• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Or c) killing thousands because the public is too stupid to cope with delayed gratification.

Many ways to look at this. So I’m not really saying you’re like Stalin. But...Germany, prepared well, tested well, and far far fewer dead than us with a much greater population.

That is gratifying for them and terminal for Boris.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
I think the government were wrong, but not in the way you do.

I think they were wrong to tank the economy to marginally lengthen the lives of a few who probably aren't contributing much anyway. They were wrong to saddle our children and grandchildren with lifetimes of debt and hardship on the basis of an untested theory in an unpublished paper.

Classic sidestep.

For once, can you approach a discussion with some intellectual honesty and good will?

So let's go back to the original discussion:

--What is your defence of the government not making concerted attempts to procure PPE until April 1st?
--What is your defence of the government not ramping up testing using our extensive network of domestic labs until April 1st?
--Even if you consider that it was right to have no preparation for a pandemic, can you understand how it seems grotesque that these happened after the government deemed it necessary to go into lockdown?

And regardless of how much you try to do this, it is not correct. They haven't made the decision based on one paper but multiple papers from multiple experts from multiple institutions across the UK. And your one man crusade against Ferguson and his unpublished paper (I guess its easier to argue its a nonsense approach when you can focus your misdirected ire on one man) is particularly strange when around the world, the governments are taking their advice from

Aussie Neil
Kiwi Neil
American Neil
Canadian Neil
Neil Sanchez
Neil Santos
Neil Muller
Neil Petit
Neil Olsen
Neil Murphy
Neil Janssen
Neil Kim
Neil Nakamura
Neil Abdel-rahman
Neil Ivanov
Neil Vicunic
Neil Popescu
Neil Oikanopolous
Neil Patel
Neil Okafor
Neil Pavrez
Neil Wang
Neil Nguyen

etc etc etc
 
Classic sidestep.

For once, can you approach a discussion with some intellectual honesty and good will?

So let's go back to the original discussion:

--What is your defence of the government not making concerted attempts to procure PPE until April 1st?
--What is your defence of the government not ramping up testing using our extensive network of domestic labs until April 1st?
--Even if you consider that it was right to have no preparation for a pandemic, can you understand how it seems grotesque that these happened after the government deemed it necessary to go into lockdown?
My argument is as I said - spending our money when it isn't required is possibly the worst thing an government can do.

Hold off on the expenditure and measure it against need. There's certainly a lack of flexibility and ability in the purchasing - I'd put that more down to having an NHS. Private providers would be better prepared.

Classic sidestep.

And regardless of how much you try to do this, it is not correct. They haven't made the decision based on one paper but multiple papers from multiple experts from multiple institutions across the UK. And your one man crusade against Ferguson and his unpublished paper (I guess its easier to argue its a nonsense approach when you can focus your misdirected ire on one man) is particularly strange when around the world, the governments are taking their advice from

Aussie Neil
Kiwi Neil
American Neil
Canadian Neil
Neil Sanchez
Neil Santos
Neil Muller
Neil Petit
Neil Olsen
Neil Murphy
Neil Janssen
Neil Kim
Neil Nakamura
Neil Abdel-rahman
Neil Ivanov
Neil Vicunic
Neil Popescu
Neil Oikanopolous
Neil Patel
Neil Okafor
Neil Pavrez
Neil Wang
Neil Nguyen

etc etc etc
Yet it was Ferguson's paper that anyone willing to speak to the press is crediting with the terrible mistake they've made.

All the papers from across the world are equally available to the Swedish govt and they've managed to get it right.
 
My argument is as I said - spending our money when it isn't required is possibly the worst thing an government can do.

Hold off on the expenditure and measure it against need. There's certainly a lack of flexibility and ability in the purchasing - I'd put that more down to having an NHS. Private providers would be better prepared.


Yet it was Ferguson's paper that anyone willing to speak to the press is crediting with the terrible mistake they've made.

All the papers from across the world are equally available to the Swedish govt and they've managed to get it right.

Stop arguing a strawman. I've given up trying to discuss with you why having pandemic planning is important, it currently seems as fruitful as trying to explain the big bang to an ant. I am trying to elicit why you think its a good idea to try to procure PPE and tests after the pandemic has already spun out of control and, for some reason, even after you have yourself decided to declare a lockdown.

Do you think we should hold a large standing army and fleet of nuclear submarines by the way?

What on earth are you talking about? Some of these governments I'm talking about above went into some kind of lockdown before Ferguson and his team even released their paper. Plus you do realise that the world doesn't revolve around the UK? Almost none of these governments will make their decisions based on what the UK do and certainly not on what UK epidemiologists advice. The reason the Ferguson paper is credited is because you're reading UK papers, which are focusing on the UK government and UK scientists. I'm guessing you don't often peruse Aussie or Canadian outlets, let alone Korean, Egyptian, German or Spanish etc.

We'll see in time if the Swedes have got it right. They currently have a death rate 5 times that of the Norwegians and not much less than ours despite having a population only marginally larger than London's spread out over an area almost double the size of the UK's.
 
Last edited:
Everyone in the creative industries and PSC limited companies disagrees with this.

Like I said some not all. Fact is the government is offering to pay 30k salaries to the entire country effectively bailing out any company that needs to be. That’s hugely significant, the deal announced at the start of this is bigger than anyone ever expected and it’s made a rod for the governments back because now everyone wants an equivalent and the government have acted when people have asked.

Im sorry I’m not having it that they have let business down, my company today only exists and the 110 staff are only being paid because of the government.
 
Like I said some not all. Fact is the government is offering to pay 30k salaries to the entire country effectively bailing out any company that needs to be. That’s hugely significant, the deal announced at the start of this is bigger than anyone ever expected and it’s made a rod for the governments back because now everyone wants an equivalent and the government have acted when people have asked.

Im sorry I’m not having it that they have let business down, my company today only exists and the 110 staff are only being paid because of the government.

I think you are correct the government in this respect has gone further than most would have expected them to... and in fairness they should be praised for that.

@AuroRaman is also correct as well as there are certain sections that have been left out of this... and for those in that situation its a big blow.

But for the majority (i think its the majority) the government has done well shielding them from the economic impact so far.
 
Stop arguing a strawman. I've given up trying to discuss with you why having pandemic planning is important, it currently seems as fruitful as trying to explain the big bang to an ant. I am trying to elicit why you think its a good idea to try to procure PPE and tests after the pandemic has already spun out of control and, for some reason, even after you have yourself decided to declare a lockdown.

Do you think we should hold a large standing army and fleet of nuclear submarines by the way?

What on earth are you talking about? Some of these governments I'm talking about above went into some kind of lockdown before Ferguson and his team even released their paper. Plus you do realise that the world doesn't revolve around the UK? Almost none of these governments will make their decisions based on what the UK do and certainly not on what UK epidemiologists advice. The reason the Ferguson paper is credited is because you're reading UK papers, which are focusing on the UK government and UK scientists. I'm guessing you don't often peruse Aussie or Canadian outlets, let alone Korean, Egyptian, German or Spanish etc.

We'll see in time if the Swedes have got it right. They currently have a death rate 5 times that of the Norwegians and not much less than ours despite having a population only marginally larger than London's spread out over an area almost double the size of the UK's.
The PPE shortage/lack of planning is a serious mistake. This is not a particualrly hi-tech product and to organise distribution is not 'herculean' if you involve the right people. To letdown the people who are literally staring the virus in the face is akin to blowing the whistle as the troops go over the top.

The goverments lockdown approach was to protect the NHS and save lives. By all accounts (even NHS) this has worked, (not more than 80% ICU beds occupied in London over Easter, and only a few (19) treated at Nightingale.

Have we saved lives. We simply don't know. Have we cost lives. We simply dont know. At this stage caveat...some frontline workers deaths could have been prevented.

If every person who needed hospitalisation received the attention, skill and access to equipment that was needed....then by definition we did everything for them.

If someone is predisposed to dying from this virus then unfortunately all we have at the moment is to hide them from the virus. No other intervention is coming anytime quickly. So unless they 'hide' for 12/18months (while waiting for those interventions) the virus is still coming for them. So eg if 1000 people are predisposed, if they are front loaded or evenly spread over a longer time, bar a few extra months life, the result is the same.

The problem with treading heavily down (via lockdowns) on new cases is two fold, 1.if it goes on for too long other problems will be a by product of the draconian measures (not just the obvious economic blow up), 2. All of us are avoiding the virus, there is plenty of evidence (war ships, cruise ships, that town in Italy) to show that large sections of the population needn't have fear of catching the virus much in the same way as they don't swerve flu year in year out. Of course we are at the same time hindering the one natural defence we can develop that doesn't require science (beyond confirming immunity is obtained)...yep the dirty 'herd' word. Ironically the old/vulnerable persons friend.

An ideal situation when relaxing some lockdown measures is to keep the NHS at about 80% capacity, as i say as long as everyone who enters hospital has uncompromised care that is the best we can do. (Plus the PPE...Of course!)

The focus on deaths is possibly a logic trap, fair enough if all the old and vulnerable want to hide away for 12/18 months (imo many i think will not find that acceptable), then yes you will save them BUT the rest of the population obviously cant carry on under the current measures for too long, korea china germany have 'great' death rates now.....the deaths are still gonna come as we have no treatment beyond hiding, plus the reduction in transmission will affect their 'herd' progress. caveat....i know anti virals, respiration etc may improve as we understand more, so some hope.

Its like the virus is in the hallway and we're all hiding behind doors of the hallway, its bouncing off those doors waiting for one to open (even a little) and bang...its back finding hosts.

FWIW if antibody testing was reliable, i'd predict 20% (if not more) off people have had the virus already, judging by how contagious it is and some of the studies (London is just like a big cruise ship) i can't see how the spread isn't massive especially if we were late on a lock down.
 
Like I said some not all. Fact is the government is offering to pay 30k salaries to the entire country effectively bailing out any company that needs to be. That’s hugely significant, the deal announced at the start of this is bigger than anyone ever expected and it’s made a rod for the governments back because now everyone wants an equivalent and the government have acted when people have asked.

Im sorry I’m not having it that they have let business down, my company today only exists and the 110 staff are only being paid because of the government.

No, they have not offered to pay £30k salaries to the entire country.

'Anytime someone has said “what about us” they have provided. One legged street burger vendors called bob could ask for a bail out, start a stupid petition and get bailed out by the government'

I was responding to this part of your post specifically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Stop arguing a strawman. I've given up trying to discuss with you why having pandemic planning is important, it currently seems as fruitful as trying to explain the big bang to an ant. I am trying to elicit why you think its a good idea to try to procure PPE and tests after the pandemic has already spun out of control and, for some reason, even after you have yourself decided to declare a lockdown.
How many front line workers have we lost due to a lack of PPE? I'm sure, given your line of work, you will feel it's too many. Most would probably consider it an incredibly small number.

Given that the govt's economic response (short of not closing the economy) has been exemplary, I'd say that limited resources were focused in the correct areas.

Do you think we should hold a large standing army and fleet of nuclear submarines by the way?
I absolutely do. Viruses don't have agency, they don't direct their damage towards those less well defended. Preparing for a pandemic doesn't deter viruses from attacking.

What on earth are you talking about? Some of these governments I'm talking about above went into some kind of lockdown before Ferguson and his team even released their paper. Plus you do realise that the world doesn't revolve around the UK? Almost none of these governments will make their decisions based on what the UK do and certainly not on what UK epidemiologists advice. The reason the Ferguson paper is credited is because you're reading UK papers, which are focusing on the UK government and UK scientists. I'm guessing you don't often peruse Aussie or Canadian outlets, let alone Korean, Egyptian, German or Spanish etc.
I'm talking about the UK government basing their decision on that one (quite possibly flawed) paper. They were apparently on the right track until that was put in front of them.

We'll see in time if the Swedes have got it right. They currently have a death rate 5 times that of the Norwegians and not much less than ours despite having a population only marginally larger than London's spread out over an area almost double the size of the UK's.
The Swedes didn't use authoritarian rule to subjugate their electorate. They've already got it right.
 
I think you are correct the government in this respect has gone further than most would have expected them to... and in fairness they should be praised for that.

@AuroRaman is also correct as well as there are certain sections that have been left out of this... and for those in that situation its a big blow.

But for the majority (i think its the majority) the government has done well shielding them from the economic impact so far.

The package for workers is unprecedented for an unprecedented situation. I believe it is the majority and yes they should be commended.
 
The PPE shortage/lack of planning is a serious mistake. This is not a particualrly hi-tech product and to organise distribution is not 'herculean' if you involve the right people. To letdown the people who are literally staring the virus in the face is akin to blowing the whistle as the troops go over the top.

The goverments lockdown approach was to protect the NHS and save lives. By all accounts (even NHS) this has worked, (not more than 80% ICU beds occupied in London over Easter, and only a few (19) treated at Nightingale.

Have we saved lives. We simply don't know. Have we cost lives. We simply dont know. At this stage caveat...some frontline workers deaths could have been prevented.

If every person who needed hospitalisation received the attention, skill and access to equipment that was needed....then by definition we did everything for them.

If someone is predisposed to dying from this virus then unfortunately all we have at the moment is to hide them from the virus. No other intervention is coming anytime quickly. So unless they 'hide' for 12/18months (while waiting for those interventions) the virus is still coming for them. So eg if 1000 people are predisposed, if they are front loaded or evenly spread over a longer time, bar a few extra months life, the result is the same.

The problem with treading heavily down (via lockdowns) on new cases is two fold, 1.if it goes on for too long other problems will be a by product of the draconian measures (not just the obvious economic blow up), 2. All of us are avoiding the virus, there is plenty of evidence (war ships, cruise ships, that town in Italy) to show that large sections of the population needn't have fear of catching the virus much in the same way as they don't swerve flu year in year out. Of course we are at the same time hindering the one natural defence we can develop that doesn't require science (beyond confirming immunity is obtained)...yep the dirty 'herd' word. Ironically the old/vulnerable persons friend.

An ideal situation when relaxing some lockdown measures is to keep the NHS at about 80% capacity, as i say as long as everyone who enters hospital has uncompromised care that is the best we can do. (Plus the PPE...Of course!)

The focus on deaths is possibly a logic trap, fair enough if all the old and vulnerable want to hide away for 12/18 months (imo many i think will not find that acceptable), then yes you will save them BUT the rest of the population obviously cant carry on under the current measures for too long, korea china germany have 'great' death rates now.....the deaths are still gonna come as we have no treatment beyond hiding, plus the reduction in transmission will affect their 'herd' progress. caveat....i know anti virals, respiration etc may improve as we understand more, so some hope.

Its like the virus is in the hallway and we're all hiding behind doors of the hallway, its bouncing off those doors waiting for one to open (even a little) and bang...its back finding hosts.

FWIW if antibody testing was reliable, i'd predict 20% (if not more) off people have had the virus already, judging by how contagious it is and some of the studies (London is just like a big cruise ship) i can't see how the spread isn't massive especially if we were late on a lock down.
It will be interesting to see how much of the curve flattening is due to loads of old and weak ones dying off first.
 
Your thoughts on it are pretty much my thoughts on it, did they pressure the scientists into a certain way of thinking. But maybe trying to protect the economy is a good thing.

I think you are right, And maybe with some reason. When reading through this thread everyone wants everything and it flip flops from saving lives to saving the economy to bailing everyone out to saving every business to make sure everyone is financially sound. For me that’s unrealistic there will be some damage caused by this pandemic and people might need to adjust their gauge.

But back to original point I think if this forum was a barometer of what is important I can understand some weighing up of financial protection against lockdown etc.
 
Last edited:
I think you are correct the government in this respect has gone further than most would have expected them to... and in fairness they should be praised for that.

@AuroRaman is also correct as well as there are certain sections that have been left out of this... and for those in that situation its a big blow.

But for the majority (i think its the majority) the government has done well shielding them from the economic impact so far.

I think per size of country the 350bn+ package which is being extended stands up globally
 
The PPE shortage/lack of planning is a serious mistake. This is not a particualrly hi-tech product and to organise distribution is not 'herculean' if you involve the right people. To letdown the people who are literally staring the virus in the face is akin to blowing the whistle as the troops go over the top.

The goverments lockdown approach was to protect the NHS and save lives. By all accounts (even NHS) this has worked, (not more than 80% ICU beds occupied in London over Easter, and only a few (19) treated at Nightingale.

Have we saved lives. We simply don't know. Have we cost lives. We simply dont know. At this stage caveat...some frontline workers deaths could have been prevented.

If every person who needed hospitalisation received the attention, skill and access to equipment that was needed....then by definition we did everything for them.

If someone is predisposed to dying from this virus then unfortunately all we have at the moment is to hide them from the virus. No other intervention is coming anytime quickly. So unless they 'hide' for 12/18months (while waiting for those interventions) the virus is still coming for them. So eg if 1000 people are predisposed, if they are front loaded or evenly spread over a longer time, bar a few extra months life, the result is the same.

The problem with treading heavily down (via lockdowns) on new cases is two fold, 1.if it goes on for too long other problems will be a by product of the draconian measures (not just the obvious economic blow up), 2. All of us are avoiding the virus, there is plenty of evidence (war ships, cruise ships, that town in Italy) to show that large sections of the population needn't have fear of catching the virus much in the same way as they don't swerve flu year in year out. Of course we are at the same time hindering the one natural defence we can develop that doesn't require science (beyond confirming immunity is obtained)...yep the dirty 'herd' word. Ironically the old/vulnerable persons friend.

An ideal situation when relaxing some lockdown measures is to keep the NHS at about 80% capacity, as i say as long as everyone who enters hospital has uncompromised care that is the best we can do. (Plus the PPE...Of course!)

The focus on deaths is possibly a logic trap, fair enough if all the old and vulnerable want to hide away for 12/18 months (imo many i think will not find that acceptable), then yes you will save them BUT the rest of the population obviously cant carry on under the current measures for too long, korea china germany have 'great' death rates now.....the deaths are still gonna come as we have no treatment beyond hiding, plus the reduction in transmission will affect their 'herd' progress. caveat....i know anti virals, respiration etc may improve as we understand more, so some hope.

Its like the virus is in the hallway and we're all hiding behind doors of the hallway, its bouncing off those doors waiting for one to open (even a little) and bang...its back finding hosts.

FWIW if antibody testing was reliable, i'd predict 20% (if not more) off people have had the virus already, judging by how contagious it is and some of the studies (London is just like a big cruise ship) i can't see how the spread isn't massive especially if we were late on a lock down.

Your assertion that everyone that needs care is getting it, is not true. People are dieing at home and in residential care and other institutions... in large numbers. These numbers are not being counted... whether this is another example of incompetence or a deliberate attempt to keep numbers down, i don't know.
 
No, they have not offered to pay £30k salaries to the entire country.

'Anytime someone has said “what about us” they have provided. One legged street burger vendors called bob could ask for a bail out, start a stupid petition and get bailed out by the government'

I was responding to this part of your post specifically.

The Furlough Scheme has effectively nationalised the entire U.K. workforce.

The point I was making is when the first measures were announced people from self employed to charities asked for help with a “why us” and they acted.

This is extending and they have extended the furlough scheme.

Your original point was they have failed business, they have absolutely not. Yes there are some that will feel the pain more but there always will be.
 
Your assertion that everyone that needs care is getting it, is not true. People are dieing at home and in residential care and other institutions... in large numbers. These numbers are not being counted... whether this is another example of incompetence or a deliberate attempt to keep numbers down, i don't know.
So is someone dying at home or in care home being refused access to a hospital? Is that what you are saying.
 
I think per size of country the 350bn+ package which is being extended stands up globally

I'm not arguing against that. In fact I have said that the government should be commended for that.

In fact I will go further, and say that they have provided more money for people than I would have.

I would have looked into UBI at eat, heat and sleep levels. Worked with banks and landlords to make sure that mortgages and rents would be covered by the government.

I would have taken a similar approach to businesses.

So there you go I'm more right wing than the government.
 
So is someone dying at home or in care home being refused access to a hospital? Is that what you are saying.

I know for fact that people with severe covid -19 symptoms (ie struggling to breath) are being sent away from hospitals and told to isolate at home... in what number I don't know but I'm sure that some won't make it... what the numbers that won't make it are... again I don't know.
 
Back