Jump to content

terrytini

Established Members
  • Content Count

    8,177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

terrytini last won the day on March 14

terrytini had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,502 Excellent

About terrytini

  • Rank
    Star Player
  • Birthday 21/09/1961

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bewdley

Recent Profile Visitors

2,940 profile views
  1. “Red States” experiencing a significant upturn in cases. Already. Salutary lesson to all rational people.
  2. Yup. In all respects, Premier League or anything else, it all boils down to the severity of the disease. None of us know for certain how bad it will be, but it is how bad it will be that will define everything else. Or to put it another way, at one end of the scale we have events that barely affect life. Far across at the other extreme we have existential threats. It would be just as daft to suggest football ( or anything else) would carry on under the latter as it would to suggest it should stop for the former. So the reality is just a question of where we are on that scale, and the debate is a function of where we as individuals think we are or might be on that scale. So, yes, if things are bad enough ( whatever that looks like) it will impact accordingly.
  3. It doesn’t make a scrap of difference whether Clubs will go bankrupt. Just like it doesn’t make a scrap of difference if the Pub, or the Cinema, or the Builders Merchant go bankrupt. If the illness is severe enough, that’s what will happen. If it isn’t severe enough, it won’t.
  4. There are alternatives. And if those alternatives aren’t welcome, ( politically or ideologically )increased taxation done properly shouldn’t require the destruction of our infrastructure or of people’s livelihoods.
  5. I think the debate on how it is all paid for will be as fundamental as any other part of this crisis, so I’d expect it’s inevitable this thread will include arguments about it. When that happens I will join in ! But for the present I think it’s safe to say there’s plenty of money, and plenty of alternative credible economic theory, around. Not the least of which is known ( somewhat oddly, as it’s not new) ‘modern monetary theory’. Whether we see the political or ideological will is another question. It’s usually easier to convince ordinary people to stump up.
  6. It’s very affordable. I could say more. Indeed, I thought I did.
  7. This, this, and more this. Without it, everything else is irrelevant.
  8. Interesting in many ways, and unsurprisingly disturbing. Good to see an effort has been made to shine a spotlight on the Area. Oddly the Report is written as if all Care is in Private Ownership, whereas many Care Homes are Council run, and aren’t mentioned. In those cases of course, staff absent through illness would be on full pay. Its also interesting how mild many of the criticisms and observations from staff members are. I have heard much worse. Now, is that because staff are reluctant to speak out formally, or some other reason. In any event i5 makes the issue seem less serious than it is ( whilst it does indeed show it is serious). There is little by way of direct criticism of Senior Management ( which in the case of Local Authorities has been astonishingly negligent) and CQC get off lightly in respect of their decision to cease Inspections. Not the smallest consequence of this is that Homes are now not meeting the Minimum Staff Numbers requirements, particularly overnight. Should an accident or other tragedy occur there are Homes with nowhere near enough staff to help the Residents..regardless of Co-vid there is enormous suffering due to lack of numbers. In short, I said weeks ago that my advice to anyone with a person they care about in a Home, would be if at all possible get them out. Whilst I am aware of a couple of Homes where there seem to have been no cases, for the most part I would still say the same.
  9. So, 45 days and 152 pages later, anything changed yet ?
  10. I think you are in for the shock of your life. We’ve have barely got started, in my view. Though I do agree it is opinions only at this stage, anyone who says they know is fooling themselves.
  11. I would add that I saw somewhere reference to a study of mice which showed repeated low doses could be just as infectious as a single high dose. This would obviously call into question some of the assumptions in the article over page.
  12. @HanoiVillan - have you found anything that factually describes the ‘viral load’ parameters ? For people to advise on the distance/time equation they must have more detailed knowledge of this than Ive seen anywhere. The implication is you can get a certain amount of virus and it not make you sick. Perhaps that accounts for the asymptomatic people ? This in turn raises the possibility that a limited amount of exposure could - could - if it still initiated the creation of antibodies, create a possibility that such cases might get immunity ( with all the caveats about that). A related issue would be the question of getting repeated amounts of virus at different times. In each case too little to cause illness. How many times, and/or over what time period could this be repeated ? Many other questions are raised by this, but I’ve found little research.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â