even allowing for an older population here, maybe even unhealthier, maybe with more older BAME population, you could easily to expect is to be 10, maybe 20% worse off, rather than what we have.
 
Messages
5,082
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I notice nobody here is applauding Billy Bunter’s Boris Johnson’s anti fat plan, or have I missed it? We seem to have been there before :(.
 
Messages
941
Name
dean
Edit My Images
Yes
True but NZ is not the UK. A better comparison would be Germany and the UK. There is no reason why we could not have been in a similar boat to them.

Happy to be corrected but I don’t think their lockdown was any longer than ours on total or any harsher. Just a week or two earlier (I was in Germany March 1st and they were doing nothing different to us at the time having been in some very crowded pubs that weekend!)

Even allowing for an older population here, maybe even unhealthier, maybe with more older BAME population, you could easily to expect is to be 10, maybe 20% worse off, rather than what we have.
Perfectly demonstrates what I said so you think the UK an island with no land borders is more like Germany with land borders with 9 countries totalling some 2,308 miles than it has with New Zealand admittedly a pair of islands, yes I know we have a larger population but we could of had control of who came into the country with proper leadership and some of that British can do spirit but unfortunately we have Boris and people who even though they desperately want to level the EU can't manage without a holiday to the EU.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
35,716
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
New Zealanders care more about each other than most Brits do.
 
Messages
602
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Just read an article on the bbc news website about the change in rules regarding quarantine after Spainish holidays. Some people complaining it should be much more location focused. Which makes me wonder just how much detail they expect the uk government to keep track of....should they track by Country, Region, County, city, town village or hamlet....and if so which country’s should they be doing this for????

Also makes me wonder when you consider the lengths Stanley Johnson went to get around rules to visit his Bulgarian property what loopholes people would try and generate for themselves.
 
Messages
15,358
Edit My Images
No
Just read an article on the bbc news website about the change in rules regarding quarantine after Spainish holidays. Some people complaining it should be much more location focused. Which makes me wonder just how much detail they expect the uk government to keep track of....should they track by Country, Region, County, city, town village or hamlet....and if so which country’s should they be doing this for????

Also makes me wonder when you consider the lengths Stanley Johnson went to get around rules to visit his Bulgarian property what loopholes people would try and generate for themselves.
With Spain it would be easy. Each autonomous community has it’s own government that collates health data, which is then fed centrally to Madrid.
 
Messages
5,082
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
What has going to the EU on holiday got to do with wanting to leave the EU?
Just because someone likes to go somewhere on holiday doesn't mean they want to be part of it or controlled/influenced by it....
Leaving aside the fact we were never”controlled” by EU, how do you expect U.K. NNnot to be influenced by it, given its proximity, size and being our biggest trading partner?
 
Messages
5,464
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
What has going to the EU on holiday got to do with wanting to leave the EU?
Just because someone likes to go somewhere on holiday doesn't mean they want to be part of it or controlled/influenced by it....
Leaving aside the fact we were never”controlled” by EU, how do you expect U.K. NNnot to be influenced by it, given its proximity, size and being our biggest trading partner?

Richard..I put a 'like' to Bob's post because it was a response to what tarric was saying about people who voted to leave the EU still want to go there on holiday .He (Bob) is right. How is it relevant to choosing it as holiday destination ?

I read his second paragraph re not wanting to be part of/controlled by/influenced by country of destination for a holiday in general terms ..he said 'somewhere' rather than specifics although, clearly, it was in the context of the EU. I read it as being the principal of what tarric said that was being challenged. My feeling is that you would agree with that..ie.. because someone doesn't agree with the politics of a country it shouldn't stop anyone visiting it....with notable exceptions of course depending on one's principles.


Is that right Mr Bob ?...:)


Tomorrow (a bit late in the evening now) I'll post an article I read about where we might end up re the EU after December 31st and the belief is that,despite what the ERG want, we'll still have very close ties and shared regulations which will just confirm your statement. Anyway, as you say, we'll be influenced by the EU whatever happens for the reasons you've outlined.
 
Messages
5,082
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Richard..I put a 'like' to Bob's post because it was a response to what tarric was saying about people who voted to leave the EU still want to go there on holiday .He (Bob) is right. How is it relevant to choosing it as holiday destination ?

I read his second paragraph re not wanting to be part of/controlled by/influenced by country of destination for a holiday in general terms ..he said 'somewhere' rather than specifics although, clearly, it was in the context of the EU. I read it as being the principal of what tarric said that was being challenged. My feeling is that you would agree with that..ie.. because someone doesn't agree with the politics of a country it shouldn't stop anyone visiting it....with notable exceptions of course depending on one's principles.


Is that right Mr Bob ?...:)


Tomorrow (a bit late in the evening now) I'll post an article I read about where we might end up re the EU after December 31st and the belief is that,despite what the ERG want, we'll still have very close ties and shared regulations which will just confirm your statement. Anyway, as you say, we'll be influenced by the EU whatever happens for the reasons you've outlined.
Yes, I do agree with the first part of Bob’s post and I suppose your description of the meaning of the second part is a possible interpretation :( but I choose to interpret it differently :).

Actually trade, ”democracy”, politics, defence etc etc is important but the single worst thing about all this is we’ve ended up with a PM & others who do not believe in the rule of law which is the single thing that has been important in shaping this country, and very few others, throughout our history and which it seems most people do not understand :(.
 
Messages
7,881
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
If this is all true then this is pretty shocking

"£252m of public money given to Ayanda Capital, registered in Mauritius for tax dodging, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£186m of public money given to Uniserve Ltd of Essex, the UK’s largest privately owned logistics and global trade management company, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£116m of public money given to P14 Medical Ltd of Liverpool, which had liabilities exceeding assets by £485,000 in December 2019 with just £145 in the bank, for PPE that never appeared.

£108m of public money given to PestFix, with 16 employees and net assets of £19,000, for PPE that never appeared.

£14.2m and a subsequent £93.2m of public money given to Clandeboye Agencies Ltd, a confectionery wholesaler in Co Antrim, for PPE that never appeared.

£40m of public money given to Medicine Box Ltd of Sutton-in-Ashfield, despite having assets of just £6,000 in March, for PPE that never appeared.

£32m and a subsequent £16m of public money given to Initia Ventures Ltd, filed for dormancy in January this year, for PPE that never appeared.

£28m of public money given to Monarch Acoustics Ltd of Nottingham, makers of shop and office furniture, for PPE that never appeared.

£25m of public money given to Luxe Lifestyle Ltd, to supply garments for biological or chemical protection to the NHS. According to Companies House, the business was incorporated by fashion designer Karen Brost in November 2018. It appears to have no employees, no assets and no turnover.

£18.4m of public money given to Aventis Solutions Ltd of Wilmslow, with just £322 in assets, for PPE that never appeared.

£10m of public money given to Medco Solutions Ltd, incorporated on 26 March (three days after lockdown) with a share capital of just £2, for PPE that never appeared.

£1.1m of public money given to Bristol shoemaker Toffeln Ltd, had seemingly never supplied any PPE whatsoever in the past, for PPE that never appeared.

£825,000 of public money given to MGP Advisory, described as a venture and development capital business that was in danger of being struck off the companies register for failing to file accounts, for no one knows what..."
 
Messages
5,082
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
If this is all true then this is pretty shocking

"£252m of public money given to Ayanda Capital, registered in Mauritius for tax dodging, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£186m of public money given to Uniserve Ltd of Essex, the UK’s largest privately owned logistics and global trade management company, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£116m of public money given to P14 Medical Ltd of Liverpool, which had liabilities exceeding assets by £485,000 in December 2019 with just £145 in the bank, for PPE that never appeared.

£108m of public money given to PestFix, with 16 employees and net assets of £19,000, for PPE that never appeared.

£14.2m and a subsequent £93.2m of public money given to Clandeboye Agencies Ltd, a confectionery wholesaler in Co Antrim, for PPE that never appeared.

£40m of public money given to Medicine Box Ltd of Sutton-in-Ashfield, despite having assets of just £6,000 in March, for PPE that never appeared.

£32m and a subsequent £16m of public money given to Initia Ventures Ltd, filed for dormancy in January this year, for PPE that never appeared.

£28m of public money given to Monarch Acoustics Ltd of Nottingham, makers of shop and office furniture, for PPE that never appeared.

£25m of public money given to Luxe Lifestyle Ltd, to supply garments for biological or chemical protection to the NHS. According to Companies House, the business was incorporated by fashion designer Karen Brost in November 2018. It appears to have no employees, no assets and no turnover.

£18.4m of public money given to Aventis Solutions Ltd of Wilmslow, with just £322 in assets, for PPE that never appeared.

£10m of public money given to Medco Solutions Ltd, incorporated on 26 March (three days after lockdown) with a share capital of just £2, for PPE that never appeared.

£1.1m of public money given to Bristol shoemaker Toffeln Ltd, had seemingly never supplied any PPE whatsoever in the past, for PPE that never appeared.

£825,000 of public money given to MGP Advisory, described as a venture and development capital business that was in danger of being struck off the companies register for failing to file accounts, for no one knows what..."
Source?
 
Messages
7,881
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend shared it on Facebook, he doesn't usually share things without having a reasonably reliable source so I've asked him.

At least some of it looks true.



I'd assume though, that they won't actually get the money if they don't supply the PPE? You'd hope so anyway!
 
Last edited:

Gremlin

*looks down* Yep, I'm a girl!
Messages
16,643
Name
Ingrid
Edit My Images
No
One verified source so it must be true :rolleyes:
Look forward to seeing the rest when your friend supplies them (y)
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,546
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
If this is all true then this is pretty shocking

"£252m of public money given to Ayanda Capital, registered in Mauritius for tax dodging, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£186m of public money given to Uniserve Ltd of Essex, the UK’s largest privately owned logistics and global trade management company, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£116m of public money given to P14 Medical Ltd of Liverpool, which had liabilities exceeding assets by £485,000 in December 2019 with just £145 in the bank, for PPE that never appeared.

£108m of public money given to PestFix, with 16 employees and net assets of £19,000, for PPE that never appeared.

£14.2m and a subsequent £93.2m of public money given to Clandeboye Agencies Ltd, a confectionery wholesaler in Co Antrim, for PPE that never appeared.

£40m of public money given to Medicine Box Ltd of Sutton-in-Ashfield, despite having assets of just £6,000 in March, for PPE that never appeared.

£32m and a subsequent £16m of public money given to Initia Ventures Ltd, filed for dormancy in January this year, for PPE that never appeared.

£28m of public money given to Monarch Acoustics Ltd of Nottingham, makers of shop and office furniture, for PPE that never appeared.

£25m of public money given to Luxe Lifestyle Ltd, to supply garments for biological or chemical protection to the NHS. According to Companies House, the business was incorporated by fashion designer Karen Brost in November 2018. It appears to have no employees, no assets and no turnover.

£18.4m of public money given to Aventis Solutions Ltd of Wilmslow, with just £322 in assets, for PPE that never appeared.

£10m of public money given to Medco Solutions Ltd, incorporated on 26 March (three days after lockdown) with a share capital of just £2, for PPE that never appeared.

£1.1m of public money given to Bristol shoemaker Toffeln Ltd, had seemingly never supplied any PPE whatsoever in the past, for PPE that never appeared.

£825,000 of public money given to MGP Advisory, described as a venture and development capital business that was in danger of being struck off the companies register for failing to file accounts, for no one knows what..."

That would have to be the biggest IF, if true.
 
Top