OV9

unzippy wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 11:34 pm Must have got carried away with my zeros!

I would imagine some of that massive figure will be got back due to it not doing its job and the advisers not doing theirs.

duncs500 wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:12 am Might as well carry on my reputation as advocate for pubs: can anyone tell me why this time they are not allowed to sell take away alcohol unlike last lockdown?

seems like they've gone back on this one. At least that gives the pubs some opportunity to sell all the excess that would have been throw away.

Was sent this today

Yes, Yeadon has been making some interesting points. Will be glad if he's right re no evidence for true second waves, etc. and really what we're seeing now is a ripple - an after echo.

His critique of Vallance is bombshell stuff really - if the 93% at risk is actually 30-40% as he claims then you can forget net/gross figures on the side of buses - that is the biggest lie made in recent times and it has directly informed public policy on lockdowns. Niall Ferguson is most likely an idiot plucking random numbers out the air but Vallance is deliberately misleading us.

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:43 pm Yes, Yeadon has been making some interesting points. Will be glad if he's right re no evidence for true second waves, etc. and really what we're seeing now is a ripple - an after echo.

I'll watch the vid tomorrow but I've seen quite a few people now making the point that the current uptick is just the typical winter curve, and its not even as strong as 2018 was, in terms of deaths (so far, obvs). Pandemics never* come back stronger than the first wave, its virtually unheard of. The numbers the Gov are scaremongering are pure fear mongering guesswork and not even accurate guesses at that. We never had the second wave they promised (this isn't it, altho they will call it that). We're being lied to about a lot of things in this, from lockdown effectiveness, masks, and hospital ICU bed occupancies (again, seasonal numbers increase every year around this time and NHS has been run down so it runs at near peak capacity during these times - with capacity for some more if needed, albeit not pandemic scales).

*Spanish flu epidemic is the only one that came back badly IIRC, and that was far more serious than this pandemic.

It makes for interesting watching (or reading if you read his Fail article from a couple of days ago). Every time someone has said to me about antibodies disappearing and re-infection I always note that you can count on one hand the number of reported instances, we would have seen way more by now if it was happening.

The question I have is why? What is the benefit of misleading us or going into an unnecessary lockdown? I can't see many upsides for the government.

What Duncs said. While I think that the pandemic response has been wholly mishandled. I put it down to gross incompetence and basic greed rather than some big conspiracy.

Honestly I think the media has whipped up such a frenzy that it was impossible for the civilised world not to lockdown, they would be accused of wantonly letting people die from this new disease.

I feel the pendulum has swung so much now that it has to stop, there is a mental health crisis, an impending unemployment and bankruptcy disaster, GDP forecast to be down more than anywhere else on the planet.

History is not going to look kindly on the response.

When all this started I looked at how many people pass away every day in the UK, it’s a big number, and sadly death is a fact of life, we have to learn to live with this and get back to some kind of normality, the UK is bankrupting itself, never mind the effect on future generations wealth and mental health.

All of that

Yep - agree with the above. Not just the media though - it covers everyone seeking to make political capital by clamouring for more restrictions - from Drakeford and Sturgeon to Starmer. They have to take their share of responsibility too.

I’m afraid we’ve reached a point in our society where no-one can execute anything that has only long-term benefit. Everyone is judged solely on the here-and-now (which is immediate in our current world) and if that isn’t looking good you get ripped a new one - outrage - petition - you’re out of a job. Politicians. Business Leaders. Scientists. Everyone.

A lot of correctness in this thread today.

mik wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:02 am I’m afraid we’ve reached a point in our society where no-one can execute anything that has only long-term benefit. Everyone is judged solely on the here-and-now (which is immediate in our current world) and if that isn’t looking good you get ripped a new one - outrage - petition - you’re out of a job. Politicians. Business Leaders. Scientists. Everyone.

The problem from my pov is that everything is so extremely polarised. The only two options are no restrictions so we don't hurt the economy and however many casualties there are it's worth it or complete lockdown. Worse is that we're currently bouncing between the two.

You can really tell that the government are caught between their donors and media perception.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:25 am

mik wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:02 am I’m afraid we’ve reached a point in our society where no-one can execute anything that has only long-term benefit. Everyone is judged solely on the here-and-now (which is immediate in our current world) and if that isn’t looking good you get ripped a new one - outrage - petition - you’re out of a job. Politicians. Business Leaders. Scientists. Everyone.

The problem from my pov is that everything is so extremely polarised. The only two options are no restrictions so we don't hurt the economy and however many casualties there are it's worth it or complete lockdown. Worse is that we're currently bouncing between the two.

You can really tell that the government are caught between their donors and media perception.

Even by your standards that's incredibly cynical. Caught between lives and livelihoods more like.

And responding to some of the points above - it isn't like any ordinary virus is it? It isn't just taking out old folks. It's taking out people that would otherwise lead perfectly full lives. That is what separates it and why we cannot simply adopt a "fvck 'em" mentality. The difficult act, as Zed says, is balancing the two and there are many countries struggling to get that balance right.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:31 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:25 am

mik wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:02 am I’m afraid we’ve reached a point in our society where no-one can execute anything that has only long-term benefit. Everyone is judged solely on the here-and-now (which is immediate in our current world) and if that isn’t looking good you get ripped a new one - outrage - petition - you’re out of a job. Politicians. Business Leaders. Scientists. Everyone.

The problem from my pov is that everything is so extremely polarised. The only two options are no restrictions so we don't hurt the economy and however many casualties there are it's worth it or complete lockdown. Worse is that we're currently bouncing between the two.

You can really tell that the government are caught between their donors and media perception.

Even by your standards that's incredibly cynical. Caught between lives and livelihoods more like.

That's fair, I have a lot of trouble believing that Boris and his cabinet care about anything outside of their little bubble. I'd love to be proven wrong.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:36 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:31 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:25 am

The problem from my pov is that everything is so extremely polarised. The only two options are no restrictions so we don't hurt the economy and however many casualties there are it's worth it or complete lockdown. Worse is that we're currently bouncing between the two.

You can really tell that the government are caught between their donors and media perception.

Even by your standards that's incredibly cynical. Caught between lives and livelihoods more like.

That's fair, I have a lot of trouble believing that Boris and his cabinet care about anything outside of their little bubble. I'd love to be proven wrong.

And to add, I'm not suggesting they're not guilty of lining the pockets of others in all of this - that very evidently seems to be happening. But that's effect and the lives/livelihoods is cause.

If they are on about extending furlough until March does that suggest we will be locked in until then too?

Broccers wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 12:01 pm If they are on about extending furlough until March does that suggest we will be locked in until then too?

Nah, the scheme ran longer than the last lockdown didn't it?

@Broccers. I would agreed it implies an extension, yes.

I think they're expecting infections to gradually keep rising and they'll extend either by way of rolling forward the 2 December date or with ad hoc future lockdowns - that's what Vallance, Whitty and SAGE are telling them. I would think they are extending furlough through to March not necessarily expecting full lockdown to then but to give employers certainty so they don't lay off a load of employees right before Christmas and the bad publicity that generates...

Obviously, Mike Yeadon may be right - there is no true exponential second wave and this passes quickly. The danger there is that people attribute this to the lockdown instead of the fact the science was wrong. As per the first lockdown - the tide was turning by the time we were fully locked down and subsequent events such as BLM protests, etc. showed no material effect on the shape of the curve (no spikes, no dips).

and they just did away with the 1000 pounds per employee they promised to keep people on until January.