Covidiots in Parliament -

[Observer II]

Seems we have an anti-lockdown group in the Tory PP; who are now threatening to challenge BoJo's leadership, if the lockdown continues beyond the Spring.  Whilst I'll criticise BJ for his prevarication and dither;  the idea that politics can finesse the course of this pandemic is like telling Canute to command the tide.   Likewise, we've now got a swathe of over 50s booking their Summer holidays abroad, as if the vaccine will magically kill off the virus, whilst mobs of youngster have snowball   fights in our parks.      😠  😷

[asperity]

Oh yes Obs, because lockdowns have been so successful at getting rid of the virus haven't they 🙄.

[Observer II]

Lockdowns have reduced the "r" factor,  only to be undermined by premature opening up of restrictions, and the antics of covidiots.     😷

[Bill]

Do I detect a just a hint of sarcasm there Asp? Can you imagine where the numbers might be if there was no action taken? You only have to look at countries like the USA and Mexico where their leaders were sceptical about masks and lockdowns to see the effect it’s had on their countries. While at the same time, those with stricter lockdown policies have some of the lowest infection and death rates and have already been able to start relaxing the restrictions.

 

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

Who said "Take no action" Bill? The argument is that we should protect the vulnerable (tending to be the over 70s and people with medical conditions making them vulnerable) while allowing the rest of the population to live as normally as possible but taking precautions such as hygeine and social distancing. Three of the top five places for catching the virus are - in the home, in hospital and in care homes, should we close all these down immediately and all live outside? Have you any proof of your assertion that countries with the strictest lockdown policies have the lowest death rates, or could the reasons behind those low rates be other factors? It seems obvious to me that if the lockdowns we have had in this country had been effective Boris, Hancock and their cheerleaders would have been shouting it from the rooftops. Meanwhile again anyone who dares to stray from the official line is called a covidiot or lockdown denier or a new one I heard this morning "Member of the anti-lockdown community", never mind how highly qualified they may be in medicine, virology or pathology.

[Observer II]

The vast majority of "experts" were begging for a lockdown, and a draconian one at that; they'd warned the PM about the stupidity of an Xmas break and now we see the results.   The under 70s aren't immune to this disease, nor are they at no risk of death or long term illness; what they do do, is carry the virus around the community enabling it to enter the home. the hospitals and the care homes; they become vectors of the disease, just like the school kids.   We're actually in a softer lockdown than last March, with more folk going to work, even though some employers are unable to make their premises covid compliant.    Half baked responses will just keep this thing going on and on - time to get real.     😷

[asperity]

"The vast majority of experts" Obs? Some evidence would be helpful, unless it's just The "experts have spoken so shut up" rhetoric.

[Confused52]

2 minutes ago, Observer II said:

, nor are they at no risk of death or long term illness; what they do do, is carry the virus around the community enabling it to enter the home. the hospitals and the care homes; they become vectors of the disease, just like the school kids.   

Absolutely correct on that bit Obs. Those who suggest just protect the elderly are fantasists who think the people in hospital and care homes can exist without carers, nurses, doctors cooks and cleaners. They are, as you say, people with families, acting as vectors. Despite the precautions and Lateral Flow Tests clusters in Care Homes and nosocomial infections are continuing right now.

 

 

 

[Davy51]

Obs, i think a lot of the people you talk about booking holidays abroad are the people who have had to rebook cancelled holidays from this year because vouchers were offered instead of refunds. We are in that boat to the tune of 3 holidays that were booked in 2019 for 2020 & we expect not get the holidays this year either.

[asperity]

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

Absolutely correct on that bit Obs. Those who suggest just protect the elderly are fantasists who think the people in hospital and care homes can exist without carers, nurses, doctors cooks and cleaners. They are, as you say, people with families, acting as vectors. Despite the precautions and Lateral Flow Tests clusters in Care Homes and nosocomial infections are continuing right now.

 

 

 

I would say they are realists rather than fantasists Con. The point is that people working in hospitals and care homes are aware that they need to be more careful about avoiding the risks of catching the virus because of the vulnerability of the people in their care and the fact that they can't survive without doctors, nurses and care staff. Otherwise what else can you suggest - lock them in and leave them to sink or swim?

[Bill]

Quote

Who said "Take no action" Bill? 

Nobody I can think of. Who do you think said it?

What I did say and what I was referring to was that all the figures we have now are the result of lockdowns, and nobody really knows what these numbers would have been if the measures were not in place, but it’s a fair bet that they’d be at nightmare levels if we’d have done nothing.

These measures were the bare minimum predicted to be necessary to prevent the health services from failing. Looking at it now, it’s hard to believe it’s working, but just imagine how bad it’d be if nothing had been done. Of course, it could have been done differently, but when every single plus has a minus attached, it can only be classed as a no-win compromise that people will always criticize.

I get your argument about just getting on with things as normal but taking care and I’d agree if I thought for one moment that everyone was sensible. And as for providing proof that tougher measures are effective in other parts of the world, is there any point in me even trying to do that?

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

Well you did Bill- Quote: "Can you imagine where the numbers might be if there was no action taken?"

Nobody knows what would have happened, but an International study just released has come to the conclusion that lockdowns are counter-productive. So the only conclusion I can come to is that Captain Hindsight is right in saying that the government has made a pigs ear of the whole thing, but wrong in saying we need bigger and more lockdowns.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to return to my theory that so called "covidiots" are all going to get the virus (and they must be the ones cluttering up the hospitals because if they had obeyed the rules they wouldn't have caught it surely?) The rest of us non-covidiots (covidiot deniers?) are going to be fine and dandy because we are obeying the rules. Well I am, I don't know about the rest of you 😉

[Confused52]

29 minutes ago, asperity said:

I would say they are realists rather than fantasists Con. The point is that people working in hospitals and care homes are aware that they need to be more careful about avoiding the risks of catching the virus because of the vulnerability of the people in their care and the fact that they can't survive without doctors, nurses and care staff. Otherwise what else can you suggest - lock them in and leave them to sink or swim?

So you think that those who live with families including outgoing children are just as capable of avoiding the virus as an older person living on his own do you. I contend that is incorrect and the evidence about incidence and household size backs me up. Professional carers are mostly people with families. 

[asperity]

2 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

So you think that those who live with families including outgoing children are just as capable of avoiding the virus as an older person living on his own do you. I contend that is incorrect and the evidence about incidence and household size backs me up. Professional carers are mostly people with families. 

That isn't what I'm saying. It isn't fantasy to realise that people working in hospitals and care homes are just as capable of catching the virus as everyone else, but at the same time these same people are more aware of the risks than the ordinary man in the street and how to avoid infection. Otherwise we may as well throw our hands in the air and say "Okay Mr Covid, you win, do your worst". Or do you have a magic solution other than labelling people as "fantasists"?

[Confused52]

20 minutes ago, asperity said:

That isn't what I'm saying. It isn't fantasy to realise that people working in hospitals and care homes are just as capable of catching the virus as everyone else, but at the same time these same people are more aware of the risks than the ordinary man in the street and how to avoid infection. Otherwise we may as well throw our hands in the air and say "Okay Mr Covid, you win, do your worst". Or do you have a magic solution other than labelling people as "fantasists"?

You are obsessed with labels. We all use words, I said "Those who suggest just protect the elderly are fantasists" because such people are just believing in a fairy tale world that doesn't exist. You are just objecting to using a word that encapsulates that. You are implying that my solution is to call people fantasists. You clearly haven't read what I said. No there isn't a magic solution until we are all vaccinated, before that we need social distancing; this isn't lockdown and you know it.

[Bill]

I think I’ll just have to give up on trying to debate with you on this particular subject Asp because it’s getting all a bit too silly. I’m quite happy to chat about other subjects but please, just take a bit more time to read what’s said and understand the context before replying and I think we can get along a whole lot better.

 

Bill 😊

[asperity]

Con and Bill it's quite obvious to me that neither of you have read or understood a word that I've written. So on that note I will leave this topic for you to churn over without me.