COVID-19

You seem to have this obsession that people are in This for a free buck and don’t want to work and get free money.
Pubs restaurants etc have had their trades cut in half and are now told to shut completely in tier 3 zones. A whole industry hasn’t been able to work since March in the arts etc and yet you think people want free money? Not during a pandemic we should keep those industries afloat by keeping the furlough etc at the rate it was. Otherwise we will pay for it further down the line with benefits, rent arrears, social housing etc. It’s short term pain and long term gain for the government. Because believe me if they let these industries die they will suffer in the next year or two for it more than helping them now will do. Those workers go out of work and who pays for it? The government. They top up their wage with universal credit who pays for that? The government

If you let these whole industries just die becaus you won’t extend furlough, what people are you taking increased taxes from? We would have 6-8 million out of work

 

Interesting point of view on the radio tonight. Is it time Boris sacked Whitty and Vallance.....or at the very least paid more than lip service to highly qualified experts with views contradictory those 2

 

I'm not obsessed with it. I just want to share the risk around. Philosophically I don't want the government to be responsible for everything, business owners take a risk and that includes catastrophic risks that occur once ever 100-500 years risks such as pandemics. No point raking it in during the good times but then looking to the government with your cap out when it goes belly up.

Equally with the people in employment. i'm glad they got the 80%, I'm glad they are getting the 67%, I'm glad they get universal credit as a worst case scenario. I also think they have a responsibility to help themselves - not just say "I happened to work in a nightclub in March 2020 so I should get my full wages paid until a vaccine is found" I expect them to help themselves too but the 67% seems fair to me.

And as I've said before, industries won't die. When this is over the demand will return and the supply will therefore follow. The question is who fills that gap while they're mothballed, is it 100% the general taxpayers responsibility or is it to be shared between them and the actual people who own or are employed in the industries that aren't possible? I think the latter.

 

We all know it becomes active at 10pm so they're giving themselves an hour to get to safety. I hope the virus knows the clocks go back soon otherwise the crafty little fcker will really do some damage

 

Its a complete nonsense measure based on next to no scientific evidence (none that they'll share with the public anyway) by governments who have to be seen to be doing something. Don't kid yourself into thinking this is anything more than a political stunt (as it was in this country) to appease the masses calling for incompetent and clueless governments to impose further restrictions.

 

What evidence would you accept given that they don't know for certain when are where the virus is actually passed from one person to the next? Isn't the scientific advice that reducing the number of times people interact with each other enough to follow that course?

I'm not sure what they're gaining as a political stunt. I'm not sure that increased restrictions are particularly being welcomed by the masses.

 

I'd like to see the scientific evidence behind such a decision. I think that's a fair request. I'm not sure if they have published any evidence in France for these measures but I doubt it. Otherwise if we start accepting the removal of our civil liberties and freedoms as well as our livelihoods on the basis of government say so and zero scientific evidence then we're in big trouble.

On your second point, I saw a headline that 70% of the population support another full lockdown. Sadly, that's the damage that the mainstream media has done in this country by spouting their dangerous and agenda fueled nonsense on a daily basis. Whilst you and I may be hearing a loud and growing support in defiance of further restrictions, unfortunately the silent ones are wanting the opposite to happen.

 

But what sort of scientific evidence though? Do you need to see specific proof that people are catching it after 9pm or on pubs? If so it probably doesn't exist because there is no way for them to know that. I think the request is fair but the proof you require might be impossible to find, scientifically not politically.

If that 70% figure is true we might as well give up. Have you got a link please so I i can see the context?

 

For a start, since the 10pm curfew in this country applies to bars, pubs and restaurants then its fair to ask how many outbreaks can be associated with such venues post 10pm. Finding those figures may be hard considering the inadequate T&T system but then if that's the case, the restrictions aren't justifiable. And if those figures are low in comparison to other venues and/or times, then the restrictions are nonsensical. Put simply, if they cannot supply evidence to say that such venues post 10pm are 'hotspots' for infection, then the curfew doesn't have a leg to stand on.

It's like when they lumped in football stadiums in the 'other' category on the attached briefing slide to demonstrate how unsafe they were and justify their decision not to allow spectators. Completely manipulated and grouped with numerous other sectors and inevitably the 'other' category came out way ahead in that particular graph. I suspect they'd have to do something similar for pubs, bars and restaurants if pressed hard enough to supply the evidence.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-britons-would-strongly-back-second-lockdown-if-covid-19-cases-spike-poll-reveals-12019957

That is an older article that states roughly the same figures. I saw it mentioned again yesterday with regards to a recent poll but for the life of me can't find it. I'm sure someone else will know what it is.

 

I completely accept what you're saying about the outbreaks but I genuinely don't think they could ever know that sort of detail.

Unless theres a large scale outbreak somewhere they aren't going to be able to pinpoint exactly where and what time people got passed the virus. I can't even think of a way that could be remotely possible.

Pubs after 10pm were definitely places where social distancing broke down, I think everyone will have seen that but it's only anecdotal.

I am just of the mindset where when the spread is going up they're just going to keep decreasing the opportunities for people to interact. When you consider that they're pretty much not going to shut schools or universities it will just be leisure that gets squeezed. Either in terms of closures or shortened hours, it isn't ideal but without knowing the time and place of every time the virus jumped between two people I can't see another way.

I hope to God that percentage will have changed!! I really do despair if such a high percentage of people want to be compelled to go back into a full lockdown.

 

Hurrah.....glad someone can say it as it is.........

 

Manchester about to be held over a barrel in a meeting today and basically told they are going into tier 3 despite them repeatedly asking for more help first. Half the mps that were supposed to go Were not even invited today, they found out via sky news the meeting was taking place. Says it all really.

 

Do you not think there is actually some logic to it given that both the UK and France have done something very similar now?

 

Not really. Its more likely a case of one idiot leads and the others follow.

 

I don't think it is somehow but each to their own.

 

it’s fair enough opinion, but it does becomes a problem when you have hundreds of people applying for one job. It’s easy to assume folk rest on their laurels, but there will also be a lot of people trying to find alternative employment, but the job market will hardly be awash with vacancies. Again, it tries to get moulded into an
either/or situation, when in reality it may well be more complicated than that.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-test-trace-nhs-covid-worst-week-england-latest-b1046397.html interesting to see that the much vaunted private sector is actually now becoming less efficient reaching only 57.6% of contacts, with cases handled by LA public health protection teams reaching 97.7% of contacts. shocking for the amount of money we're throwing at them.

I actually think they can do it cheaper as we certainly aren't getting value for money at present. the system is getting worse and pretty much any person with any expertise on this is saying the system is not fit for purpose. I am against the private sector being involved when its clear they are not the best people for the job and are not providing value for money.

 

potential gamechanger for night life alongside the barcelona study. rapid reaction testing is probably whats going to save the industry if one can be found that is reliable and easy enough to manufacture at scale.

 

It's a very poor percentage there's no doubt about it.

Couple of things I'm interested in that I can't find out at the moment - basically are the LA taking the "easy" cases while the centralised system taking the more difficult to trace aspects or the high volume? It's genuine question again as I have no idea.

Other thing that I'm genuinely interested about is why they're failing to reach the 40% of contacts. Is it people don't have their contact details (people they have met in pubs for example), people aren't picking up the phone or responding to the tracers or whether the contract tracers now just don't have time to go through everyone now it's getting busier.

It does look on the face of it that the LAs are having more success, I'm glad that more places seem to be going down that route if that's a genuine like for like figure.