| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent 13:39 - Oct 31 with 1605 views | homer_123 |
restrictions beyond what we already have? |  |
| |  |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:27 - Oct 31 with 290 views | factual_blue |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 13:45 - Oct 31 by gainsboroughblue |
Restrictions are only as good as the people expected to follow them. Only the other day, I was in a shop where a man reached across me (no face covering) to grab a pint of milk off the shelf. He then went to pay the owner (no face covering) before leaving. This, despite a sign on the door saying 'No face covering, no entry'. Suffice to say, I put everything i intended to buy back and relocated to somewhere that are taking things seriously and working to protect people. |
You should have got it all rung through the till first. |  |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:28 - Oct 31 with 288 views | pointofblue |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:24 - Oct 31 by Ely_Blue |
I think that the areas that are under stricter restrictions or those areas should have more restricted travel movements, I think that is one thing that the government have missed an opportunity on, the Irish and French have done it - surely if the virus doesn’t get out then it slows down?
I do question why areas with low infection rates should be “punished” (and I know that’s the wrong word to use probably) by the more highly/densely populated regions with high infection rates.
I’d love to know how an area such as East Cambs which has a rates of 39 cases per 100k (UK average is 149 per 100k) should have the same restrictions as say Nottingham with 11 times that rate?
That would be my only gripe about tougher restrictions |
The argument is every area will hit Tier Three eventually just a different times; a national lockdown will at least bring case numbers down everywhere. [Post edited 31 Oct 2020 14:28]
|  |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:32 - Oct 31 with 279 views | Churchman |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 13:48 - Oct 31 by homer_123 |
Agreed.
I'd say though the Govs response to this both in terms of communication but also how they personally have handled this (Cummings et al) have directly affected how the public approach this.
I'm not surprised people are behaving the way they are, sadly.
I thought we were better than this...clearly we are not. |
Agree with this totally. Fatty’s credibility is zero after making such a pigs ear of everything other than lining the pockets of his Serco mates and the criminals, the Cummings debacle and many people are doing just what they want. Add in zero enforcement (try doing what you like in Greece for example and you will be stopped) and this is where we are.
Tubbs should declare a government of national unity across the UK, with a promise of an election next autumn, to try and get some grip, cohesion and consensus in what they are doing. Won’t happen, of course. |  | | |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:35 - Oct 31 with 276 views | The_Major |
The people who are getting my goat the most are those who use words like "tyranny" in regards to any restrictions that have come into place - as if wearing a mask to pop in into the newsagents on Meredith Road is akin to living in Vichy France. |  | | |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:40 - Oct 31 with 260 views | homer_123 |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:24 - Oct 31 by Ely_Blue |
I think that the areas that are under stricter restrictions or those areas should have more restricted travel movements, I think that is one thing that the government have missed an opportunity on, the Irish and French have done it - surely if the virus doesn’t get out then it slows down?
I do question why areas with low infection rates should be “punished” (and I know that’s the wrong word to use probably) by the more highly/densely populated regions with high infection rates.
I’d love to know how an area such as East Cambs which has a rates of 39 cases per 100k (UK average is 149 per 100k) should have the same restrictions as say Nottingham with 11 times that rate?
That would be my only gripe about tougher restrictions |
France have another national lockdown - the tiered system didn't work. | |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:57 - Oct 31 with 239 views | StokieBlue |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:10 - Oct 31 by homer_123 |
Take Germany though - one of the reasons they have implemented a soft lock down is that they have recognised their track and trace system is nearing capacity and it buys them time resolve that issue. |
Yep, I've agreed ours was rubbish.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:59 - Oct 31 with 238 views | StokieBlue |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:18 - Oct 31 by Trequartista |
I remember them last time with a graph showing cases doubling every week (which didn't happen) which would have killed half the population by Christmas. Apparently it was an example, rather than what the most likely outcome was, so I will be checking the small print carefully. |
No they didn't, that is classic fake news.
They showed cases doubling but they didn't extrapolate deaths out as far as you are saying. The issue is that the current death levels are 3 times higher than even the chart you are describing.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:12 - Oct 31 with 231 views | Trequartista |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:59 - Oct 31 by StokieBlue |
No they didn't, that is classic fake news.
They showed cases doubling but they didn't extrapolate deaths out as far as you are saying. The issue is that the current death levels are 3 times higher than even the chart you are describing.
SB |
It's not fake news at all, they did run a graph showing deaths doubling each week, i didn't say they extrapolated the graphs to Christmas, i was just providing the mathematical outcome as an aside had it been extrapolated. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:18 - Oct 31 with 228 views | jaykay |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 14:00 - Oct 31 by pointofblue |
It’s why they should have ran a circuit breaker around half term. SAGE advice suggested it would have worked only would have only effected schools for maybe a week at the most. |
don't be silly, labour were for it, so the default from fat boy was no way. |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:22 - Oct 31 with 219 views | StokieBlue |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:12 - Oct 31 by Trequartista |
It's not fake news at all, they did run a graph showing deaths doubling each week, i didn't say they extrapolated the graphs to Christmas, i was just providing the mathematical outcome as an aside had it been extrapolated. |
You can't extend the extrapolation outside the period they specified though, that's not a fair method otherwise everything will always tend to 1.
I believe it was also cases doubling not deaths.
Aren't you worried that we are three times above a chart that your think we should read the fine print about?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:23 - Oct 31 with 215 views | Swansea_Blue |
It's all a con. They've invented it so that they can inject us all with mind control nanoparticles in a 'vaccine' that are activated by 5G. Before you know it they'll have taken us over and will get us doing things like sailing off the edge of the world. Def info. |  |
| |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:35 - Oct 31 with 208 views | Trequartista |
| Is there anyone that doesn't think we should have more stringent on 15:22 - Oct 31 by StokieBlue |
You can't extend the extrapolation outside the period they specified though, that's not a fair method otherwise everything will always tend to 1.
I believe it was also cases doubling not deaths.
Aren't you worried that we are three times above a chart that your think we should read the fine print about?
SB |
OK, that's fine, but was really an aside rather than main point about the doubling cases (not deaths, yes)
Not sure which chart is three times above which other chart, but yes I am worried, hence I was careful to mention i was in favour of a period of lockdown.
It's all about what is deemed an acceptable level of deaths balanced against the country grinding to a halt. It's a horrible call to make, because just one person dying of covid is tragic, a but a fact of life. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
