Blooming Personalities C/D 30Th November
Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
6-30 Now.....
But it appears we know what's going to be said as it's been leaked ,an enquiry to find out from who is to take place
It's all happening at number 10
It's all happening at number 10
Answers
NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed 7 months ago but it wasn't could that have been because action was taken? My main criticism of Boris isn't that he does the wrong thing but that he does the right thing weeks too late. He wants to be loved so he dithers about imposing harsh measures and tries to make sure he's got a scapegoat lined up.
20:23 Sat 31st Oct 2020
I think Boris just doesn't know what to do so he has handed power over to those scientists. It's interesting really because this country voted to come out of the EU because it became fed up with being dictated to by unelected officials and how it has handed power over to home grown unelected officials.
As was made clear today (albeit between the lines), the scientists wanted action to be taken earlier. So the Government is not following, or at least not exclusively following, the advice of scientists. Whether they have acted too late remains to be seen, but what I haven't seen here amongst those criticising Johnson is any answer to his key point, namely that the NHS is at serious risk of being overwhelmed altogether if the disease is not brought under some semblance of control. Do those who wish no more extreme action to be taken simply not accept that this is a risk at all, or are they arguing that it is a risk worth taking? An NHS that is at, or above, capacity would struggle to function across the board, leading to excess deaths on top of the likely 1000+ Covid deaths daily.
The NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed 7 months ago but it wasn't was it. Most of the NHS Nightingale hospitals remained empty apart from the London one who admitted a grand total of 54 patients. Is it any wonder people don't have any faith in the Government and more importantly, the scientists who don't have any comprehension of the damage that all of this is doing to the economy?
NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed 7 months ago but it wasn't
could that have been because action was taken?
My main criticism of Boris isn't that he does the wrong thing but that he does the right thing weeks too late. He wants to be loved so he dithers about imposing harsh measures and tries to make sure he's got a scapegoat lined up.
could that have been because action was taken?
My main criticism of Boris isn't that he does the wrong thing but that he does the right thing weeks too late. He wants to be loved so he dithers about imposing harsh measures and tries to make sure he's got a scapegoat lined up.
No, it wasn't. But there was the small matter of a national lockdown, that almost certainly made a difference.
I can't prove a causation between the two, but it defies common sense to argue that the March lockdown had no impact on the spread of the disease. In effect, you seem to be arguing that the success of lockdown is an argument against it.
Nor is it true or fair to suggest that SAGE scientists "don't have any comprehension" of the economic and other costs of this. Of course they do. When Professor Whitty was pointing out that there are "only bad options", this is part of what he meant. The choice appears to be this: let many thousands die (and, in the process, overwhelm the NHS and wreck the economy), or try to take action that will reduce the chance that the NHS is overwhelmed, and in so doing wreck the economy.
It's no answer, either, to point to the Nightingales going unused. They were a contingency measure. It's a success story that the contingency turned out to be unnecessary, not a failure.
I can't prove a causation between the two, but it defies common sense to argue that the March lockdown had no impact on the spread of the disease. In effect, you seem to be arguing that the success of lockdown is an argument against it.
Nor is it true or fair to suggest that SAGE scientists "don't have any comprehension" of the economic and other costs of this. Of course they do. When Professor Whitty was pointing out that there are "only bad options", this is part of what he meant. The choice appears to be this: let many thousands die (and, in the process, overwhelm the NHS and wreck the economy), or try to take action that will reduce the chance that the NHS is overwhelmed, and in so doing wreck the economy.
It's no answer, either, to point to the Nightingales going unused. They were a contingency measure. It's a success story that the contingency turned out to be unnecessary, not a failure.
127sj has nailed it; the scientists from day one have been doom mongering, and now’s the time to do something radical...not listen to them.
As much as I think the second lockdown is a mistake (as I did the first lockdown), the economy HAS to come first; but it’s academic now as he’s bowed to these people, even though there’s a wealth of contradictory scientific opinion.
As much as I think the second lockdown is a mistake (as I did the first lockdown), the economy HAS to come first; but it’s academic now as he’s bowed to these people, even though there’s a wealth of contradictory scientific opinion.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank90 mins ago
ChatterBank99 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles124 mins ago
