Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

9 hours ago, Gaz said:

If there's one thing we've learned over the past decade, is that rational decision seldom factor in when it comes to choosing who to vote for. Not when we've had "VOTE LABOUR AND CORBYN WILL PERSONALLY MURDER YOUR DAUGHTER" for headlines for five years.

If anyone thinks this will genuinely lead to any kind of change they're deluded. Most of the political commentary I've seen on this is "well, imagine how bad it would be if Labour were in charge!".

The right wing media coverage of this is truly horrendous. The tabloid coverage concentrates mainly on their hatred of the EU and Nicola Sturgeon, and combines it breathlessly with at least 6 or 7 online articles per day on what Piers Morgan thinks. 

The broadsheet coverage is more sinister. The Telegraph.....a publication which de facto still employs the Prime Minister I believe.....is filled with right-wing columnists lashing out at 'woke liberals'.

It's truly horrendous stuff. There's absolutely no media scrutiny of government, just propaganda which matches Fox News in the USA. How can people ever make informed decisions when the vast majority of mainstream news they receive has already been filtered through a media that has an ideology to support ?

[jagfox]

There will be a clap for Priti Patel tonight at 73 minutes past eleventeen twelvety...

[madwullie]

Sorry if this has been posted, too much to read to catch up, but Johnston I see has gone to chequers with his fiancée. 

Is he no longer infectious? I know she thought she had it but wasn't tested? She's pregnant, is this wise given what we know about coronavirus. What about his staff - are they safe to go with him. Plus, I know it's a bit petty, but is chequers not a second home? 

Finally, he was in icu about 3 days ago? Is this not a miracle recovery? Icu to holiday home in a few days? Either he wasn't sick enough to be in icu or he's travelling seriously unwell, stretching resources elsewhere, or there's something that just doesn't add up about it all. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by madwullie

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

The right wing media coverage of this is truly horrendous. The tabloid coverage concentrates mainly on their hatred of the EU and Nicola Sturgeon, and combines it breathlessly with at least 6 or 7 online articles per day on what Piers Morgan thinks. 

The broadsheet coverage is more sinister. The Telegraph.....a publication which de facto still employs the Prime Minister I believe.....is filled with right-wing columnists lashing out at 'woke liberals'.

It's truly horrendous stuff. There's absolutely no media scrutiny of government, just propaganda which matches Fox News in the USA. How can people ever make informed decisions when the vast majority of mainstream news they receive has already been filtered through a media that has an ideology to support ?

If there was genuine scrutiny of the decimation of the NHS over the past 15 years and the mishandling of the crisis to date it could have a significant effect on the Conservative Party.

Best way to avoid this is to have no real scrutiny.

[jagfox]

5 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Sorry if this has been posted, too much to read to catch up, but Johnston I see has gone to chequers with his fiancée. 

Is he no longer infectious? I know she thought she had it but wasn't tested? She's pregnant, is this wise given what we know about coronavirus. What about his staff - are they safe to go with him. Plus, I know it's a bit petty, but is chequers not a second home? 

Finally, he was in icu about 3 days ago? Is this not a miracle recovery? Icu to holiday home in a few days? Either he wasn't sick enough to be in icu or he's travelling seriously unwell, stretching resources elsewhere, or there's something that just doesn't add up about it all. 

My mate was in ICU then went to High Dependency for a day or so, now back home.

[greendot]

27 minutes ago, jagfox99 said:

Quite an interesting read - Prepare for the ultimate gaslighting

WTF is this bullshit?

 

*Gaslighting, if you don’t know the word, is defined as manipulation into doubting your own sanity; as in, Carl made Mary think she was crazy, even though she clearly caught him cheating. He gaslit her.

 

written by

 

Written by

Julio Vincent Gambuto

 

JVG is a writer/director in NYC and LA. His latest film, “Team Marco,” is currently at film festivals worldwide. Learn more and connect at www.juliovincent.com.

 

 

[madwullie]

8 minutes ago, jagfox99 said:

My mate was in ICU then went to High Dependency for a day or so, now back home.

Yeah I've been in icu and hdu before, I understand how it works and stuff. My point is more that he was just able to sit up in bed a couple of days ago and now he's able to fire off to his holiday home 3 or 4 days later. 

When I got home from icu and hdu I was barely able to climb the stairs for a month or so. Admittedly I wasn't in for Coronavirus, but having read a few stories of people who have been in icu (but not ventilated) with Covid-19, it sounds like the kind of stuff Johnston is doing would be pretty difficult to manage.  Especially as it seems to be the case that they're chucking you out of hospital much earlier in your care plan with this than they would under normal circumstances. 

Edit: good to hear your mate is well.  

Edited April 13, 2020 by madwullie

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

5 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Sorry if this has been posted, too much to read to catch up, but Johnston I see has gone to chequers with his fiancée. 

Is he no longer infectious? I know she thought she had it but wasn't tested? She's pregnant, is this wise given what we know about coronavirus. What about his staff - are they safe to go with him. Plus, I know it's a bit petty, but is chequers not a second home? 

Finally, he was in icu about 3 days ago? Is this not a miracle recovery? Icu to holiday home in a few days? Either he wasn't sick enough to be in icu or he's travelling seriously unwell, stretching resources elsewhere, or there's something that just doesn't add up about it all. 

Johnson has a long history of hiding when the going gets tough :

-a day trip to Afghanistan when parliament was voting on the Heathrow extension ( a matter that directly effects his constituency). He had previously said he would 'lie in front of bulldozers to stop it'.

-he hid in a fridge rather than answer questions from reporters during the GE campaign.

-avoiding questioning from Andrew Neil despite all other party leaders doing interviews.

Just do a google search on 'Boris Johnson cowardice', and you'll see hundreds of articles criticising him for deliberately avoiding scrutiny....stretching back throughout his political career.

And yet, it's as if he's made of Teflon. His bluster and carefully nurtured populist persona fool enough people to keep him in power. 

It's astonishing. I'm almost looking forward to seeing exactly how he's going to wriggle out of public scrutiny over the coronavirus. 3 weeks at Chequers out of the public eye, when the death rates peak is a good start I suppose. 

 

 

[madwullie]

2 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Johnson has a long history of hiding when the going gets tough :

-a day trip to Afghanistan when parliament was voting on the Heathrow extension ( a matter that directly effects his constituency). He had previously said he would 'lie in front of bulldozers to stop it'.

-he hid in a fridge rather than answer questions from reporters during the GE campaign.

-avoiding questioning from Andrew Neil despite all other party leaders doing interviews.

Just do a google search on 'Boris Johnson cowardice', and you'll see hundreds of articles criticising him for deliberately avoiding scrutiny....stretching back throughout his political career.

And yet, it's as if he's made of Teflon. His bluster and carefully nurtured populist persona fool enough people to keep him in power. 

It's astonishing. I'm almost looking forward to seeing exactly how he's going to wriggle out of public scrutiny over the coronavirus. 3 weeks at Chequers out of the public eye, when the death rates peak is a good start I suppose. 

 

 

Seemingly the speech he made yesterday was pretty inspirational. I'm guessing he didn't take any questions after it? 

[welshbairn]

Just now, madwullie said:

Yeah I've been in icu and hdu before, I understand how it works and stuff. My point is more that he was just able to sit up in bed a couple of days ago and now he's able to fire off to his holiday home 3 or 4 days later. 

When I got home from icu and hdu I was barely able to climb the stairs for a month or so. Admittedly I wasn't in for Coronavirus, but having read a few stories of people who have been in icu (but not ventilated) with Covid-19, it sounds like the kind of stuff Johnston is doing would be pretty difficult to manage.  Especially as it seems to be the case that they're chucking you out of hospital much earlier in your care plan with this than they would under normal circumstances. 

Could be that Chequers is an easier place to recuperate and self isolate, no 10 is an office block with a small flat. I think Tony Blair swapped with Gordon Brown at no 11 when he moved in with his family as it was a bit bigger.

[Jacksgranda]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Could be that Chequers is an easier place to recuperate and self isolate, no 10 is an office block with a small flat. I think Tony Blair swapped with Gordon Brown at no 11 when he moved in with his family as it was a bit bigger.

This is probably the reason.

Either that or he's just at it...

[madwullie]

9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Could be that Chequers is an easier place to recuperate and self isolate, no 10 is an office block with a small flat. I think Tony Blair swapped with Gordon Brown at no 11 when he moved in with his family as it was a bit bigger.

That's fair enough then I suppose. Still seems to me he'll be pretty contagious mind. 

[jagfox]

[Brother Blades]

Eh, because its not fucking Swansea!

[Guest JTS98]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

The main reason why social distancing can’t be maintained outside isn’t joggers: it’s family groups straddling their fat arses across the entire pavement for their daily slither, with a bunch of screaming weans and usually a dug off the leash as well. If you want to make it more effective then you would remove the exemption for household groups and make it one person outside for ‘exercise’ at a time.

Running, walking, whatever.

People are outside and mingling together. That's the problem.

The authorities shouldn't be allowing it. But they're pandering to the 'Hoooooooow can I possibly stay insiiiiiiide?!!!' brigade.

[Mark Connolly]

25 minutes ago, jagfox99 said:

Because people in other places don't have dinosaurs with masks in their gardens

[VladimirMooc]

7 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Running, walking, whatever.

People are outside and mingling together. That's the problem.

The authorities shouldn't be allowing it. But they're pandering to the 'Hoooooooow can I possibly stay insiiiiiiide?!!!' brigade.

It’s about balancing harm. The mental health (and physical) harm caused by an indefinite lockdown without an hour’s exercise a day could be greater in the longer-term than maintaining the current level of lockdown. It’s easy to say ‘stay indoors all day’ to people with decent houses and gardens. It’s a lot more difficult to say that to families living in overcrowded flats with no outdoor space. 

Running/walking/cycling whilst maintaining social distance is fine and safe. And the authorities shouldn’t pander to the “just stay inside all day in your shite flat for an indefinite length of time” brigade, most of whom are most likely pontificating from the comfort of their spacious suburban homes with gardens. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by VladimirMooc

[Marshmallo]

Just now, VladimirMooc said:

It’s about balancing harm. The mental health (and physical) harm caused by an indefinite lockdown without an hour’s exercise a day could be greater in the longer-term than maintaining the current level of lockdown.

I mean this as a genuine question - how many of the 1,000 deaths a day would we need to reduce it by in order fit you to think of it as out weighing the "mental (and physical) harm?

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, VladimirMooc said:

It’s about balancing harm. The mental health (and physical) harm caused by an indefinite lockdown without an hour’s exercise a day could be greater in the longer-term than maintaining the current level of lockdown. It’s easy to say ‘stay indoors all day’ to people with decent houses and gardens. It’s a lot more difficult to say that to families living in overcrowded flats with no outdoor space. 

Running/walking/cycling whilst maintaining social distance is fine and safe. And the authorities shouldn’t pander to the “just stay inside all day in your shite flat for an indefinite length of time” brigade, most of whom are most likely pontificating from the comfort of their spacious suburban homes with gardens. 

I think it's been shown quite clearly that it's not, because people don't. That's the whole point.

But, whatever. Everybody thinks they're special so have to be outside.

Neither you nor me make the decision anyway.

[VladimirMooc]

1 minute ago, Marshmallo said:

I mean this as a genuine question - how many of the 1,000 deaths a day would we need to reduce it by in order fit you to think of it as out weighing the "mental (and physical) harm?

I don’t think those people are dying because folk are still allowed out for an hour’s run or walk a day. They’re dying because the government didn’t introduce the current measures quickly enough and have proven themselves as abject failures in developing credible testing regimes.