Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Hancock/Govt/"The Science" Continue...........
21 Answers
.......to wear The Emperors' New Clothes and pretend that all is working ok, when in fact, after 10 months, lockdown hasn't worked at all. None of it. And the pretence continues as he said that the end of lockdown was a long, long way away. Away. Anyway, I refer the honourable members to this OP from earlier this month, and I commend it to the house!
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You are partially correct in that lockdowns havnt been a success in parts of the country, but they have been in other parts and thereupon for this is unknown.
It is too early to access the success or otherwise of this lockdown although there are signs that rates of infection are starting to plateau.
Early days.
It is too early to access the success or otherwise of this lockdown although there are signs that rates of infection are starting to plateau.
Early days.
its perfectly clear to anyone with any sense that the current surge in deaths and ICU patients links back to the period before christmas when lockdowns were loose and people were ignoring social distancing in christmas shopping queues at Primark, trainer shops, aswell as supermarkets and coffee shops, so we know what happens without lockdowns. Well those who have any sense of the seriousness do anyway
Morning Bob! :o) Once again you stand corrected. As stated previously, I did not say it had been hushed up. I said it had been ignored. And it has.
I don't know where I've ever mentioned a conspiracy. The facts speak for themselves. After 10 months, lockdown hasn't worked.
During the first lockdown, there was no legal requirement to wear a mask, and many people did not wear them, as well you all know. Yes, some did out of preference. However, without the obligation to wear a mask, the death rate fell to virtually single figures. Death rate was the only statistic being published, as the testing regime hasn't kicked in. So clearly, wearing a mask has no effect at all.
Some people on here clearly advocate "The Emperors' New Clothes" mentality. Apart from that, everything's fine thanks! NO, it really is! Honest! :o)
I don't know where I've ever mentioned a conspiracy. The facts speak for themselves. After 10 months, lockdown hasn't worked.
During the first lockdown, there was no legal requirement to wear a mask, and many people did not wear them, as well you all know. Yes, some did out of preference. However, without the obligation to wear a mask, the death rate fell to virtually single figures. Death rate was the only statistic being published, as the testing regime hasn't kicked in. So clearly, wearing a mask has no effect at all.
Some people on here clearly advocate "The Emperors' New Clothes" mentality. Apart from that, everything's fine thanks! NO, it really is! Honest! :o)
//its perfectly clear to anyone with any sense that the current surge in deaths and ICU patients links back to the period before Christmas…//
That may well be so (though it’s far from “perfectly clear”). But I think the point being made by 10CS (especially when related to his 6th January post which seems to be ridiculous fun but don’t be so sure) is just what future plans does the government have?
The UK is never going to be completely free of this disease. That IS perfectly clear. The vaccination programme will help in the fight, but as new strains emerge, eventually those vaccinated will be at risk and there will come a point when an annual updated vaccine will not do the job. The current situation is completely unsustainable. It is unsustainable economically and it is unsustainable on (non-Covid) health grounds.
All that lockdowns do is to temporarily reduce the infection rate (and going by the current lockdown, even that seems debateable). It’s no use saying “Ah but if we all obey the rules we’ll be alright.” We won’t. The population will not put up with this indefinitely (there are already signs of widespread revolt) and the economy will eventually collapse anyway.
The government is now suggesting a partial relaxation in April sometime leading to a removal of most restrictions by July. What happens next when the almost inevitable increase in infections resumes, probably by August or September?
That may well be so (though it’s far from “perfectly clear”). But I think the point being made by 10CS (especially when related to his 6th January post which seems to be ridiculous fun but don’t be so sure) is just what future plans does the government have?
The UK is never going to be completely free of this disease. That IS perfectly clear. The vaccination programme will help in the fight, but as new strains emerge, eventually those vaccinated will be at risk and there will come a point when an annual updated vaccine will not do the job. The current situation is completely unsustainable. It is unsustainable economically and it is unsustainable on (non-Covid) health grounds.
All that lockdowns do is to temporarily reduce the infection rate (and going by the current lockdown, even that seems debateable). It’s no use saying “Ah but if we all obey the rules we’ll be alright.” We won’t. The population will not put up with this indefinitely (there are already signs of widespread revolt) and the economy will eventually collapse anyway.
The government is now suggesting a partial relaxation in April sometime leading to a removal of most restrictions by July. What happens next when the almost inevitable increase in infections resumes, probably by August or September?
I can't be bothered to find the links, Corby, but raves, parties, weddings and so forth are being held illegally all over the country. There was an article in today's paper which told of a seventeen year old who has been attending parties and gatherings throughout the pandemic. I'm sure she and her friends are not alone. Once the summer comes people will be getting out and about more and they will end up gathering either outdoors or in each other's houses (since the government has compulsorily closed all the places they might usually go).
The population is already being softened up for an extension of restrictions beyond Easter and into the summer. The only thing in the government's favour is the longer the lockdowns go on the fewer businesses there will be to reopen and so the fewer places they will have to ensure they remain closed.
Just as a flippant sideshow, since Lockdown 2 began on 5th November, Londoners have only been able to meet others inside for just 13 days (from 2nd to 14th December between LD 2 ending and London being placed in "Tier 3"). This means that apart from those days, no new boy:girl/girl:girl/boy:boy relationships could (legally) have been formed unless those involved conducted their entire relationship outdoors - and only then at a distance. Do you really believe this has been the case? Of course not. And those who have not done so but feel the need will simply ignore any restrictions placed upon them. The latest complete lockdown has been in force now for five weeks. If it was working properly there would not have been 30,000 new infections reported yesterday. Lockdowns are a temporary partial fix. With the first anniversary of the virus arriving in the UK soon approaching the government needs to work on a strategy that is a little more permanent, less damaging and sustainable.
The population is already being softened up for an extension of restrictions beyond Easter and into the summer. The only thing in the government's favour is the longer the lockdowns go on the fewer businesses there will be to reopen and so the fewer places they will have to ensure they remain closed.
Just as a flippant sideshow, since Lockdown 2 began on 5th November, Londoners have only been able to meet others inside for just 13 days (from 2nd to 14th December between LD 2 ending and London being placed in "Tier 3"). This means that apart from those days, no new boy:girl/girl:girl/boy:boy relationships could (legally) have been formed unless those involved conducted their entire relationship outdoors - and only then at a distance. Do you really believe this has been the case? Of course not. And those who have not done so but feel the need will simply ignore any restrictions placed upon them. The latest complete lockdown has been in force now for five weeks. If it was working properly there would not have been 30,000 new infections reported yesterday. Lockdowns are a temporary partial fix. With the first anniversary of the virus arriving in the UK soon approaching the government needs to work on a strategy that is a little more permanent, less damaging and sustainable.
Can we stop pretending that this is a UK only problem?
'Both companies have warned they will not be able to deliver vaccines to the EU as agreed due to production issues.'
https:/
'Both companies have warned they will not be able to deliver vaccines to the EU as agreed due to production issues.'
https:/
"In total, 32,329 FPNs have been recorded as having been issued in England and Wales under Coronavirus Regulations between Friday 27 March and Monday 21 December. In England 28,744, were issued, and 3,585 in Wales."
"196 FPNs have been issued relating to holding a gathering of more than thirty people in England, and two in Wales.These include but are not limited to unlicensed music events, protests and private parties, and carry a £10,000 penalty."
Do those figures indicate a widespread revolt?
"196 FPNs have been issued relating to holding a gathering of more than thirty people in England, and two in Wales.These include but are not limited to unlicensed music events, protests and private parties, and carry a £10,000 penalty."
Do those figures indicate a widespread revolt?
//Do those figures indicate a widespread revolt?//
They are only the ones that have been detected, Corby.
As well as the raves and parties, the most common form of transgression is household mixing which we were told at one time - I don't know if it's still the fashion - was the most common activity to cause spread of the virus.
Where I live such activity is rife. There are households which have made no adjustments whatsoever to their lifestyles to comply with the ban on household mixing. People are in and out of each other's houses daily; they have visitors, they go visiting. The have people stay overnight. They go out with each other in cars, they go in for tea or a beer, they have dinner guests. The woman opposite me runs a hairdressing salon in her house and visits other people in their homes to do their hair. Before Christmas she had steady stream of customers having their hair done for the festivities. That has continued since Christmas. Few of them observed the restrictions over Christmas. Whatever arrangements they had made before the promised five day relaxation was eventually cancelled seemed to continue unabated. Large numbers of family members could be seen coming and going. The situation is largely unchanged now and even as I write I can see a house welcoming the arrival of one of their children together with their grandchildren. Speaking to friends and acquaintances the behaviour I see is by no means unique.
That is why lockdowns don't work. Not because they are, per se, ineffective; it's obvious that if everybody keeps away from everybody else the virus will have little opportunity to spread. But they don't work because large numbers of people don't comply with them. At present the cold weather is keeping many people in more than anything else. But as the better weather arrives they will venture out. Lockdowns are unenforceable and that is why I have some sympathy for the points made by 10CS.
They are only the ones that have been detected, Corby.
As well as the raves and parties, the most common form of transgression is household mixing which we were told at one time - I don't know if it's still the fashion - was the most common activity to cause spread of the virus.
Where I live such activity is rife. There are households which have made no adjustments whatsoever to their lifestyles to comply with the ban on household mixing. People are in and out of each other's houses daily; they have visitors, they go visiting. The have people stay overnight. They go out with each other in cars, they go in for tea or a beer, they have dinner guests. The woman opposite me runs a hairdressing salon in her house and visits other people in their homes to do their hair. Before Christmas she had steady stream of customers having their hair done for the festivities. That has continued since Christmas. Few of them observed the restrictions over Christmas. Whatever arrangements they had made before the promised five day relaxation was eventually cancelled seemed to continue unabated. Large numbers of family members could be seen coming and going. The situation is largely unchanged now and even as I write I can see a house welcoming the arrival of one of their children together with their grandchildren. Speaking to friends and acquaintances the behaviour I see is by no means unique.
That is why lockdowns don't work. Not because they are, per se, ineffective; it's obvious that if everybody keeps away from everybody else the virus will have little opportunity to spread. But they don't work because large numbers of people don't comply with them. At present the cold weather is keeping many people in more than anything else. But as the better weather arrives they will venture out. Lockdowns are unenforceable and that is why I have some sympathy for the points made by 10CS.
//I take it you've reported the transgressions to the appropriate authorities?//
Certainly not. Encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours for minor transgressions is reminiscent of the Stasi. If the government wants its measures enforced it will have to make its own arrangements. I'd rather the police concentrate their limited resources on burglars and muggers. In any case, if they were to attend and issue penalties it would make no difference because the miscreants would simply resume their activities the next day. Short of having a patrol car in my road 24/7 they will not make much of a dent. I'm not going to mess about trying to help the police enforce the unenforceable.
Certainly not. Encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours for minor transgressions is reminiscent of the Stasi. If the government wants its measures enforced it will have to make its own arrangements. I'd rather the police concentrate their limited resources on burglars and muggers. In any case, if they were to attend and issue penalties it would make no difference because the miscreants would simply resume their activities the next day. Short of having a patrol car in my road 24/7 they will not make much of a dent. I'm not going to mess about trying to help the police enforce the unenforceable.
Latest Posts
Family Life23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.