ChatterBank3 mins ago
Inflation.
Inflation in the U/K hits 10.1 percent. The highest in 40 years and the highest in G/7 . Well done Boris and his Brigade of Con Merchants, you certainly are following in Thatchers Footsteps.
Answers
//I think there is little doubt that a majority of the population that did not contract the virus sooner, contracted it later.// Yes newjudge, but it bought time till we had a vaccinne and prevented tens of thousands more dying in that first year and until proper testing was available...
19:15 Fri 19th Aug 2022
//many died because the government was too busy celebrating Brexit to do anything about Covid. Boris first addressed the nation on March 9, when four people had died, but lockdown didn't begin till the 23rd (and a lot of restrictions from the 26th).
That delay was lethal. Countries that acted more quickly lost fewer citizens.//
I think you need to research how the long term impact of lockdowns is now manifesting itself. No other pandemic in history had been dealt with by locking people down in their homes and closing vast swathes of business and industry. The UK had a plan for dealing with a pandemic and it involved nothing like that. It is now becoming evident that the hastily devised so-called cure will produce far more unpleasant results than the disease (as explained in the link I provided). All that lockdowns did was to delay the transmission of the virus. The long term effects of lockdown were never properly considered (or if they were they were dismissed) and they are now becoming apparent.
The link I provided earlier explains that currently each week more than twice as many people are dying from undiagnosed and untreated conditions, the lack of attention stemming from the Covid measures, than are dying from Covid. Covid deaths held the headlines for the thick end of two years, but where are the headlines containing these figures?
//Brexit has nothing to do with it? Staff leaving in droves or being off sick has nothing to do with it? The treatment of the NHS by the UK Government has nothing to do with it?//
Yes the loss of some staff following Brexit had an influence. However, many left when the first lockdown was imminent, not fancying becoming marooned here and unable to return to their home nations. I don’t know what you mean by “the treatment of the NHS by the UK Government.” All the government seems to have done is to lavish stupendous amounts of money on it, a large proportion of which has simple been pee’d up the wall by engaging more and more non-medical staff. Lockdowns are definitely responsible for the effective abandonment of primary care, with many GP surgeries largely shutting up shop and referring anyone who might need the attention they could provide to A&E.
Back to the question (inflation): it is barely beyond dispute that the principal cause is the unstable situation on the international energy market. But the UK’s woes in that respect are the result of the abandonment by successive UK governments of any effective policy to maintain energy security. This country has ample supplies of fossil fuels but their use has been sacrificed on the altar that is “Net Zero.” But it is also barely beyond dispute that the printing of more than £400bn of worthless money, used to pay people to sit at home and do nothing for up to two years, played a big role.
That delay was lethal. Countries that acted more quickly lost fewer citizens.//
I think you need to research how the long term impact of lockdowns is now manifesting itself. No other pandemic in history had been dealt with by locking people down in their homes and closing vast swathes of business and industry. The UK had a plan for dealing with a pandemic and it involved nothing like that. It is now becoming evident that the hastily devised so-called cure will produce far more unpleasant results than the disease (as explained in the link I provided). All that lockdowns did was to delay the transmission of the virus. The long term effects of lockdown were never properly considered (or if they were they were dismissed) and they are now becoming apparent.
The link I provided earlier explains that currently each week more than twice as many people are dying from undiagnosed and untreated conditions, the lack of attention stemming from the Covid measures, than are dying from Covid. Covid deaths held the headlines for the thick end of two years, but where are the headlines containing these figures?
//Brexit has nothing to do with it? Staff leaving in droves or being off sick has nothing to do with it? The treatment of the NHS by the UK Government has nothing to do with it?//
Yes the loss of some staff following Brexit had an influence. However, many left when the first lockdown was imminent, not fancying becoming marooned here and unable to return to their home nations. I don’t know what you mean by “the treatment of the NHS by the UK Government.” All the government seems to have done is to lavish stupendous amounts of money on it, a large proportion of which has simple been pee’d up the wall by engaging more and more non-medical staff. Lockdowns are definitely responsible for the effective abandonment of primary care, with many GP surgeries largely shutting up shop and referring anyone who might need the attention they could provide to A&E.
Back to the question (inflation): it is barely beyond dispute that the principal cause is the unstable situation on the international energy market. But the UK’s woes in that respect are the result of the abandonment by successive UK governments of any effective policy to maintain energy security. This country has ample supplies of fossil fuels but their use has been sacrificed on the altar that is “Net Zero.” But it is also barely beyond dispute that the printing of more than £400bn of worthless money, used to pay people to sit at home and do nothing for up to two years, played a big role.
//No it didn't. It stopped the NHS from being swamped. How many more times, NJ?//
But it didn't though, did it? The NHS was swamped before Covid and it's even more swamped now as a result of the measures put in place to "fight" Covid. There is scant evidence to support the idea that measures taken to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed during the pandemic actually worked but there is ample evidence that the problems it faces now are a direct result of those measures.
But it didn't though, did it? The NHS was swamped before Covid and it's even more swamped now as a result of the measures put in place to "fight" Covid. There is scant evidence to support the idea that measures taken to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed during the pandemic actually worked but there is ample evidence that the problems it faces now are a direct result of those measures.
I'm sure you're right, Zacs. But it's arguably in a far worse position now. People are dying whilst waiting for vital surgery; people are spending hours in ambulances (after spending hours waiting for one to arrive) before gaining admission to A&E. In turn those units are overwhelmed because GPs have all but turned in inviting patients to their premises for consultation and refer anybody they don't fancy dealing with to A&E. The people suffering death now (1,000 excess deaths per week, many as a result of delays caused by Covid measures) are just as important as those who died - and continue to die - from Covid. The NHS is just as much on the point of being overwhelmed now (if it hasn't been already, depending on your definition) as it was two years ago. But nobody is being ordered to stay at home to avoid contact with any one of the many diseases that abound that may hospitalise them; nobody is being asked to desist from hazardous activities that may mean they need to use the NHS. If Covid measures were designed to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, why aren't they in force to some degree now?
The answer is that it is not reasonable to expect the public to suffer severe restrictions on their lives to help the NHS with its capacity problems. So if such restrictions are not acceptable now (when there are just as many "excess deaths", if not more, and the NHS is in just as critical state) why were they acceptable then?
The answer is that it is not reasonable to expect the public to suffer severe restrictions on their lives to help the NHS with its capacity problems. So if such restrictions are not acceptable now (when there are just as many "excess deaths", if not more, and the NHS is in just as critical state) why were they acceptable then?
'But it's arguably in a far worse position now'
It probably is as the strain of Covid led to many voluntary redundancies and changes of jobs for many others, but that is a entirely different point to saying, completely incorrectly, that all that lockdowns did was to delay the transmission of the virus.
It probably is as the strain of Covid led to many voluntary redundancies and changes of jobs for many others, but that is a entirely different point to saying, completely incorrectly, that all that lockdowns did was to delay the transmission of the virus.
//...but that is a entirely different point to saying, completely incorrectly, that all that lockdowns did was to delay the transmission of the virus.//
Leaving aside the collateral damage that they caused (from which we are now suffering) what did they do, then? I think there is little doubt that a majority of the population that did not contract the virus sooner, contracted it later.
Leaving aside the collateral damage that they caused (from which we are now suffering) what did they do, then? I think there is little doubt that a majority of the population that did not contract the virus sooner, contracted it later.
//I think there is little doubt that a majority of the population that did not contract the virus sooner, contracted it later.//
Yes newjudge, but it bought time till we had a vaccinne and prevented tens of thousands more dying in that first year and until proper testing was available..... once the vaccines had been gave and testing was widely available the virus impacts were much less in most cases
Yes newjudge, but it bought time till we had a vaccinne and prevented tens of thousands more dying in that first year and until proper testing was available..... once the vaccines had been gave and testing was widely available the virus impacts were much less in most cases
Of course bob. That would be so if it was evident that lockdowns actually achieved that. It is becoming increasingly evident that they probably did not. (No, I'm not going to provide links, etc. There are plenty to be found).
But more important than that, there is also evidence that the deaths now occurring as a direct result of the lockdowns are likely to exceed any that the lockdowns may have avoided. My point back in Spring 2020 was that there was no consideration given to that. It is arguable that the NHS is currently overwhelmed - every bit as much as it might have been when the lockdowns were introduced. Hence my argument that all lockdowns did was to delay deaths and the overwhelming of the NHS - if indeed they even did that. But added to that is the huge collateral damage that was caused by lockdowns to businesses, education and non-Covid health which was given no consideration whatsoever. This is a very interesting book which I have on order:
https:/
But more important than that, there is also evidence that the deaths now occurring as a direct result of the lockdowns are likely to exceed any that the lockdowns may have avoided. My point back in Spring 2020 was that there was no consideration given to that. It is arguable that the NHS is currently overwhelmed - every bit as much as it might have been when the lockdowns were introduced. Hence my argument that all lockdowns did was to delay deaths and the overwhelming of the NHS - if indeed they even did that. But added to that is the huge collateral damage that was caused by lockdowns to businesses, education and non-Covid health which was given no consideration whatsoever. This is a very interesting book which I have on order:
https:/
At first Abacus Abbott said that hiring 10,000 more police would cost £300,000 a year,which would mean paying them £30 a year each.Then when that reply was laughed at,she replied,er no,£80 million a year.Which would mean about £160 a week for each new cop.Her inflation figures are just as i stated they would be.
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
