Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

The risk to your own health, but you can still pass it on.

The government has already signalled that it's perfectly fine with having children under 12 pass it on by complying with almost no single piece of public health advice, so I just don't see this 'wider social responsibility' argument holding up for folk in their 20s who want to meet up with their mates after five months.

Edited August 2, 2020 by vikingTON

[Jacksgranda]

12 minutes ago, madwullie said:

I had similar issues with caramel logs. Ended up having to buy in bulk from China during lockdown, but they're back in stock here now too which I can only assume means the factory is pumping them out again 

They're not for me, they're for my wife, I bought a couple of packets for her yesterday.

If I'm a good boy I sometimes get one. Fortunately she doesn't like tea cakes so I get them all to myself.

There's a possibility I could be in Cookstown fairly regularly, so I might just contine to buy them there, Tesco always had them in stock (pre lockdown.)

Also it's the only shop where I'm sure of getting Private Eye. (That and the Ballymena branch, which I'd have gone to whenever we were visting our ex lodger who now lives there under an assisted living scheme. We haven't visited him since lockdown, either,)

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

The government has already signalled that it's perfectly fine with having children under 12 pass it on by complying with almost no single piece of public health advice, so I just don't see this 'wider social responsibility' argument holding up for folk in their 20s who want to meet up with their mates after five months.

I agree on vestige of complying with scientific advice has long since stopped and it seems to be almost put luck measures.

I was thinking about the mask issue though, no-one likes them but it's not a big deal, people should just wear it and get on with it.

[Todd_is_God]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

The government has already signalled that it's perfectly fine with having children under 12 pass it on by complying with almost no single piece of public health advice, so I just don't see this 'wider social responsibility' argument holding up for folk in their 20s who want to meet up with their mates after five months.

They've spent the last 5 months making people believe that if they engage in any sort of social activity they are killing old people.

This had left them now in a big hole where, having realised that young people really aren't at any level of risk worth raising an eyebrow at, telling the public that these activities are now perfectly fine in terms of not causing a public health crisis, it is met with extreme scepticism.

This is the end result of months of blanket coverage of nonsense to justify a dreadful response, coming back to bite the government on the arse.

When you scare people with months of exaggerated BS, you don't get to then choose which bits the public should forget.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[SlipperyP]

31 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

 can't get my head around the mass refusal to acknowledge this.

It not even the the 1st News in Thailand mate.

YOU'RE all AT IT  while the west burns......enjoy.

[peasy23]

My mate is doing food deliveries for Asda, and was doing a drop off in Priesthill this morning just as the chapel was coming out. Not a face mask in sight, zero social distancing, and the priest shaking hands with everybody as they left. The kicker of course was that almost everybody including the priest looked to be 65 or over, all in the high risk age group.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Just now, peasy23 said:

My mate is doing food deliveries for Asda, and was doing a drop off in Priesthill this morning just as the chapel was coming out. Not a face mask in sight, zero social distancing, and the priest shaking hands with everybody as they left. The kicker of course was that almost everybody including the priest looked to be 65 or over, all in the high risk age group.

God’s will imo.

[Arthur Orton]

Just now, peasy23 said:

My mate is doing food deliveries for Asda, and was doing a drop off in Priesthill this morning just as the chapel was coming out. Not a face mask in sight, zero social distancing, and the priest shaking hands with everybody as they left. The kicker of course was that almost everybody including the priest looked to be 65 or over, all in the high risk age group.

I know of a lad that threw a bottle of domestos into a chapel,  he got done with bleach of the priest...

I will get my coat.

[Todd_is_God]

16 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

It not even the the 1st News in Thailand mate.

YOU'RE all AT IT  while the west burns......enjoy.

I genuinely don't know what this means

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

My mate is doing food deliveries for Asda, and was doing a drop off in Priesthill this morning just as the chapel was coming out. Not a face mask in sight, zero social distancing, and the priest shaking hands with everybody as they left. The kicker of course was that almost everybody including the priest looked to be 65 or over, all in the high risk age group.

Straight to heaven for them though so it's a no lose scenario. 

[Guest JTS98]

38 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Then keep the most at risk isolated.

"I don't want to take a vaccine for the good of those around me. Vulnerable people? Who gives a f**k. Make them stay at home forever. f**k them."

 

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

"I don't want to take a vaccine for the good of those around me. Vulnerable people? Who gives a f**k. Make them stay at home forever. f**k them."

Aye, that's what I said...

Fud

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Aye, that's what I said...

Fud

Explain the substantial difference.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

1 hour ago, stuart87 said:

Even if folk don’t agree that there would be no lockdown without social media, they must agree that social media creates mass hysteria over a lot of issues. I think when Todd_is_God says there wouldn’t be a lockdown, he doesn’t mean that everyone would just keep going as normal but we would use the Swedish approach as I think he has already advocated using.

So you’re agreeing that social media has effectively decided on government policy on the pandemic?  That Dominic Cummings and co looked at Twitter, Facebook and the likes and thought, you know what, we’d better lockdown.

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Explain the substantial difference.

Firstly, I never mentioned vaccines.

Secondly the whole post was about how locking vulnerable people away to protect them for 4½ months could have been avoided

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Firstly, I never mentioned vaccines.

Secondly the whole post was about how locking vulnerable people away to protect them for 4½ months could have been avoided

It's easy to mix the two of you up. Usually I'd apologise, but I won't bother.

 

[Todd_is_God]

17 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

So you’re agreeing that social media has effectively decided on government policy on the pandemic?  That Dominic Cummings and co looked at Twitter, Facebook and the likes and thought, you know what, we’d better lockdown.

Of course it has influenced key decisions.

The Dominic Cummings press conference and SG complete U-turn within days on their plan for opening of schools are two further examples of things that would not have happened without the widespread nature of social media.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Billy Jean King]

Then keep the most at risk isolated.
We already did that for 4½ months. We just forgot to allow the crucial bit of advising distancing where possible, but otherwise letting it go round those at miniscule risk, meaning it was a longer than necessary, less effective exercise.

Not this again, life over for everyone 65 or over so that you can carry on regardless. Do you really truthfully think that is remotely fair ? So much for the big inclusive society, I'm alright Jack rules.
In an earlier post you were sympathetic towards parents too scared to send their kids back to school yet you come out with the "doesn't harm under 40s" line a few posts later, you are all over the shop here.

[Michael W]

8 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

Not this again, life over for everyone 65 or over so that you can carry on regardless. Do you really truthfully think that is remotely fair ? So much for the big inclusive society, I'm alright Jack rules.
In an earlier post you were sympathetic towards parents too scared to send their kids back to school yet you come out with the "doesn't harm under 40s" line a few posts later, you are all over the shop here.

At some point the generational unfairness needs to be addressed, though. Over 65s aren't the ones losing their jobs or even their entire livelihoods here. They are most at risk of the virus, of course, but they are also, in general terms, the ones that can be told to stay at home with the least amount of financial disruption to their lives. 

Blanket measures are not sustainable in the long term. There is however a big area of grey between letting it rip and kill them and blanket measures as currently implemented. Now seems like a good time for that grown up conversation we were promised. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Michael W

[Todd_is_God]

16 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

Not this again, life over for everyone 65 or over so that you can carry on regardless. Do you really truthfully think that is remotely fair ? So much for the big inclusive society, I'm alright Jack rules.
In an earlier post you were sympathetic towards parents too scared to send their kids back to school yet you come out with the "doesn't harm under 40s" line a few posts later, you are all over the shop here.

You've missed the point.

Blanket shielding over 65s is unfair but, if we were determined to avoid people dying, necessary, as this is the demographic that, almost exclusively, has been dying.

Shielding them for 4½ months, however, was outrageous, and by shutting pretty much everyone else away too, was done in a way that there is a chance they might have to do it again.

It was possible to protect them without completely shutting society down, and doing so would have allowed them to rejoin society much sooner, whilst also not destroying people's livelihoods

On your second point, It is pretty much harmless to under 40s. That doesn't mean I don't understand why some parents might be scared after being fed nothing but fear for the last 5 months.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Todd_is_God