Generic Virus Thread

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, markavfc40 said:

I have come to the conclusion that is doesn't really matter what the Tories do half the public and three quarters of the media will turn a blind eye or simply spout whatever line the government puts out as an excuse. 

The same is happening in USA under Trump just on an even more ridiculous and dangerous level.

Pick your poison, theyre better than labour seems to be covering up a lot of misgivings 

Can't last forever, especially now corbyn has gone 

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

They really should have had a social media option

Glad to see Whitty as the most trusted individual. I keep saying he’s the only person in the daily updates who actually answered questions. He’s direct and concise and actually sounds like he’s telling the truth and not sugar coating anything. 

[StefanAVFC]

He is literally there though. Daft Dorries even confirms it.

 

The way to end the speculation is to publish the minutes and attendance, but they don't do it. They just spin and lie and blame the media. 

[markavfc40]

3 hours ago, Genie said:

They really should have had a social media option

I don't know how the hell Kier Starmer comes out this judged as less trust worthy than Johnson. Rabb and Hancock. Says it all really when those in power with the responsibility for making decisions are failing but are judged more favourably than those in opposition pointing out those failings in the hope of influencing better decision making going forward.

Edited April 25, 2020 by markavfc40

[HanoiVillan]

Any other leader would be 20 points ahead in the polls

[VILLAMARV]

12 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I have come to the conclusion that is doesn't really matter what the Tories do half the public and three quarters of the media will turn a blind eye or simply spout whatever line the government puts out as an excuse. 

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

He is literally there though. Daft Dorries even confirms it.

 

The way to end the speculation is to publish the minutes and attendance, but they don't do it. They just spin and lie and blame the media. 

I can't wait for that Russia report to be published, I'm sure its just around the corner, any day now...

[VILLAMARV]

14 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Police need to get the batons out. See if people want to give them clarifications on the situation then

Bit old school Vive, it's tasers now innit. 

Ho ho ... oh 

[Dodgyknees]

Media defends Tories and attack Labour with smears, Tories attack media when media finally report on government inaccuracies, Tories attack media.

This is why the chance of a Labour government is impossible. People stood by and let the media attack Labour, now the Tories are taking away the media power, and people believe Tories are the ones to trust.

People have been played. Fascism is winning.

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

They really should have had a social media option

I especially like how they think trust is a variable with continuous properties

 

[snowychap]

Meanwhile, in Wales:

Quote

Exercise restrictions are being tightened in Wales to cut down on unnecessary travel.

From Saturday, people must exercise "as close as possible" to home, according to the updated lockdown rules.

Cyclists are being told they should travel no farther than a "reasonable walking distance from home".

The new rules state people should not drive to exercise unless absolutely necessary.

...rest on link

And from the link within the article:

Quote

5. The starting point is that you must stay at home and you need an excuse to leave home – and that excuse must be a reasonable one.  The need for the excuse to be “reasonable” sets an objective standard to test whether you should leave home. It represents the difference between a subjective test, which is based solely on what any one particular person thinks, and an objective test, which is based on what other ordinary people in a similar positon to that person would think.

...more regs on link

 

[VILLAMARV]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Meanwhile, in Wales:

And from the link within the article:

 

Snowy, my legalese has never been great, but is this suggesting we this side of the border are now subject to the 'court of public opinion' ? 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Snowy, my legalese has never been great, but is this suggesting we this side of the border are now subject to the 'court of public opinion' ? 

Only in as much as we all are, if you're referring to what is considered 'reasonable'?

I think the reasonableness, legally, of all of our actions is judged by the views of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

You chaps over there, however, definitely have different (stricter) regulations, that's for sure.

Edited April 25, 2020 by snowychap

[mjmooney]

32 minutes ago, snowychap said:

you must stay at home and you need an excuse to leave home – and that excuse must be a reasonable one.  The need for the excuse to be “reasonable” sets an objective standard to test whether you should leave home. It represents the difference between a subjective test, which is based solely on what any one particular person thinks, and an objective test, which is based on what other ordinary people in a similar positon to that person would think.

Who are these "ordinary people"? And how do we know what "they would think"? Unless somebody is doing some fairly large sampling, it actually means "what the jobsworth deciding thinks that 'ordinary people' would think". Not on. 

[Villarocker]

I am not too sure why people are questioning why Dominic Cummings would be sat in on the SAGE meetings. I mean, last March, in his online blog, he questioned the work that was being undertaken in these testing labs and warned of a potential pandemic if those labs are not vetted more for safety and security. A year later and his country is in the middle of a pandemic. 

If I was Bojo and my main advisor was that clued up on potential viral threats I would want him sat in on those meetings too. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Villarocker

[Awol]

Watching people losing their s**t because the PM’s chief advisor actually attends meetings about what’s going on is hilarious. 
 

 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Who are these "ordinary people"? And how do we know what "they would think"?

As described above, it's the legal fiction of the man on the clapham omnibus (obviously quite outdated terminology) that represents, for the court, a legal standard of reasonableness.

The point, as indicated in the bit you quoted, is that it isn't a subjective test based upon any one particular person be that person the one leaving their home or any 'jobsworth'. There are obvious practiclity issues with the result being fixed penalty notices but the test of whether something is reasonable or not would, ultimately, be one for a court to make should it be necessary to get that far.

[snowychap]

WHO:

Quote

WHO has published guidance on adjusting public health and social measures for the next phase of the COVID-19 response.¹ Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate” that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

...

At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief.

...more

 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't know how the hell Kier Starmer comes out this judged as less trust worthy than Johnson. Rabb and Hancock. Says it all really when those in power with the responsibility for making decisions are failing but are judged more favourably than those in opposition pointing out those failings in the hope of influencing better decision making going forward.

There’s a deep irony to last week’s tour of BBC news programmes by Laura Kuenssberg with her repeated message that the government were doing a real hard job under completely uncharted circumstances and yes, there were obviously going to be mis steps, but overall the government were doing well. 

I heard her give versions of that little speech on Radio 4, on the lunchtime news and then on that late night covid podcast programme.

The result being, many people that watch the BBC no longer trust it. Those that do still trust have been told the government is doing a good job.

Hence, the graph.

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, Awol said:

Watching people losing their s**t because the PM’s chief advisor actually attends meetings about what’s going on is hilarious. 
 

 

No, I don't agree with this. Surely the aim of a scientific advisory body is to decide on scientific advice, rather than trimming that advice to please politicians. Politicians can decide what to do or not to do with the advice they are given, but if they are going to go around saying they were 'guided by the science', then it is obviously a concern if scientists only felt able to give the politicians the advice they wanted to hear.