ChatterBank1 min ago
Time To Start Living With The Virus........
20 Answers
https:/
...a bit late coming but the right decision in the end. Well done to the government.
...a bit late coming but the right decision in the end. Well done to the government.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Indeed, tora. Many month slater than necessary but better late than never.
Still there are people calling it "reckless", "lunacy", "insane" etc. Here's an example from an article yesterday:
https:/
I find it very odd that the relaxation of rules should be described as "unnecessary." The requirement for "rules" (i.e. restrictive legislation, particularly that which confines people to their homes) is precisely the opposite. Those imposing them should provide an absolutely sound case for their continuing need. As soon as that need disappears the rules should be ditched. I find it astonishing that a UK journalist should suggest that a reason has to be found to end restrictive legislation rather than a justification to be presented to continue it.
Personally I would not be prepared to risk my cash on there being a substantial rise in hospitalisations if the requirement for isolation is ended. The number of daily admissions in England is half the level of mid-January. The numbers with Covid who are not isolating far outnumber those who do and I doubt there will be any significant difference in those requiring hospital admission. But even if there is, that's what hospitals are there for - to treat the sick.
Still there are people calling it "reckless", "lunacy", "insane" etc. Here's an example from an article yesterday:
https:/
I find it very odd that the relaxation of rules should be described as "unnecessary." The requirement for "rules" (i.e. restrictive legislation, particularly that which confines people to their homes) is precisely the opposite. Those imposing them should provide an absolutely sound case for their continuing need. As soon as that need disappears the rules should be ditched. I find it astonishing that a UK journalist should suggest that a reason has to be found to end restrictive legislation rather than a justification to be presented to continue it.
Personally I would not be prepared to risk my cash on there being a substantial rise in hospitalisations if the requirement for isolation is ended. The number of daily admissions in England is half the level of mid-January. The numbers with Covid who are not isolating far outnumber those who do and I doubt there will be any significant difference in those requiring hospital admission. But even if there is, that's what hospitals are there for - to treat the sick.
There are dangers in ablative* covid measures:
https:/
* 'taken away', or, ‘by’, ‘with’, or ‘from’
https:/
* 'taken away', or, ‘by’, ‘with’, or ‘from’
Ah but Dave it’s like the headstone for a hypochondriac,”I told you I was I’ll.”
Or Spike Milligan's, even.
//... but i think tests should still be left free for people.//
Why, William? Why is there a need for people who are not ill to take a test for a specific disease?
//...and, if something isn't free it won't get used when it should be.//
When should it be, then? The idea that a testing regime will prevent the virus from spreading is fanciful. Just about everybody in the country will eventually be exposed to the virus. It is inevitable. There are hundreds of thousands of people roaming around with the virus. Most of them don't know they have it and many that do know don't care. I have been saying for about six months now that the only people who need to test for Covid are those displaying symptoms and who need medical treatment. The overwhelming majority of Covid "sufferers" do not need treatment and those who do need only be tested so that the appropriate treatment can be provided.
Or Spike Milligan's, even.
//... but i think tests should still be left free for people.//
Why, William? Why is there a need for people who are not ill to take a test for a specific disease?
//...and, if something isn't free it won't get used when it should be.//
When should it be, then? The idea that a testing regime will prevent the virus from spreading is fanciful. Just about everybody in the country will eventually be exposed to the virus. It is inevitable. There are hundreds of thousands of people roaming around with the virus. Most of them don't know they have it and many that do know don't care. I have been saying for about six months now that the only people who need to test for Covid are those displaying symptoms and who need medical treatment. The overwhelming majority of Covid "sufferers" do not need treatment and those who do need only be tested so that the appropriate treatment can be provided.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News3 mins ago
News4 mins ago
He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Home & Garden21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.