Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[SocketRocket]

Last night BBC reports about 1500 new cases of infection and 2 deaths for previous 24hrs. And there was me thinking that the BBC had stopped reporting number of deaths now that they are generally in single figures - well that’s what I read on here.?

What’s changed? Nothing i am guessing. More likely that the BBC hadn’t actually stopped reporting numbers of deaths. Not something the anti-Beebers will mention so I thought I would...

They report the numbers each day on the News.

 

[Ethan]

One of my best friends is an ethical vegan and thankfully he never gives me any jip for eating meat whatsoever. And he really misses proper cheese, too.

Veganism is like religion. Everyone should be free to practise their own beliefs, but when they try to push it on to others, it becomes a problem.

 

[drdel]

Well the recent posts show that, despite the theme, golfers can can find a tangent and an argument anywhere.

 

[Ethan]

Well the recent posts show that, despite the theme, golfers can can find a tangent and an argument anywhere.

Oh no they can't.

 

[drdel]

Oh no they can't.

A tad early for pantomime, but John Lewis have their Christmas displays in their stores

 

[Lord Tyrion]

A tad early for pantomime, but John Lewis have their Christmas displays in their stores

A tad early? It is all we will get this year. The Newcastle one was cancelled last week, most others have done as well. 26 consecutive years of panto for us brought to a halt . The virus has gone too far when it stops panto season

 

[Ethan]

A tad early for pantomime, but John Lewis have their Christmas displays in their stores

It's very early. I have tickets for the family for the second weekend in December 2021 at The Hexagon, Reading.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

They report the numbers each day on the News.

Not according to another anti-bbc poster on here who claimed the bbc has stopped reporting numbers of deaths now that the number is low. Quite.

 

[ScienceBoy]

I am not in a ground largely impacted by the virus, only inconvenienced by it.

I can work from home, I can homeschool, I can cover childcare, I can shop and I can keep those around me safe.

I have been doing all these things since day 1 of lockdown and been given great support throughout.

This means my opinion here is somewhat caveated by my experience.

One thing I must say is that all the criticism to the government from all the angle like those affected families, school teachers, NHS workers etc are all valid and necessary.

I also feel the government has made incorrect choices and decisions too late with hindsight.

Everytime the government brings out new or contradicting rules it causes confusion as a minimum and all the criticism of these near constant “U-turns” are valid.

My understanding here is the government has chosen to take an approach and has consistently maintained an approach which drives these frequent changes in advice. It is by design we are getting new advice, conflicting or not as frequently as we are.

The alternative approach at the other end of the scale would be to set out advice and never change it, which (not proven) could have been just as detrimental. The halfway house is to change some advice and not others, this again has many positives but also negatives and the choice may be political, not to contradict earlier advice or medical, how would the government choose? Probably not medical as this would be the same situation we have now!

So in summary all the criticism of the current approach are valid, the approach by design has those flaws but on reflection of the bigger picture I would rather have the approach the government has taken over the alternatives which are less medical driven but would only serve to keep the government high in opinion polls.

 

[Old Skier]

Last night BBC reports about 1500 new cases of infection and 2 deaths for previous 24hrs. And there was me thinking that the BBC had stopped reporting number of deaths now that they are generally in single figures - well that’s what I read on here.?

What’s changed? Nothing i am guessing. More likely that the BBC hadn’t actually stopped reporting numbers of deaths. Not something the anti-Beebers will mention so I thought I would...

I mentioned it when they stopped, most likely they started again, well spotted that they now include them. Who are the anti - Beebers or is this your attempt at another attack on posters rather than the subject.

 

[Old Skier]

They report the numbers each day on the News.

I bought it up as they stopped posting the figures for a couple of days on the 1800 hr news. That obviously makes me automatically a heretic in the eyes of SILH

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I bought it up as they stopped posting the figures for a couple of days on the 1800 hr news. That obviously makes me automatically a heretic in the eyes of SILH

No - it doesn’t - but your post was a 100% dig at the BBC - a dig that you can now admit was unmerited.

 

[Old Skier]

No - it doesn’t - but your post was a 100% dig at the BBC - a dig that you can now admit was unmerited.

It was posed as a question asking if others had noticed, unlike you, I don’t throw my toys out the pram when I disagree or things don’t go my way.

 

[chrisd]

The virus has gone too far when it stops panto season

"Oh no it hasn't"
C'mon someone had to do it ??

 

[Jamesbrown]

Europe is at last waking up to its lockdown folly
As battening down the hatches fast loses favour, we can at least take this as a glimmer of hope

Did you hear it? Beyond the second wave sirens and the schools debate, the sound of the penny dropping on the global stage. In recent days, world leaders have hinted at an extraordinary admission: lockdowns are a disaster, and we can’t afford to repeat the mistake.

Still, when that spiritless reverend of the global order Angela Merkel delivered this confession a few days ago, she was so officiously ambiguous that the world paid no attention. “Politically, we want to avoid closing borders again at any cost, but that assumes that we act in coordination,” she droned at a summit in the Mediterranean. And with that, an earthquake: saving lives “at any cost” has been excised from the lexicon of liberal internationalism. Instead the aim is to save the economy. This means “acting in coordination” to kill off second lockdowns.

Emmanuel Macron was the first leader to drop this little bombshell. Last week he said that France can’t cope with the “collateral damage” of a second lockdown, explaining that “zero risk never exists in any society”. Italy joined in three days later, with the health minister hinting that the country will not return to national hibernation. Meanwhile, after lauding China’s draconian lockdown, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is imploring countries to avoid battening down the hatches again.

About time. Lockdowns are officially indefensible. Sweden has won the international experiment, as its firms outperform even the German Großunternehmen while Covid deaths plummet in line with the rest of Europe. Scientists caution that it may take years to develop a vaccine. Economists warn that even the richest economies in the world cannot afford national lockdowns costing up to 3 per cent of GDP per month.

Perhaps even doom-mongering politicians have twigged that civilisation threatens to evaporate into a mushroom cloud of psychoneurotic delirium. Polling reveals that Westerners on average believe 6 per cent of their national populations have died from Covid-19. The real figure is around 100 times lower.

Or maybe global leaders have been terrified by their instinct to protect the status quo. After all, seasonal travel shutdowns are an existential threat to a borderless Europe. Italy’s collapse following another lockdown would bankrupt the Eurozone. The banal rituals of cosmopolitanism are under threat – from the professional class’s daily pilgrimage into the cities to Starbucks lattes in reusable cups.

The trouble is, if Britain is any guide, leaders will struggle to persuade the masses to keep calm and carry on. Risk-averse statesmen aren’t ideal poster children for the message that we must all learn to live with more risk.

More importantly, no leader dare tackle the toxic relationship between mass panic and “the science”. Take the problem of dodgy Covid statistics. The bizarre failure of politicians to explain to people the basic fact that “rising” cases could partly reflect an increase in testing is a scandal. So is their inability to point out that, far from being cause for alarm, mild upticks may be an encouraging sign that testing and tracing is working, as the system becomes more effective at picking up localised spikes.

Nor do governments have a handle on the spurious second wave modelling that could yet drive us into another lockdown. It is, however, a myth that politicians are helpless against the judgment of career scientists. In Britain and beyond, politicians have never followed the modelling; modelling has always followed the politicians.

As the pandemic hit, officials across the world requested forecasts for long-term worst-case scenarios, even though it is widely held in expert circles that statistical models are only accurate for roughly two-week stretches. Worse, part of the reason the science has come up with ridiculous solutions is that politicians have asked ridiculous questions.

As government adviser Prof Mark Woolhouse recently told a parliamentary committee:“We are not aiming the models at the right target; we are aiming them at everyone when in fact the burden of this disease is very concentrated.” Perhaps the number crunchers would do better to model social distancing measures directed at the vulnerable rather than population-wide lockdowns.

Sadly, world leaders are less interested in taking the science debate forward than in covering their backs. Their expediency will only fuel paranoia. After an intriguing U-turn from the WHO, face masks are being rolled out as a mass market placebo from Britain to Spain. The notion that they reassure more people than they alarm – let alone the evidence that they work – is risible. Still, they usefully distract from the incompetence of Western states when it comes to the routine mass testing that could genuinely quiet hysteria and avert new lockdowns.

And so the Covid saga rumbles on. A grim tale of Machiavellian idiocy, statistical illiteracy, and robotic leaders who have no idea how to level with voters. Still, at least they have realised their lockdown error. It’s a glimmer of hope to which we must cling.

Eventually all the media sources will do a u turn on their current covidphobia narrative.

Laughable that the article pins this on government leadership when it’s the fear-mongering news that frightened most of the public, backing government into a corner with no choice but to implement daft measures to appease a public with soiled pants.

Initially I blamed Boris, but a lot of the blame I place on MSM now.

 

[Kellfire]

Eventually all the media sources will do a u turn on their current covidphobia narrative.

Laughable that the article pins this on government leadership when it’s the fear-mongering news that frightened most of the public, backing government into a corner with no choice but to implement daft measures to appease a public with soiled pants.

Initially I blamed Boris, but a lot of the blame I place on MSM now.

Do you actually mean these words?

 

[Ethan]

Eventually all the media sources will do a u turn on their current covidphobia narrative.

Laughable that the article pins this on government leadership when it’s the fear-mongering news that frightened most of the public, backing government into a corner with no choice but to implement daft measures to appease a public with soiled pants.

Initially I blamed Boris, but a lot of the blame I place on MSM now.

This article is blaming Johnson for an unnecessary lockdown. Most public health people blame him for not locking down fast enough or hard enough and thus failing to get control of the virus, which if he had done so successfully would have lessened the economic impact. There is nothing in this article that makes any convincing case that not locking down was a good idea other economically or medically.

The Swedish example is leaking water badly. As well as the worst death rate in the Nordics, by a long way, they also had worse economic Q2 performance than Finland and barely beat Denmark. The lesson from Sweden is one about hubris, a character flaw not often seen in Swedes.

I am no fan of the MSM, but they have rightly reflected the indecision, dithering and cynicism in the Govt's approach.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It was posed as a question asking if others had noticed, unlike you, I don’t throw my toys out the pram when I disagree or things don’t go my way.

It was to my reading very obviously a dig at the BBC for, as you saw it, stopping mentioning numbers of deaths. Implying that as the number was low it might reflect well on the government and that would be counter to the anti-Tory agenda many seem to believe the BBC maintains. But hey.

 

[Old Skier]

It was very obviously a dig at the BBC for, as you saw it, stopping mentioning numbers of deaths. Implying that as the number was low it might reflect well on the government and that would be counter to the anti-Tory agenda many seem to believe the BBC maintains.

Funny how the person who has had a dig/insulted

The PM
Every Government Minister
The way his son shouldn't have to be included in the rules for UC
The SAGE Committee
President Trump
Anyone who voted Trump
Everyone who voted for Brexit
Everyone who voted Conservative

has the cheek to accuse others of having a dig, I didn’t have a dig, take it anyway you like but to even suggest that death numbers, no matter how low, can counter any agenda is plain sick.

 

[Ethan]

Funny how the person who has had a dig/insulted

The PM
Every Government Minister
The way his son shouldn't have to be included in the rules for UC
The SAGE Committee
President Trump
Anyone who voted Trump
Everyone who voted for Brexit
Everyone who voted Conservative

has the cheek to accuse others of having a dig, I didn’t have a dig, take it anyway you like but to even suggest that death numbers, no matter how low, can counter any agenda is plain sick.

You are most welcome to defend any and all of those, but you will have a more constructive and interesting debate if you do so with rational arguments rather than accusations that the other person is biased or just against the Govt. even those of us who ARE against the Govt are capable to breaking down the issues and you may be surprised to find that we are not against everything they do.

You may have less success finding agreement on aspects of Brexit and Trump, though.

I am not aware of people who insulted SAGE, although I, for one, have pointed out, correctly, that most of them are on the Govt payroll, so cannot really be considered independent.