• 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

Grays_1890 said:
So the same people slamming lack of bed in NHS are now moaning that the Nightingale hospital was a waste of space because the way the Government handled the curve it was actually not used to anywhere near capacity.

I think people are so hyped up to moan at every turn they confuse themselves sometimes.
Click to expand...

You only have to read through this thread to see just that.
 
LutonSpurs said:
https://www.businessinsider.nl/cybe...g-surveillance-2020-4?international=true&r=US

This is a bit worrying.
Click to expand...

I'm not wanting to have a go at anyone but it just seems beyond naive to think that they already don't have access to your every movement + your data. Yes there are "laws" against it but you try holding a government to account about overzealous surveillance (so proud I spelt that right first time). You somehow would need to have motive, proof and the funds for an insane amount of legal advice and backing and even then you'd probably just get took out for going to the trouble. Not usually a tin foil hat kinda guy but come on, "they" know everything about everyone when they need to.
 
spurspinter1 said:
I'm not wanting to have a go at anyone but it just seems beyond naive to think that they already don't have access to your every movement + your data. Yes there are "laws" against it but you try holding a government to account about overzealous surveillance (so proud I spelt that right first time). You somehow would need to have motive, proof and the funds for an insane amount of legal advice and backing and even then you'd probably just get took out for going to the trouble. Not usually a tin foil hat kinda guy but come on, "they" know everything about everyone when they need to.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of volunteer organisations with some very accomplished legal teams that do just that.
 
So do we thing in hindsight the Government (not just the UK) would have gone down the same path.

Or do you think they would have decided on another course?

Given the death stats would it have been been to shield the older/ill and let others work.

This would have allowed more targeting on care homes, whilst not damaging the economy so much?
 
Legohamster said:
So do we thing in hindsight the Government (not just the UK) would have gone down the same path.

Or do you think they would have decided on another course?

Given the death stats would it have been been to shield the older/ill and let others work.

This would have allowed more targeting on care homes, whilst not damaging the economy so much?
Click to expand...
I think it would have been similar.

All the talk of having input from behavioural scientists makes me think that the plan was to guide us to better behaviour rather than shut everything. Once the press got wind of what might be a wildly inaccurate model of possible deaths, there was no chance.
 
Legohamster said:
So do we thing in hindsight the Government (not just the UK) would have gone down the same path.

Or do you think they would have decided on another course?

Given the death stats would it have been been to shield the older/ill and let others work.

This would have allowed more targeting on care homes, whilst not damaging the economy so much?
Click to expand...
I think from a strategy they did as they should have done. They were elected on a certain moral and political part of the scale and acted accordingly.
Results wise it's as long as it is wide - it could have gone either way based upon how the public responded. They probably chose the right path of public buy in.

The contingency preparation was appalling for healthcare provision. The reaction was decent - a 6/10.
Th economic policies were excellent. However they were reactive, causing avoidable delay. Again - contingency planning. But also a mandate to run as small govt - so a good argument that they did their job.
I can't stand this govt or Tories in general - but they do have a mandate and have acted as elected. (Actually is say they've acted more responsibly than elected. If Corbyn had still been opposition leader we may have seen a different response.)

So far I would give them an overall 6 or 7/10, which isn't bad considering the grandiose task.
 
monkeybarry said:
I think from a strategy they did as they should have done. They were elected on a certain moral and political part of the scale and acted accordingly.
Results wise it's as long as it is wide - it could have gone either way based upon how the public responded. They probably chose the right path of public buy in.

The contingency preparation was appalling for healthcare provision. The reaction was decent - a 6/10.
Th economic policies were excellent. However they were reactive, causing avoidable delay. Again - contingency planning. But also a mandate to run as small govt - so a good argument that they did their job.
I can't stand this govt or Tories in general - but they do have a mandate and have acted as elected. (Actually is say they've acted more responsibly than elected. If Corbyn had still been opposition leader we may have seen a different response.)

So far I would give them an overall 6 or 7/10, which isn't bad considering the grandiose task.
Click to expand...

Is the same sort of score i give them as well. Some of the criticism has been plain party politics and from some overseas people and news outlets pure anti englishness.
 
Legohamster said:
So do we thing in hindsight the Government (not just the UK) would have gone down the same path.

Or do you think they would have decided on another course?

Given the death stats would it have been been to shield the older/ill and let others work.

This would have allowed more targeting on care homes, whilst not damaging the economy so much?
Click to expand...

I think there is a lot we would do differently. Members of the government have said as much.

A theme I keep coming back to is humans are not particularly good at new things. Once something's happened we're all experts. But very few are prescient. And I think that is what separates elite football team Managers. Those who can prepare well knowing what will likely happen (if they don't take action) tend to be the very best.
 
JerusalemMan said:
Sounds like you know the answer you want to hear. Or rather shout at anybody and into every area.
It's laughably pitiful to read but it's insightful to observe. Please continue.
Click to expand...

SO I guess you think that these clowns have done a wonderful job. Deluded or what? I wonder who you voted for?
 
Getting bored of hearing people give excuses why we shouldn’t start lifting lockdown than trying to because they are all having a nice time off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back