• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Stuart_C said:
Take a look at yourself Bri, he‘s made a comment that’s negative to the government and straight away you’re on his case. You’re better than that.

Some on here see any negative post towards the regime now as “party politics” and can’t see past there own views. The current gov aren’t beyond criticism.

Anyway, KF’s a clever enough lad to fight his own battles and there’s too many know all‘s on this thread, so I’ll hibernate elsewhere??
Click to expand...

The debate was had several pages back on PPE and Patel's poor apology. It revolved around the purchasing process the various hospital Trusts have. Patel was asked to apologise for something that isn't the govt's fault.

Maybe ask KF what his job was/is for many years. Purchasing manager for hospitals. He knows full well what the process is but chose to use Patel's apology for a disingenuous dig.

That's what pee'd me off. He knows better.
 
bluewolf said:
I would respectfully disagree. They know exactly what they’re doing. I would say that (IMO) they were too slow to react at the start (Cheltenham and the Stereophonics gig spring to mind), but the lockdown they’ve put in place is designed to do exactly what they want it to do.

Unless you’re saying that they’re lying when they say that they’re following the scientists advice.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Bobmacs post and yours are at odds, not the way I read it.
He didn't suggest that the government didn't intend what they did, only that they didn't go for a tougher lockdown because of the possible reaction against it that some would have and the difficulty of enforcement maybe.
Of course the government lockdown is designed to do what they want, they just wanted the Country to follow it and things would be as expected as per the science advice. It's the idiots who are taking no notice that is causing a possible re-think.
I don think there is a suggestion by Bobmac that the government is lying.?
 
Hobbit said:
The debate was had several pages back on PPE and Patel's poor apology. It revolved around the purchasing process the various hospital Trusts have. Patel was asked to apologise for something that isn't the govt's fault.

Maybe ask KF what his job was/is for many years. Purchasing manager for hospitals. He knows full well what the process is but chose to use Patel's apology for a disingenuous dig.

That's what pee'd me off. He knows better.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been involved in purchasing in the NHS.
 
Desperate measures - had to get David to cut my hair today...me "it usually grows into a sort of pointy bit at the back"..."you should have mentioned you wanted to keep the pointy bit"!!

It's only the back but actually looks ok (y)
 
bluewolf said:
Hey Craig. I think you and I would agree on many things. And in all honesty, I’m not qualified to say which would be worse. However, with regards to the current economic model, we have to plan for the model we have, not the model we want. I just don’t believe there’s enough momentum or consensus for a switch to a more equitable system. UBI is a minor possibility, but I’d say it was unlikely unless we have a fairly seismic Covid experience (which we still might).

Whatever happens, the next 12-18 months are going to be “interesting”
Click to expand...
Don’t think anyone has the answer unfortunately. I have been struck over the last few days though, by the abundance of articles arguing for removing lockdown for economic reasons.

From those I’ve read, none provide a compelling case either way, but that could be the reader rather than the article!

My head keeps going back to the arguments for / against Brexit ‘back in the day’, soundbites over facts but on a more lethal scale!

On the plus side though, my respect for the press is declining in direct correlation to my respect for the government rising. Like you, I appreciate the challenge of the situation those responsible for trying to find the right path through this, and admire their efforts. WOuld also happily chop the press off the daily briefings
 
Slab said:
Different country altogether so limited use as a comparison but that's the kind of measures we have. In addition; all non essential business were mandated to close, employers do not have a choice. No travel without a permit, food shopping on designated days, 30 min max instore & you must submit to a temp test before entry & off to isolation centre if its too high (wonder how many in the UK would still pop to the shops 5 times a week if they risked not returning home!)

We are officially under curfew measures. Although I'm not sure how Brits would react (comply) with a more severe lockdown, prob not very well
Click to expand...

What kind of govt do you normally have, is it zero tolerance strict?
Kellfire said:
Well on my two week holiday from the forum the Tories have gone from actually handling the situation quite well in my eyes to handling it quite well but also doing everything they can to blame us for their failings. What a government.
Click to expand...
Did you mean to say 'quite well' twice? Typo?
 
huds1475 said:
Don’t think anyone has the answer unfortunately. I have been struck over the last few days though, by the abundance of articles arguing for removing lockdown for economic reasons.

From those I’ve read, none provide a compelling case either way, but that could be the reader rather than the article!

My head keeps going back to the arguments for / against Brexit ‘back in the day’, soundbites over facts but on a more lethal scale!

On the plus side though, my respect for the press is declining in direct correlation to my respect for the government rising. Like you, I appreciate the challenge of the situation those responsible for trying to find the right path through this, and admire their efforts. WOuld also happily chop the press off the daily briefings
Click to expand...



Haven't seen it better put.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
I don't think that Bobmacs post and yours are at odds, not the way I read it.
He didn't suggest that the government didn't intend what they did, only that they didn't go for a tougher lockdown because of the possible reaction against it that some would have and the difficulty of enforcement maybe.
Of course the government lockdown is designed to do what they want, they just wanted the Country to follow it and things would be as expected as per the science advice. It's the idiots who are taking no notice that is causing a possible re-think.
I don think there is a suggestion by Bobmac that the government is lying.?
Click to expand...
I think that where we would disagree is the level of lockdown that the government actually wanted. I believe that the current state (minus the idiots who are breaking the actual rules) is exactly what they wanted. They want people out working, spending, exercising etc. They don’t want people locked in and totally isolating themselves from society.

My belief is that they want to reduce the level of infection, but not at the expense of the economy. Bob (understandably) has been very vocal about people staying at home. He was still of the opinion that people didn’t need to go to work unless they were frontline workers only last week. He thinks that there should be a much tougher lockdown.

My view is that if the government wanted people to stay inside all day then they wouldn’t have made the exceptions quite as broad as they did. The 1 hour limit is a good example if this. It doesn’t exist. There is no such thing. It was given as an example in one interview by one Minister. If they wanted it they’d have included it. Yet people are still referencing it every 5 minutes.

So, either the Government is following the scientists, who are following the science. Or they’re not. But people seem to want it both ways. If the Government are following the science, then the rules laid down are good enough. If we want to read extra precautions into the rules then the Government must be getting it wrong.

It can’t be both...
 
huds1475 said:
Don’t think anyone has the answer unfortunately. I have been struck over the last few days though, by the abundance of articles arguing for removing lockdown for economic reasons.

From those I’ve read, none provide a compelling case either way, but that could be the reader rather than the article!

My head keeps going back to the arguments for / against Brexit ‘back in the day’, soundbites over facts but on a more lethal scale!

On the plus side though, my respect for the press is declining in direct correlation to my respect for the government rising. Like you, I appreciate the challenge of the situation those responsible for trying to find the right path through this, and admire their efforts. WOuld also happily chop the press off the daily briefings
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is an answer currently. How can there be? This is unprecedented. Understanding the global economy is hard enough. Understanding it and then comparing it to the effects of a global pandemic is impossible. Someone is going to have to be either very brave, or very detached in order to make the necessary decision.
 
bluewolf said:
I think that where we would disagree is the level of lockdown that the government actually wanted. I believe that the current state (minus the idiots who are breaking the actual rules) is exactly what they wanted. They want people out working, spending, exercising etc. They don’t want people locked in and totally isolating themselves from society.

My belief is that they want to reduce the level of infection, but not at the expense of the economy. Bob (understandably) has been very vocal about people staying at home. He was still of the opinion that people didn’t need to go to work unless they were frontline workers only last week. He thinks that there should be a much tougher lockdown.

My view is that if the government wanted people to stay inside all day then they wouldn’t have made the exceptions quite as broad as they did. The 1 hour limit is a good example if this. It doesn’t exist. There is no such thing. It was given as an example in one interview by one Minister. If they wanted it they’d have included it. Yet people are still referencing it every 5 minutes.

So, either the Government is following the scientists, who are following the science. Or they’re not. But people seem to want it both ways. If the Government are following the science, then the rules laid down are good enough. If we want to read extra precautions into the rules then the Government must be getting it wrong.

It can’t be both...
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. I was only saying that I thought Bobmacs post, as I read it, didn't disagree with what you had said, and therefore he wouldn't have thought the government would have been lying.
I only was going on the two posts I saw , yours and his that you replied to.?

As to what you say here above, I agree. What you say is what the government did and why. It may be , in the light of events since (non compliance and the extent of movement under exercise, that the government may amend the rules. We shall see. It's a weighty decision to make, I have to say.
Sooner them than me. I am reminded of Lincoln's speech " ....will light us down in history.....etc"
 
PNWokingham said:
i think this article sums up the best plan

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...edicted-european-epidemic-calls-end-lockdown/

A leading German epidemiologist who predicted the coronavirus crisis in Europe is now calling for governments to end the lockdown.

Prof Alexander Kekulé warned the virus was about to engulf Europe and publicly urged Angela Merkel’s government to start screening international travellers as early as January.

But he now believes the lockdown is in danger of going on too long and causing more damage than the virus, and has drawn up a plan for how it can be safely lifted.

“It’s impossible to wait for a vaccine,” Prof Kekulé told The Telegraph. “The quickest we could have a vaccine ready is in six months. Based on experience, I’d say the reality is closer to a year. We can’t stay under lockdown for six months to a year. If we did that our society and our culture would be ruined.”

Prof Kekulé, the head of microbiology at Halle University, has been the Cassandra of Germany’s coronavirus crisis. As early as January 22, he called for travellers to be tested for the virus at airports and borders. He appeared on national television, but his warnings fell on deaf ears. Now the world is in the grip of a widespread pandemic:


“If we had started testing and following the chains of infection in January, we could have contained the epidemic here without resorting to a lockdown,” he says. “If you can get to people by the time they’ve infected 20 people you can stop it. But by the time it’s 400, there’s no chance.”

By March, when the virus had Germany in its grip, he was calling for the border to be closed and schools to shut down.

“At that stage a lockdown was the only option to slow the spread and prevent hospitals being overwhelmed,” he says. “But now we have to consider the possibility that a long lockdown may end up doing more harm than the virus.”

Angela Merkel has dampened hopes of restrictions ending any time soon, telling Germans this week: “We must not be reckless now. We could very quickly destroy what we have achieved.”


Not for the first time in this crisis, Prof Kekulé finds himself on the opposite side of the argument from Mrs Merkel. When he urged her government to do more about the virus in January, she chose to wait and see. Now he says the lockdown can be safely lifted by following a simple three-point plan.

First, he says, the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions who are most vulnerable to the virus must remain in isolation.

“We have to persuade them to stay at home, and that means we have to find ways of making it bearable for them, such as apps that will allow them to order their shopping or continue their social life,” he says.

“If they are determined to go out, fine — but they have to wear full FFP medical standard masks.”

That brings us to the second point in Prof Kekulé’s plan: a move from social distancing to what he calls “smart distancing”.

“We need to adapt distancing to the situation. A cashier at a supermarket check-out, for instance, is going to be exposed to infection all day. He needs to wear a mask, he needs proper hygiene measures. A taxi driver needs to learn not to touch his face after handling money.”

Basically, we all need to get used to wearing facemasks, Prof Kekulé says. “If you look at Hong Kong, they managed to avoid a major outbreak there and they’re very close to Guangdong in mainland China, which was badly affected. One of the key differences was they started wearing facemasks early in Hong Kong.”

Wedding dress and evening wear designer Friederike Jorzig adjusts a mannequin wearing a wedding dress with matching protective mask in her store Chiton in Berlin on March 31, 2020 as the Germany continue to battle the Covid-19 corona virus pandemic
A German designer is offering wedding dresses with matching facemasks CREDIT: ODD ANDERSEN/AFP
An ordinary surgical mask is sufficient for those who are not especially vulnerable, he says, and there’s no need to wear one while going for a walk. “In an open air setting a mask isn’t that effective. But in any indoors setting when others are there, we should all be wearing them.”

He’s even come up with a slogan to convince people, “Kein Held ohne Maske”, and an English version: “Be a masked superhero”.

Thirdly, and most controversially, Prof Kekulé says we have to let the young get the virus.

“People under 50 are very, very unlikely to die or get seriously ill from the coronavirus,” he says. “We have to let them get infected so they can develop immunity.”

Essentially, this is a return to the herd immunity plan once backed by the UK and widely seen as discredited. But Prof Kekulé argues that once the outbreak is under control and hospitals are not overwhelmed, there is a place for it.

Children are least at risk so the lockdown should be lifted at schools and kindergartens first, he says — a plan already adopted by Denmark, which plans to reopen schools after Easter.
Click to expand...

A fine theoretical strategy from Prof Alexander Kekulé BUT only if there's almost unlimited capacity to care for the infected. If you want to minimise unnecessary deaths in the real world with finite health care capacity the rate of infections must be managed as best one can. 'Herd immunity' is still a long term feasible plan plus vaccines, it just treats the elderly and vulnerable as expendable cannon fodder.
 
Lets look another way at this then.
Will the NHS ever be in a sitaution where it can cope. If the answer is "no" ( and I believe that is the answer looking at beds, staffing required and equipment needed) how long can we actually survive and cope the way we are?
As I said previous, China is seeing a new increase in numbers of new cases as a result of infected people returning from across boarders and then infecting others already home. How do we deal with that or get to the point where that doesn't worry us?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top