| Absolute farce 06:32 - Sep 16 with 10504 views | homer_123 |
1,000 fans at football matches.
This Gov have lost the plot. |  |
| |  |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 with 2816 views | Pinewoodblue |
10% of ground capacity, as a starting figure, would make more sense. Assume the figure of 1,000 is based on scientific evidence. |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 with 2824 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Absolute farce on 08:20 - Sep 16 by homer_123 |
No Joe, not a decent start - it shouldn't be happening at all. [Post edited 16 Sep 2020 8:22]
|
We can’t all live our lives hiding away forever. At some point, normality has to return.
On a separate note, I saw an interesting statistic yesterday that of the 40,000 deaths, only 307 of them were under 60 and without a prior health condition. I feel like that’s probably a good fact to know for anyone living in fear of Coronavirus. |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 with 2817 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Absolute farce on 08:26 - Sep 16 by Herbivore |
It's completely irresponsible. They simply ignore anything bad - rising case numbers, no tests in many parts of the country, schools already facing issues - and just plough on regardless as though we're still getting low case numbers each day and can afford to ease off a bit more. We're heading for a second national lockdown at this rate and everything they government is doing will speed that up rather than prevent it. Bunch of clowns. No wonder they are desperate to get people worked up over Brexit again. |
"We're heading for a second national lockdown at this rate and everything the government is doing will speed that up rather than prevent it"
Bingo! This is exactly what they want, it's not by accident. [Post edited 16 Sep 2020 9:31]
|  | | |
| Absolute farce on 09:32 - Sep 16 with 2812 views | homer_123 |
| Absolute farce on 09:12 - Sep 16 by SomethingBlue |
Football-wise there also needs to be a balancing of the risk of catching Covid in an outdoors setting (bearing in mind too that the most susceptible to serious illness will still mainly stay at home) vs the damage to thousands of livelihoods, and the attendant financial/serious health issues that would arise, when clubs go under which is what will happen. The wider impact on communities too. Covid is no joke but nor is this. |
Fully appreciate there is no easy answer but I refer you again to my points. It's as much about how people travel to a match (will people change their behaviour and not go to the pub for example before/ after?) and how the match is supported by services.
Yes, the risk of catching Covid outside is clearly going to be less than indoor, no question - and we do need the economy to get moving, again, not arguing those points.
But, surely, even outside, mass gatherings of 1,000 people (given that many won't socially distance) is still an significant increase in the risk of spreading Covid. It matters not that those that are a high risk stay at home - people can be carriers etc etc
No easy answers but, for me, the fact the Gov has given the go ahead under the current situation (which will only get worse) is irresponsible. | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:33 - Sep 16 with 2806 views | DanTheMan |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 by Harry_Palmer |
"We're heading for a second national lockdown at this rate and everything the government is doing will speed that up rather than prevent it"
Bingo! This is exactly what they want, it's not by accident. [Post edited 16 Sep 2020 9:31]
|
I'll probably regret asking this, but why would anyone want that? |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:33 - Sep 16 with 2808 views | homer_123 |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 by The_Romford_Blue |
We can’t all live our lives hiding away forever. At some point, normality has to return.
On a separate note, I saw an interesting statistic yesterday that of the 40,000 deaths, only 307 of them were under 60 and without a prior health condition. I feel like that’s probably a good fact to know for anyone living in fear of Coronavirus. |
'normality has to return'
Does it? Maybe, just maybe - we might have to change what we do and how we do it. Just a thought. | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:34 - Sep 16 with 2805 views | Herbivore |
| Absolute farce on 09:22 - Sep 16 by Swansea_Blue |
Absolutely agree with this. Do we want to actually get a grip on this virus so we can return to normal asap or not? |
I think we know the answer to that one. It's been a compere fudge throughout and since coming out of the tighter measures the messaging has been all over the place, so much contradiction and so many U-turns. We never really got cases low enough to be able to effectively test, track, and trace, and we've never had a test, track, and trace system effective enough to keep a lid on the virus when we reopen. Totally farcical. I can't understand why they are ploughing on with reopening everything as though the virus is under control when cases are surging and we've got no testing capacity. |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:35 - Sep 16 with 2795 views | Herbivore |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 by Harry_Palmer |
"We're heading for a second national lockdown at this rate and everything the government is doing will speed that up rather than prevent it"
Bingo! This is exactly what they want, it's not by accident. [Post edited 16 Sep 2020 9:31]
|
Why would they want it, given how ruinous it is for the economy? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Absolute farce on 09:36 - Sep 16 with 2790 views | gordon |
| Absolute farce on 09:22 - Sep 16 by Swansea_Blue |
Absolutely agree with this. Do we want to actually get a grip on this virus so we can return to normal asap or not? |
Yes, the best way to think about it (from Adam Kucharski) is that to keep the virus under control there's a threshold of spread beyond which we shouldn't cross, and a budget of different parts of society that can be open to keep us within that threshold. To prioritise within that budget, we have to have a hierarchy of how important we think parts of society are.
It doesn't necessarily matter whether something that is more risky is open, and something less risky is closed, as long as we're within our transmission budget - whether we are prioritising effectively within that budget is another question - no-one from the government has explained it like this because their hierarchy of importance has nothing to do with societal welfare, and is determined basically by the cabinet's own connections and interests in different industries/activities etc. (like horse racing, grouse shooting etc.). |  | | |
| Absolute farce on 09:36 - Sep 16 with 2791 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Absolute farce on 09:33 - Sep 16 by homer_123 |
'normality has to return'
Does it? Maybe, just maybe - we might have to change what we do and how we do it. Just a thought. |
So we just spend the next 50 years of our lives like this?
- Nightclubs shut
- Sports venues without crowds
- Universities teaching predominantly online
- Schools giving entire years weeks off to isolate if one case is found
This can not possibly be the way to go on much longer surely. It’s not viable for the economy or, and much more importantly, the mental health of the nation. | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:37 - Sep 16 with 2789 views | Herbivore |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 by The_Romford_Blue |
We can’t all live our lives hiding away forever. At some point, normality has to return.
On a separate note, I saw an interesting statistic yesterday that of the 40,000 deaths, only 307 of them were under 60 and without a prior health condition. I feel like that’s probably a good fact to know for anyone living in fear of Coronavirus. |
If you let the virus transmit freely through society then it ends up affecting a lot of people over 60 and a lot of people with underlying health issues. That may not bother you on paper, but when it's someone in your family that ends up in intensive care or worse you might then question why we didn't take measures to stop the virus spreading. | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:42 - Sep 16 with 2780 views | homer_123 |
| Absolute farce on 09:36 - Sep 16 by The_Romford_Blue |
So we just spend the next 50 years of our lives like this?
- Nightclubs shut
- Sports venues without crowds
- Universities teaching predominantly online
- Schools giving entire years weeks off to isolate if one case is found
This can not possibly be the way to go on much longer surely. It’s not viable for the economy or, and much more importantly, the mental health of the nation. |
What is the alternative though Rommy?
If we can't get a grip on it - we have to do things differently. Be madness not to. Unless you advocate carrying on regardless. [Post edited 16 Sep 2020 9:43]
| |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:42 - Sep 16 with 2772 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Absolute farce on 09:35 - Sep 16 by Herbivore |
Why would they want it, given how ruinous it is for the economy? |
Because they care more about exercising their new authoritarian powers than they do about the economy, in my humble opinion.
Do their actions in 2020 suggest they truly care about peoples livelihoods, small to medium businesses etc.? A few token gestures like 'eat out to help out' might give the perception that they care but I don't genuinely believe they do. | | | |
| Absolute farce on 09:44 - Sep 16 with 2768 views | Herbivore |
| Absolute farce on 09:42 - Sep 16 by Harry_Palmer |
Because they care more about exercising their new authoritarian powers than they do about the economy, in my humble opinion.
Do their actions in 2020 suggest they truly care about peoples livelihoods, small to medium businesses etc.? A few token gestures like 'eat out to help out' might give the perception that they care but I don't genuinely believe they do. |
Think you're reaching here. I agree they don't really care about people, they are Tories after all, but their approach acks of rank incompetence more than anything else. What tangible benefit do they get from a second lockdown? | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:48 - Sep 16 with 2756 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Absolute farce on 09:33 - Sep 16 by DanTheMan |
I'll probably regret asking this, but why would anyone want that? |
Most people wouldn't, the Government on the other hand are not most people. You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking the Government give a flying fcuk about the vast majority of the population, when all the evidence suggests otherwise. They have a great opportunity here to grab more power and control of the population, don't think for a minute they wont try and take it. | | | |
| Absolute farce on 09:49 - Sep 16 with 2752 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Absolute farce on 09:44 - Sep 16 by Herbivore |
Think you're reaching here. I agree they don't really care about people, they are Tories after all, but their approach acks of rank incompetence more than anything else. What tangible benefit do they get from a second lockdown? |
See my response to Dan, more power/control. | | | |
| Absolute farce on 09:50 - Sep 16 with 2754 views | gordon |
| Absolute farce on 09:36 - Sep 16 by The_Romford_Blue |
So we just spend the next 50 years of our lives like this?
- Nightclubs shut
- Sports venues without crowds
- Universities teaching predominantly online
- Schools giving entire years weeks off to isolate if one case is found
This can not possibly be the way to go on much longer surely. It’s not viable for the economy or, and much more importantly, the mental health of the nation. |
The alternative was to have competent people in charge, and amongst other things, a functioning effective test and trace system. Instead we've got Bozza and Project Moondance. | | | |
| Absolute farce on 09:54 - Sep 16 with 2745 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Absolute farce on 07:55 - Sep 16 by itfcjoe |
A decent start, but needs to ramp up quickly bearing in mind non league games are having capacities of 600 already |
Agreed. |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:57 - Sep 16 with 2743 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Absolute farce on 08:39 - Sep 16 by homer_123 |
Joe - two observations, you might be socially distancing but it is patently clear others are not. There is strong evidence to suggest that the relaxation on restrictions is have a direct impact on Covid cases and what may potentially follow.
For example, the Govs eat out scheme is looking increasingly like a major cause of the current spike (along with other relaxations) - certainly the opening of schools and the return to work will also have a major impact as well.
Given the utter lack of testing at the moment, why on earth is it a good idea to open things up even more? |
There's no evidence to support your theory on eat out to help out. | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:57 - Sep 16 with 2741 views | jayessess |
| Absolute farce on 09:48 - Sep 16 by Harry_Palmer |
Most people wouldn't, the Government on the other hand are not most people. You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking the Government give a flying fcuk about the vast majority of the population, when all the evidence suggests otherwise. They have a great opportunity here to grab more power and control of the population, don't think for a minute they wont try and take it. |
Our Government is mainly motivated by their mates (commercial landlords, big outsourcing firms, property developers mainly) making money, not by controlling how many people can gather in your garden. |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 09:59 - Sep 16 with 2739 views | EastTownBlue |
| Absolute farce on 09:28 - Sep 16 by The_Romford_Blue |
We can’t all live our lives hiding away forever. At some point, normality has to return.
On a separate note, I saw an interesting statistic yesterday that of the 40,000 deaths, only 307 of them were under 60 and without a prior health condition. I feel like that’s probably a good fact to know for anyone living in fear of Coronavirus. |
Being under 60 death from Covid doesn't conern me but what we are hearing about "long covid" with implications such as lung damage does concern me. I don't know the stats (if there are any) behind this. |  | | |
| Absolute farce on 10:00 - Sep 16 with 2735 views | giant_stow |
| Absolute farce on 09:49 - Sep 16 by Harry_Palmer |
See my response to Dan, more power/control. |
I see what you're saying, but controlling everyone by harsh lockdown measures stops them and their mates making more money, so not sure it adds up. |  |
| |
| Absolute farce on 10:01 - Sep 16 with 2736 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Absolute farce on 09:36 - Sep 16 by The_Romford_Blue |
So we just spend the next 50 years of our lives like this?
- Nightclubs shut
- Sports venues without crowds
- Universities teaching predominantly online
- Schools giving entire years weeks off to isolate if one case is found
This can not possibly be the way to go on much longer surely. It’s not viable for the economy or, and much more importantly, the mental health of the nation. |
Agreed, it's all a balance, Covid risks have to be balanced against the risk of;
People losing jobs
People losing businesses
People losing their family homes
People losing their mental health
People losing their lives due to a combination of the above | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 10:03 - Sep 16 with 2730 views | DanTheMan |
| Absolute farce on 09:48 - Sep 16 by Harry_Palmer |
Most people wouldn't, the Government on the other hand are not most people. You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking the Government give a flying fcuk about the vast majority of the population, when all the evidence suggests otherwise. They have a great opportunity here to grab more power and control of the population, don't think for a minute they wont try and take it. |
But they've already got the powers.
Exercising another lockdown just because they can doesn't make any sense, they have nothing to actually gain by using it. I certainly don't think the government is cuddly, but I also think there would need to be some benefit to them directly for doing it. A national lockdown is more likely to anger people at this point. | |
| |
| Absolute farce on 10:08 - Sep 16 with 2722 views | jayessess |
| Absolute farce on 10:01 - Sep 16 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Agreed, it's all a balance, Covid risks have to be balanced against the risk of;
People losing jobs
People losing businesses
People losing their family homes
People losing their mental health
People losing their lives due to a combination of the above |
Much of the current evidence suggests that the better a country does in controlling Covid-19, the less economic damage the country suffers. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
