Generic Virus Thread

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Companies are greedy. The public is stupid. This is why it can be important to have a strong government who protects its people from themselves. Instead we've got a circus. The chief clown just wants to give people good news.

Do not trust the governments advice. It's legal to go to Primark, but stupid. It's legal to go to the beach, but it's really stupid, and it will be incredibly stupid to go to the pub.

The government's decided it's bored of the pandemic and we should just go to normality. They don't care about their decisions killing thousands more people. I think it's only sensible to put yourself and your family's health first and ignore what the government says.

The thing is if we keep a locdown for much longer the whole economy will collapse and people will lose their jobs. We have to try get back to normality and take stels to reduce the risk of a spread.  The only thing i would have kept is banning flights in and out the country same with cruises.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

This has not often been my disagreement with you over the last few years (!) but I think you're taking the 'right' and 'sensible' point and projecting it to be what Labour have argued in public, whereas it isn't really. If the best formulation - as I think we might agree? - is 'open them as soon as possible but no sooner', all of their emphasis has been on the words left of 'but', not the words right of it.

And all the pressure from 'Starmer allies' is to intensify that focus:

 

No no no no.

The unions and Labour have argued that they want them open, but, well, what I already posted, they are not ready to be open because of safety.

Quote

The National Education Union (NEU) wants schools to open more widely but only when it is safe to do so.  Your safety, that of your students, their families and society as a whole, must be our priority.

and

Quote

“The NASUWT wants to see schools open to all children as soon as it is safe to do so.

“However, we remain concerned that the Government continues to set arbitrary dates for the return of pupils to schools, without providing the necessary evidence that its plans will not undermine public health or the health and safety of children, young people and staff in schools.

To its credit, Labour has completely been in line with that. Totally.

Quote

Labour's shadow education secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey called on the government to "take heed of the tests set out today by trade unions and commit to not opening schools unless they have been met

The Telegraph reporting underlines this, because it’s talking about allegedly someone wanting a change from that position and message.  And to be fair, it will need to subtly change as we go along. As schools do open the message will need to obviously change from it’s not yet safe to open them.

Edited June 28, 2020 by blandy
added link

[HanoiVillan]

You're quoting what RLB was saying. As I said before, other labour frontbenchers - notably Rachel Reeves on the Sunday shows last weekend - were emphasising the opposite. RLB was out of step with the leadership. 

[chrisp65]

Does anyone remember 2 months ago when we were told Johnson had been so ill they were preparing to write the announcement of his death?

Fit as a butcher’s dog showing how he does press ups, in today’s Daily Mail.

Truly a remarkable leader.

 

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're quoting what RLB was saying. As I said before, other labour frontbenchers - notably Rachel Reeves on the Sunday shows last weekend - were emphasising the opposite. RLB was out of step with the leadership. 

Yes I am. She was their Education shadow Minister. I could have quoted Starmer too, but I felt the three quotes I provided emphasised what I'd hear Labour and the Unions say - that they wanted to schools open when it was safe, and that safety was the reason they had been closed (to most). 

Here's Reeves on Sky last week

Quote

"I would like to see more children return to school safely, but the truth is the government have failed in the commitments that they made to parents and to the country which was to return all primary school children to school safely before the summer holidays.

I find it strange really that you have detected a different message, or emphasis. I know the tories have tried to twist what Labour has said as "one week they say schools aren't safe, so don't send kids back, then the next week they say "send the kids back" - but surely you can see that this is twisting things to cop out of the blame for completely failing to get a grip of education and schools. Both the Law and Government's own policy requires that workplaces consult worker representatives on return to work measures and safe distancing and all the rest. The Unions have been involved as the law requires, and they've pointed out that safe distancing as per the Gov't rules is not possible with full classes in the same space as before (and loads more problems). Labour's completely backed the Union and the legal position, while pointing out the Gov't failings and urging that they sort it out. Starmer's letter to Johnson offered to co-operate and expressed the concerns regarding school closures -  I'm kind of confused that what the tories said has worked on you, (if it has, and it seems like it has). Perhaps it's not that, perhaps it's that there are 2 different factors - 1. closed schools means suffering kids and parents 2. Open schools means suffering kids and staff. The solution, the one the Unions and Labour have been pushing is "make schools safe, then send the kids back". I'm genuinely baffled by your take on it.

[Xela]

Leicester could be the first city to be locked down again

Every cloud...

[Genie]

40 minutes ago, Xela said:

Leicester could be the first city to be locked down again

Every cloud...

Our leaders are far too gutless to do it even if all the data suggests it’s the right thing. 

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Genie

[chrisp65]

I don’t think there’s a world of difference between the different nations, and I actually think that what Mark Drakeford said in this interview is quite close to the reality. That the message and the measures across the UK are not that different, but maybe there is a different tone to how messages are delivered.

 

Now, there’s every chance the next flair up could be Leicester, it could just as easily be Wrexham or Newport, it’s not a perfect system. But I think he’s on to something regarding plan and then announce, not announce and then plan. He’s done fairly well over the last 3 months.

Schools are back from the end of this month, albeit staggered days and all those other precautions, but I’ve heard no squabbling with unions over how and when they open. I presume they are the same unions?

The cafes and the car parks and chippies are open on the island, this was the scene about 30 minutes ago:

 

So what’s the difference? I guess one difference is ‘we’ still have the 5 mile limit for non-essential travel. So, I can still go to the office (but choose not to), the shops have reopened (bought shed paint in Wilko yesterday, no queue), tomorrow I’m off to the Midlands for work. All legit, but with more of a ‘don’t be a nob’ sort of vibe to the way the message is delivered.

But I would bet money that tomorrow when I do rock up on site in the east midlands, a 3 hour drive away, I’ll be the only one with gloves on, the only one with my own flask of coffee. 

I certainly don’t think ‘we’ have less morons and selfish pillocks than ‘you’, I think the distribution of shitty people is pretty universal. 

So what’s different?

It must be the message delivery and the examples being set?

 

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by chrisp65

[Stevo985]

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The thing is if we keep a locdown for much longer the whole economy will collapse and people will lose their jobs. We have to try get back to normality and take stels to reduce the risk of a spread.  The only thing i would have kept is banning flights in and out the country same with cruises.

But most of ships is outside

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It must be the message delivery and the examples being set?

Precisely

[blandy]

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The thing is if we keep a lockdown for much longer the whole economy will collapse and people will lose their jobs. We have to try get back to normality and take steps to reduce the risk of a spread.  The only thing i would have kept is banning flights in and out the country same with cruises.

It's an unfortunate fact that people have and will lose their jobs because of the virus and the way it's been dealt with. The same applies to lives. Obviously the sooner we can get back to a situation where people can safely work and so on, the better, for all sorts of reasons.

On the flights and cruises, wouldn't it be better to test people coming in on them, rather than ban them? I mean it seems like as most places have fewer cases than the UK, the likelihood of importing new infections is fairly low, compared to just internal spreading out of lockdown. Obviously the USA and Brazil would need additional measures for flight from there, but generally banning them completely seems like an emotional thing , rather than a logical thing? Test the people, isolate the ones with virus. Allow the travel workers to keep their jobs.

Also, we've eased lockdown while infection rates are still much higher  than other countries when they eased their lockdown and so the risk of a rebound in virus cases is also much higher here. Obviously we've done it because we made such a mess of lockdown (too late) PPE and testing and all the rest, that what you say is right - we've caused a much worse problem for jobs than we needed to. Same for health.

[mjmooney]

16 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Yeaaaah!! We won again! Ing-er-lund, Ing-er-lund, Ing-er-lund... 

[Genie]

17 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

and apparently we are in the process of agreeing which countries citizens are allowed to come to England  

 

[Xela]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I certainly don’t think ‘we’ have less morons and selfish pillocks than ‘you’, I think the distribution of shitty people is pretty universal. 

You'd be surprised. 

Bull Ring today - crowds due to a 'YouTuber' being there. Who on earth allowed this event to happen?! 

I genuinely think there seems to be far more selfish words removed in the Midlands and London than the whole of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland combined. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Xela

[Xann]

Description of the litter left on Clapham Common after a bit of a naughty Pride inspired gathering last night: bottles of Prosecco, tubs of houmous and avocados.

Shouldn't laugh, but 

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

It's an unfortunate fact that people have and will lose their jobs because of the virus and the way it's been dealt with. The same applies to lives. Obviously the sooner we can get back to a situation where people can safely work and so on, the better, for all sorts of reasons.

On the flights and cruises, wouldn't it be better to test people coming in on them, rather than ban them? I mean it seems like as most places have fewer cases than the UK, the likelihood of importing new infections is fairly low, compared to just internal spreading out of lockdown. Obviously the USA and Brazil would need additional measures for flight from there, but generally banning them completely seems like an emotional thing , rather than a logical thing? Test the people, isolate the ones with virus. Allow the travel workers to keep their jobs.

Also, we've eased lockdown while infection rates are still much higher  than other countries when they eased their lockdown and so the risk of a rebound in virus cases is also much higher here. Obviously we've done it because we made such a mess of lockdown (too late) PPE and testing and all the rest, that what you say is right - we've caused a much worse problem for jobs than we needed to. Same for health.

Ithat approach about testing them in arrival is good in theory but you need to be prepared for delays with this. Also a procedure needs to be put in place if they test positive what do you do with them then? Do you send them back or do you put them in accommodation for 2 weeks? Then you have the fact that some passengers/tourists might becoke very difficult.

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

But most of ships is outside

But wasnt that the biggest place that virus sprwad from what i read somewhere?

[chrisp65]

38 minutes ago, Xann said:

Description of the litter left on Clapham Common after a bit of a naughty Pride inspired gathering last night: bottles of Prosecco, tubs of houmous and avocados.

Shouldn't laugh, but 

‘Empty glitter packaging everywhere’ was one I had a good chuckle at this morning.

[KentVillan]

9 hours ago, blandy said:

No no no no.

The unions and Labour have argued that they want them open, but, well, what I already posted, they are not ready to be open because of safety.

and

To its credit, Labour has completely been in line with that. Totally.

The Telegraph reporting underlines this, because it’s talking about allegedly someone wanting a change from that position and message.  And to be fair, it will need to subtly change as we go along. As schools do open the message will need to obviously change from it’s not yet safe to open them.

But the reason I raised the point about Labour and schools was that I think the safety implications of reopening schools are tiny in proportion to the risks of prolonged school closure.

Bear in mind the risk of Covid-19 to school age children is minimal, and very few teachers are in high-risk categories. Only a tiny % of schoolchildren live with grandparents.

The obvious compromise solution would be to get older / medically vulnerable teachers to lead an online home schooling system, allow children in “vulnerable households” to use this, but get the vast majority of children back to school ASAP.

We are trashing these kids’ lives to score political points, and hiding behind an argument that doesn’t make any sense. Nobody considers schools to be a major vector or high risk location for Covid-19. Various countries have declared that school closures will not be part of future plans to control outbreaks.

[limpid]

23 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

But the reason I raised the point about Labour and schools was that I think the safety implications of reopening schools are tiny in proportion to the risks of prolonged school closure.

I think that you are wrong and will stick with the opinions of experts in the area. Especially the ones that advised that it wasn't safe for private schools to go back until September.