Coronavirus

[arklowolf]

Not sure why you're backing up such a monumental prick or indeed being so needlessly aggressive but whatever.

He routinely ignores the mundane, normal stuff that experts advise and does his own thing. This is a man who hid away in a country house for 12 days last month. He's the Prime Minister.

Because people are trying to score political points as always, same with 'the floods'. Looking from afar it just seems pathetic.
Can't imagine Corbyn and his cronies doing a whole lot better.
Besides what is more worrying than the virus is what is happening to the financial markets. It's a very difficult balancing act. So many will die from the virus. More could die from starvation and public disorder depending on how things are managed.let's hope it doesn't get too bad.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I'm not a Labour voter and haven't been since 2010 so you're wide of the mark there.

I want the Prime Minister to lead, not hide away in a mansion. Not so much to ask.

 

[Tony Towner]

Because people are trying to score political points as always, same with 'the floods'. Looking from afar it just seems pathetic.
Can't imagine Corbyn and his cronies doing a whole lot better.
Besides what is more worrying than the virus is what is happening to the financial markets. It's a very difficult balancing act. So many will die from the virus. More could die from starvation and public disorder depending on how things are managed.let's hope it doesn't get too bad.

Why does it always have to come back to 'but Corbyn' for you? This forum must mess with your politically gravity, because by and large people criticise the government without championing the opposition

 

[arklowolf]

Not sure why you're backing up such a monumental prick or indeed being so needlessly aggressive but whatever.

He routinely ignores the mundane, normal stuff that experts advise and does his own thing. This is a man who hid away in a country house for 12 days last month. He's the Prime Minister.

Well firstly I don't think the situation warrants scoring political points.
But mainly I think people should be thinking outside the box a bit.
It seems fairly plain to me that a greater threat to human life than the actual virus could be the result of public disorder should things get really out of hand. To negate that the government needs to buy time acting calmy whilst keeping the lid on any panic. Difficult to get right.

 

[arklowolf]

Why does it always have to come back to 'but Corbyn' for you? This forum must mess with your politically gravity, because by and large people criticise the government without championing the opposition

Tories might be crap, but they're the best you've got. There is no credible opposition.

 

[AndyWolves]

Where did you get the number 1000 from? Is a gathering of 999 OK? 20 people in a pub is just as likely to be a problem as 1000 in a venue, the vast majority of the 1000 wouldn’t interact with each other whereas 20 in a pub are almost certain to interact.

Are you suggesting we ban people going to pubs?

1000 is an arbitrary number which some other countries are adopting I think. Big enough that society can function but small enough that should someone who is infected go it doesn't become a huge issue.

Say someone got infected and went to a wolves game, you could be looking at potentially thousands of newly infected people whereas if you limit events to a 1000 - that's you spike right there. Obviously they'll go and infect other people but it's a flatter curve than 3,4 5 thousand people all getting infected at the same time

Now's really not the time for pedantry which I think your post was being

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Tories might be crap, but they're the best you've got.

They're really, really not.

But this isn't a "But Labour" thing. It's about what the actual Government is doing. At the moment - fuck all. Amazingly enough we have the most indolent Prime Minister in history. You join the dots.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Are you suggesting we ban people going to pubs?

1000 is an arbitrary number which some other countries are adopting I think. Big enough that society can function but small enough that should someone who is infected go it doesn't become a huge issue.

Say someone got infected and went to a wolves game, you could be looking at potentially thousands of newly infected people whereas if you limit events to a 1000 - that's you spike right there. Obviously they'll go and infect other people but it's a flatter curve than 3,4 5 thousand people all getting infected at the same time

Now's really not the time for pedantry which I think your post was being

If I was infected at a Wolves game, I might infect a handful of people people within a metre of me at the ground - I would probably infect more people in the pub before the game. It will be more effective banning the many 1000s of small gatherings of people than it will be banning large, particularly, outside events.

The only time when a football match would become a means of mass transmission would be when a significant number in the crowd were already infected by which time banning large crowds will be largely meaningless in terms of preventing transmission.

 

[playtheace]

Any ins/outs of the country should have been clamped down weeks ago...but its all too late now.
First thought is always monetary and then get round to humans later on.
I think there will be disorder/lootings, im afraid there are too many opporuntist cunts in the country that will relish any curfews.

 

[arklowolf]

Any ins/outs of the country should have been clamped down weeks ago...but its all too late now.
First thought is always monetary and then get round to humans later on.
I think there will be disorder/lootings, im afraid there are too many opporuntist cunts in the country that will relish any curfews.

Correct.
They have already missed the boat.
I'd imagine the Cobra meetings are more concerned with this and getting things in place to cope with it than they are dealing with the actual health issues.
That will take time, buying time is important.

 

[arklowolf]

They're really, really not.

But this isn't a "But Labour" thing. It's about what the actual Government is doing. At the moment - fuck all. Amazingly enough we have the most indolent Prime Minister in history. You join the dots.

Who have you got that would be better?
How do you know what the government is or isn't doing?
What do you actually want them to do?

 

[Alan]

Around these parts my clients seem mostly to be still totally disregarding the threat at best, and completely annoyed by the countermeasures at worst.

If we bite it because of this stupid disease, we fucking deserve it.

 

[Paul]

Around these parts my clients seem mostly to be still totally disregarding the threat at best.

You'd have thought after Pearl Harbour you'd have learnt wouldn't you

 

[Paul]

How do you know what the government is or isn't doing?

To be fair that is standard practise round here, wishes become facts which become a stick to beat with.

 

[arklowolf]

In Ireland we are at the same stage as the UK with the government reacting in the same way at the moment.
There was a programme on TV last night with a panel of experts and the health minister.
What came out of it was:
We are expecting around 50% of the population to contract the virus.
We are trying to identify sites that can be turned into hospitals and icu's
We need to source thousands of beds.
There will be thousands of deaths.
We will need to close all schools etc
Stop all large gatherings.
Possibly ground all flights.
Employ/redeploy hundreds of staff to do the contact tracing.
In the meantime keep washing your hands......

Oh yeah, and you'll get SSP from day one. Sound familiar?

 

[SLA]

To be fair that is standard practise round here, wishes become facts which become a stick to beat with.

Is it not slightly worrying that no-one knows what our government is doing?

 

[Tom Hark]

If I was infected at a Wolves game, I might infect a handful of people people within a metre of me at the ground - I would probably infect more people in the pub before the game. It will be more effective banning the many 1000s of small gatherings of people than it will be banning large, particularly, outside events.

The only time when a football match would become a means of mass transmission would be when a significant number in the crowd were already infected by which time banning large crowds will be largely meaningless in terms of preventing transmission.

Boris clearly agrees with you, but I think that is a blinkered view. Think of all the people someone attending a match (or any mass gathering) comes within a metre of: on public transport on the way; in the pub or getting refreshment elsewhere; as part of the crowd walking to the game; as part of the queue to get in (and how many people could an infected security guard infect?); on the concourse; getting to your seat; half time beer/pie/piss; and then the whole thing in reverse. Every person attending will have interactions with literally hundreds of people they could either infect or be infected by, not just a handful. When you go to a pub (which I also don't think is particularly wise, but hey-ho), that figure is probably reduced by a factor of 50. We're not talking about a long-term measure; it will all be over in a couple of months. I don't think a few weeks' sacrifice of something that is hardly an essential element of our lives is too much to ask if it will prevent god knows how many deaths.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Actually, other than Parkin I don't know many old people now. My grandparents are dead, my Dad is away and I rarely see my mother.

So I can go around being a virus spreading motherfucker.

That's the way it works, right?

 

[Tredman]

Actually, other than Parkin I don't know many old people now. My grandparents are dead, my Dad is away and I rarely see my mother.

So I can go around being a virus spreading motherfucker.

That's the way it works, right?

Little bit harsh on Parkin tbf, but yes that seems to be how it works. With added toilet paper.

 

[AndyWolves]

If I was infected at a Wolves game, I might infect a handful of people people within a metre of me at the ground - I would probably infect more people in the pub before the game. It will be more effective banning the many 1000s of small gatherings of people than it will be banning large, particularly, outside events.

The only time when a football match would become a means of mass transmission would be when a significant number in the crowd were already infected by which time banning large crowds will be largely meaningless in terms of preventing transmission.

Given how many people who are walking around who are asymptomatic I wouldn't be surprised if there are lots of people who have it

Also, large gatherings tend to bring together circles of people who you don't normally interact with. You probably know the people in the pub and see them more regularly thus any infections passed on would be limited in scope to infect others. The people you brush past and sit near in the stadium, it's probably the only time you're anywhere near them giving potential to infect whole other circles who otherwise wouldn't have got it until they got it via another vector. Likewise, it's why conferences, festivals etc are being cancelled

Anyway, that's my thinking but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this