Hyperlinks And Copied Documents
Technology1 min ago
Another U Turn
A friend of mine who lives in Trafford was really looking forward to today as Trafford and Bolton were coming out of lockdown. At the 11th hour, BJ has decided that they are not. How many more U-Turns are there going to be, why can't they get things right?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Barsel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I find it amusing that you keep posting all this stuff, NJ. Nobody who matters is listening. Whatever you think it's easy to say it here but no government would take the sort of risks you propose (and would disagree with your expected counter suggestion that there is no risk). A big second wave would crash the economy, risk lives and would be political suicide. You must know that really.
It'll need maybe 6 months of very low deaths and a reduction in the need for local lockdowns before there is any prospect of
It'll need maybe 6 months of very low deaths and a reduction in the need for local lockdowns before there is any prospect of
I was watching an interesting interview with the mayor of Greater Manchester and a world health expert.
They both agreed that the government's "top down" approach was confusing and causing huge local resentment. Only effective test and tracing is the way to control cases in any sensible way. Otherise you are simply trapped in an endless cycle of lockdown, ease up, lockdown, ease up and so on.
At least it is not quite as bad as the French government's 21-page document advising buisnesses of the new regulations for mask-wearing in the workplace, which sound like something from a comedy.
They both agreed that the government's "top down" approach was confusing and causing huge local resentment. Only effective test and tracing is the way to control cases in any sensible way. Otherise you are simply trapped in an endless cycle of lockdown, ease up, lockdown, ease up and so on.
At least it is not quite as bad as the French government's 21-page document advising buisnesses of the new regulations for mask-wearing in the workplace, which sound like something from a comedy.
I sort of agree. More local decision making and accountability would help some attention away from the government which at the moment will be criticised in equal measure whatever it decides- so it take off some of the pressure.
Central guidance is needed on what levels should lead to special measures (although at the moment those threshold levels seem rather low to me and to many on here so someone needs to explain why they are what they are), but maybe there should a range given with some flexibility at local level so they are not so often portrayed as being imposed. And decisions on when to lift restrictions should be left to local decision makers so they have to balance the needs of teh people, the NHS and businesses
Central guidance is needed on what levels should lead to special measures (although at the moment those threshold levels seem rather low to me and to many on here so someone needs to explain why they are what they are), but maybe there should a range given with some flexibility at local level so they are not so often portrayed as being imposed. And decisions on when to lift restrictions should be left to local decision makers so they have to balance the needs of teh people, the NHS and businesses
//Whatever you think it's easy to say it here but no government would take the sort of risks you propose//
Why not? They take identical risks every winter with 'flu. Nobody suggests shutting down the economy, closing the schools confining people to their homes every November when 'flu gets a hold.
I've never said there is no risk. I've consistently said that the virus will spread (something that government and many people seem unable to accept), people will become infected, the vast majority will see little or no significant symptoms, a few will become quite ill and a very few will unfortunately die. That will happen whether or not we all walk around with masks on, whether or not we all avoid each other as if we are plague carriers, whether the schools are open or closed.
//A big second wave would crash the economy, risk lives and would be political suicide. You must know that really.//
I know no such thing. The first wave didn't crash the economy - the government's reaction to it did. I have referred to the 1968 "Hong Kong Flu" epidemic. This caused around 50,000 deaths in the UK. Nothing closed, schools remained open, nobody walked around with masks on. The difference between then and now was that the population was not led to believe that the government could "keep them safe" from an infectious disease running at pandemic levels. As a result the government didn't introduce ridiculous measures in an attempt to do so. The economy survived largely intact and so did the vast majority of the population. Only half of that is true today.
Why not? They take identical risks every winter with 'flu. Nobody suggests shutting down the economy, closing the schools confining people to their homes every November when 'flu gets a hold.
I've never said there is no risk. I've consistently said that the virus will spread (something that government and many people seem unable to accept), people will become infected, the vast majority will see little or no significant symptoms, a few will become quite ill and a very few will unfortunately die. That will happen whether or not we all walk around with masks on, whether or not we all avoid each other as if we are plague carriers, whether the schools are open or closed.
//A big second wave would crash the economy, risk lives and would be political suicide. You must know that really.//
I know no such thing. The first wave didn't crash the economy - the government's reaction to it did. I have referred to the 1968 "Hong Kong Flu" epidemic. This caused around 50,000 deaths in the UK. Nothing closed, schools remained open, nobody walked around with masks on. The difference between then and now was that the population was not led to believe that the government could "keep them safe" from an infectious disease running at pandemic levels. As a result the government didn't introduce ridiculous measures in an attempt to do so. The economy survived largely intact and so did the vast majority of the population. Only half of that is true today.
It looks like a crazy lottery. You have the unreliable figures, the unreliable "experts" The politicians, whose concern is with their image and the poor suffering Government who do flip flops depending on the latest picture, which they know is probably rubbish.
We need a leader with the *** to lay down the law.
We need a leader with the *** to lay down the law.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Azed 2736 Last 2 Confirmation And...
Crosswords12 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
