By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
On a recent TWTD poll 80% were in favour of the national lockdown, based mostly I suspect on the evidence presented by Johnson, Vallance & Whitty on Saturday Night, however some of the data used has already been proven to be incorrect and numerous Scientists, experts, and MPs are now calling them out on it and are claiming a National Lockdown is not required at this stage.
Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University has pointed out that :
- The projections were based on 3 week old data. - They have already proven to be incorrect. 1000 deaths forecast on 1st November, the actual number was around 200 ( official reporting now states 162 ). - 4000 deaths per day is a doomsday prediction was never a realistic number - Cases are Dropping or flatlining in the most affected areas, Manchester cases down 20% in the previous week. - The 3 Tier system therefore showing signs of working but has not been given the full enough time. - Non-covid excess deaths in the home are increasing, this will get worse in another lockdown.
Professor Tim Spector from Kings College London is another who has disputed the figures. Based on the Zoe study which surveys a million people in the UK weekly they have shown that that cases are far from rising exponentially and in fact are falling in the Northern hotspot areas. They also have the 'R' number dropping to around 1.
Professor David Livermore of UEA has said that the Government is using "clearly ropey statistics" that just "don't make sense"
Tory MP Peter Bone has said "There are lies, damn lies, and covid statistics' going on to add that the Government is using selective data to prove it's case and not getting a balanced range to get to the right decision.
Another Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne is "devastated" about a second lockdown: "It's a disaster... people will be unemployed... their lives ruined and they'll die in greater numbers... it's mass hysteria".
Cases dropped overall last week for Suffolk and we know that other areas such as Cornwall have low numbers. Why do we need a National Lockdown when the tier system seems to be showing signs of success and other areas have falling numbers anyway?
Boris has claimed there is 'no alternative' to the National lockdown, this is simply not true and Boris is doing what he has proven over a long period of time that he does best - telling lies. History will show him to be one of the worst PMs this country has ever known.
The long term effects of this year are going to catastrophic in my view, and it will not be because of a new virus, it will be because of the direct actions the Government has taken, causing huge long term damage to their own Country and people.
Everybody is so fixated on Covid cases and deaths that I am concerned we are not seeing the bigger picture. I urge everybody to start looking at all of the evidence ( Julia Hartley Brewer on Talk Radio is worth a look ) and to then start questioning what is really going on and why?
[Post edited 6 Jan 2021 10:59]
0
National lockdown - the case against on 16:32 - Nov 5 with 1681 views
National lockdown - the case against on 13:36 - Nov 5 by StokieBlue
Afternoon Harry.
So I've now provided evidence that the government planning is based of the grey line which is the "reasonable worst case scenario". Given this confirmation and my comments around the interview posted will you now concede that what he is saying is incorrect? Whatever his motives are is irrelevant - saying "I can't see why he would lie" isn't relevant. What is relevant is that he is wrong and that is what needs to be referenced.
If you cannot point out where in my analysis of his interview I am wrong can you please stop citing him in subsequent posts as you have done today as a reliable individual on the subject? You've not really addressed any of the points I've raised against the interview.
If not then it seems harsh to accuse people on the board of being in an echo chamber when you can't leave your own one when shown the information is suspect.
SB
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 13:38]
Afternoon SB.
I think for me the important issue is how was the data presented to the media and in what context, I haven't had a chance to watch it back yet. I acknowledge the "reasonable worst case scenario" planning although the link you provided is dated March so I don't know if it applies specifically to the latest presentation, although it may do.
I think you have made a valid critique of his comments and pointed out some potential flaws but I still think some of the points were good and his wider work over the last few months carries validity. For example he has highlighted the danger flaws in the PCR tests picking up dead virus and creating effectively a false positive and the likelihood of people having to isolate that don't need to, as well as the obvious implications for accurate case data.
We are talking about the Professor for evidence based medicine at Oxford University here, not David Icke, I don't think we can just completely exclude him from the conversation can we?
What I am also interested in is do you carry out the same level of scrutiny regarding Vallance and Whitty or do accept their data at face value? Genuine question.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 16:38 - Nov 5 with 1665 views
National lockdown - the case against on 16:32 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
Afternoon SB.
I think for me the important issue is how was the data presented to the media and in what context, I haven't had a chance to watch it back yet. I acknowledge the "reasonable worst case scenario" planning although the link you provided is dated March so I don't know if it applies specifically to the latest presentation, although it may do.
I think you have made a valid critique of his comments and pointed out some potential flaws but I still think some of the points were good and his wider work over the last few months carries validity. For example he has highlighted the danger flaws in the PCR tests picking up dead virus and creating effectively a false positive and the likelihood of people having to isolate that don't need to, as well as the obvious implications for accurate case data.
We are talking about the Professor for evidence based medicine at Oxford University here, not David Icke, I don't think we can just completely exclude him from the conversation can we?
What I am also interested in is do you carry out the same level of scrutiny regarding Vallance and Whitty or do accept their data at face value? Genuine question.
Yes, the first link was from March so I included a second link from recently which has the quote about them using the "reasonable worst case" for planning purposes. This is government/civil service policy - they do the same for Brexit or anything else, not just C19.
I agree he has a lofty position and conceded some of the things he said had merit. I however think his main points at the start of the interview were incorrect and he was using the worst case to justify things when he should have been using the reasonable worst case which is what the lockdown was based on - I feel it's a bit disingenuous. One needs to be careful not to slip into an appeal to authority fallacy just due to his position.
No, I've not carried out the same analysis for Vallance, I wouldn't have done it for the Oxford professor either if you hadn't asked me to. However they are basing the lockdown on the "reasonable worst case" and we were x5 the deaths for that yesterday and x3 today so it seems hard to argue against lockdown on that basis.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
National lockdown - the case against on 16:40 - Nov 5 with 1659 views
National lockdown - the case against on 16:16 - Nov 5 by SpruceMoose
That reminds me, while we are on the subject of T&Cs, given the current state of the world and the deterioration in the value placed on truth, I feel that the T&Cs here are due an update to include something about not spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
But that's just my take.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 16:20]
Yeah I wouldn't disagree with that. If you are implying that I am purposely spreading either in this thread though then I would strongly dispute that, and would invite you to provide evidence of where I have.
The problem with such a policy is who decides exactly what the truth is, I have seen facebook 'fact checkers' call things out as mis-information which have later been proven to be true.
Some things are obvious of course but a lot of things aren't. I don't think challenging the Government or their scientists on policy or sharing examples of other professionals doing so even comes close.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 16:44 - Nov 5 with 1647 views
National lockdown - the case against on 16:40 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
Yeah I wouldn't disagree with that. If you are implying that I am purposely spreading either in this thread though then I would strongly dispute that, and would invite you to provide evidence of where I have.
The problem with such a policy is who decides exactly what the truth is, I have seen facebook 'fact checkers' call things out as mis-information which have later been proven to be true.
Some things are obvious of course but a lot of things aren't. I don't think challenging the Government or their scientists on policy or sharing examples of other professionals doing so even comes close.
I'm not saying that's applicable here, sorry. I've not read the thread in enough detail to comment. You mentioning the T&Cs just reminded me of something I was thinking earlier when browsing some election coverage online.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 16:45]
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
National lockdown - the case against on 16:38 - Nov 5 by StokieBlue
Yes, the first link was from March so I included a second link from recently which has the quote about them using the "reasonable worst case" for planning purposes. This is government/civil service policy - they do the same for Brexit or anything else, not just C19.
I agree he has a lofty position and conceded some of the things he said had merit. I however think his main points at the start of the interview were incorrect and he was using the worst case to justify things when he should have been using the reasonable worst case which is what the lockdown was based on - I feel it's a bit disingenuous. One needs to be careful not to slip into an appeal to authority fallacy just due to his position.
No, I've not carried out the same analysis for Vallance, I wouldn't have done it for the Oxford professor either if you hadn't asked me to. However they are basing the lockdown on the "reasonable worst case" and we were x5 the deaths for that yesterday and x3 today so it seems hard to argue against lockdown on that basis.
SB
My only argument is this lockdown seems so half-arsed. Either do a full lockdown akin to March or work something else out. It feels like they're trying to get the best of all worlds and instead failing every way they turn.
National lockdown - the case against on 16:38 - Nov 5 by StokieBlue
Yes, the first link was from March so I included a second link from recently which has the quote about them using the "reasonable worst case" for planning purposes. This is government/civil service policy - they do the same for Brexit or anything else, not just C19.
I agree he has a lofty position and conceded some of the things he said had merit. I however think his main points at the start of the interview were incorrect and he was using the worst case to justify things when he should have been using the reasonable worst case which is what the lockdown was based on - I feel it's a bit disingenuous. One needs to be careful not to slip into an appeal to authority fallacy just due to his position.
No, I've not carried out the same analysis for Vallance, I wouldn't have done it for the Oxford professor either if you hadn't asked me to. However they are basing the lockdown on the "reasonable worst case" and we were x5 the deaths for that yesterday and x3 today so it seems hard to argue against lockdown on that basis.
SB
Fair enough. It is however still a monumental thing to be restricting public life in this drastic way and I don't think anybody should be taking it lightly. The Government have admitted that they have not carried out a full impact assessment for either the original lockdown or this one which I personally think is unforgiveable, wouldn't you agree?
We should all be analysing and questioning the data as best we can for something so monumental and with such potential consequences.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 17:17 - Nov 5 with 1589 views
National lockdown - the case against on 17:17 - Nov 5 by 26_Paz
Feeling really down about the whole thing today. Just can’t get my head round it.
Can you get your head around nearly 800 deaths in the last two days?
I agree it's not great but what choice is there? What specifically can't you get your head around - I am genuinely interested to know.
I think it's clear that people have hugely different tolerances for lockdowns. Nobody likes them but some cope better than others and this tends to steer their opinions on them and what evidence they chose to believe.
National lockdown - the case against on 17:13 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
Fair enough. It is however still a monumental thing to be restricting public life in this drastic way and I don't think anybody should be taking it lightly. The Government have admitted that they have not carried out a full impact assessment for either the original lockdown or this one which I personally think is unforgiveable, wouldn't you agree?
We should all be analysing and questioning the data as best we can for something so monumental and with such potential consequences.
So they are saying the same thing about the top worst case line and about the estimates but once again nobody seems to mention that planning is done from the grey line and we were well above the deaths on that line even on this dataset.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
National lockdown - the case against on 17:25 - Nov 5 with 1576 views
National lockdown - the case against on 17:17 - Nov 5 by 26_Paz
Feeling really down about the whole thing today. Just can’t get my head round it.
Completely understand feeling down about it. It's short term though and we need to do it for the vulnerable and the NHS. We owe the NHS and it's a pretty loose lockdown.
Pick a boxset, a book or something you enjoy and make the best of it.
So they are saying the same thing about the top worst case line and about the estimates but once again nobody seems to mention that planning is done from the grey line and we were well above the deaths on that line even on this dataset.
SB
Thankyou for posting. This rather suggests that as I suspected the worst case scenario of 4000 deaths a day was used as the headline figure for the presentation. I am going to watch it again in a minute to satisfy my curiosity.
Sir David Spiegelhalter, one of the most respected statisticians in the country, said the whole saga had been "really unfortunate".
He said the situation with Covid was sufficient to warrant "radical action", but he did not believe the data made available was enough to fully support a lockdown, saying other wider factors needed to be taken into account as well.
So it seems one of the most respected statisticians in the country agrees that the data was flawed and wasn't enough to fully support another lockdown.
The problem being of course that the decision has been made and it is now too late to reverse the decision. I just hope this episode will help to shine a brighter light of scrutiny on exactly what is being used to form crucial policy.
I'm sure the handful of posters who have ridiculed, sneered, or abused me in this thread will be along soon to apologise and accept that the questions I asked were reasonable after all.
0
National lockdown - the case against on 17:53 - Nov 5 with 1538 views
National lockdown - the case against on 17:17 - Nov 5 by 26_Paz
Feeling really down about the whole thing today. Just can’t get my head round it.
Welcome to the last five years.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
National lockdown - the case against on 17:47 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
Thankyou for posting. This rather suggests that as I suspected the worst case scenario of 4000 deaths a day was used as the headline figure for the presentation. I am going to watch it again in a minute to satisfy my curiosity.
Sir David Spiegelhalter, one of the most respected statisticians in the country, said the whole saga had been "really unfortunate".
He said the situation with Covid was sufficient to warrant "radical action", but he did not believe the data made available was enough to fully support a lockdown, saying other wider factors needed to be taken into account as well.
So it seems one of the most respected statisticians in the country agrees that the data was flawed and wasn't enough to fully support another lockdown.
The problem being of course that the decision has been made and it is now too late to reverse the decision. I just hope this episode will help to shine a brighter light of scrutiny on exactly what is being used to form crucial policy.
I'm sure the handful of posters who have ridiculed, sneered, or abused me in this thread will be along soon to apologise and accept that the questions I asked were reasonable after all.
So two things in here:
1). Given that worst case line wasn't used for anything with regards to planning or deciding on lockdown they would have been better off leaving it off and just sticking to the "reasonable worst case" so it's clear to everyone. We are still well above that line of course.
2). The whole second part of your post is hugely flawed. The statistician can of course comment on the data and the graph and that is valid. He however isn't an expert on "wider factors" to do with lockdowns and he's not an epidemiologist and using his opinion in the way you have is an appeal to authority fallacy I am afraid.
I don't think you can use his statement to make the further justifications you have. He's also said "radical action" needed to be taken - what is this action?
On average 400 people are dying a day, that is 4 times above the "reasonable worst case scenario". It's hard to justify anything except a lockdown given that. The UK isn't unusual here - most of Europe is in lockdown now.
The one thing that is clear is the government should be clearer with their data and what they are using to make decisions - having the other cases on graphs is clearly not a good idea.
SB
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 17:57]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
National lockdown - the case against on 17:58 - Nov 5 with 1525 views
National lockdown - the case against on 17:25 - Nov 5 by J2BLUE
Completely understand feeling down about it. It's short term though and we need to do it for the vulnerable and the NHS. We owe the NHS and it's a pretty loose lockdown.
Pick a boxset, a book or something you enjoy and make the best of it.
See? This is the kind of level-headed thinking the country needs.
What else are people going to do in the pissing rain and cold anyway? Nowhere better to be than indoors with a lovely cup of tea.
What are we watching tonight, hun?
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
National lockdown - the case against on 17:55 - Nov 5 by StokieBlue
So two things in here:
1). Given that worst case line wasn't used for anything with regards to planning or deciding on lockdown they would have been better off leaving it off and just sticking to the "reasonable worst case" so it's clear to everyone. We are still well above that line of course.
2). The whole second part of your post is hugely flawed. The statistician can of course comment on the data and the graph and that is valid. He however isn't an expert on "wider factors" to do with lockdowns and he's not an epidemiologist and using his opinion in the way you have is an appeal to authority fallacy I am afraid.
I don't think you can use his statement to make the further justifications you have. He's also said "radical action" needed to be taken - what is this action?
On average 400 people are dying a day, that is 4 times above the "reasonable worst case scenario". It's hard to justify anything except a lockdown given that. The UK isn't unusual here - most of Europe is in lockdown now.
The one thing that is clear is the government should be clearer with their data and what they are using to make decisions - having the other cases on graphs is clearly not a good idea.
SB
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 17:57]
Lol, I thought we had almost reached a point of total agreement there for a moment!
I should have known better that you wouldn't let me get away with that last bit though
Ok so 400 people a day are dying at the moment, that is obviously not good but seeing as the data shows that cases were flatlining or dropping in key areas last week, is it not reasonable to assume that deaths would have began to fall off shortly anyway regardless of Lockdown? Of course when that does now happen I suspect everybody will claim it as a success of the lockdown.
Also, what is the current excess mortality over and above the 5 year average as this is really a key indicator of how big the problem is. Not a loaded question, I genuinely don't know the answer?
0
National lockdown - the case against on 18:15 - Nov 5 with 1487 views
National lockdown - the case against on 17:22 - Nov 5 by StokieBlue
Can you get your head around nearly 800 deaths in the last two days?
I agree it's not great but what choice is there? What specifically can't you get your head around - I am genuinely interested to know.
I think it's clear that people have hugely different tolerances for lockdowns. Nobody likes them but some cope better than others and this tends to steer their opinions on them and what evidence they chose to believe.
SB
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 17:35]
I had 5 a side last night, last game for a while. It’s a big centre with about 12 pitches. Was chatting to the manager, he said they have about 300 people in a night. They’ve been doing all the track and trace and have had a grand total of 1 case since they reopened. I then went for a beer after with a mate and he and his mrs have both been made redundant. He’s ok financially for a while and is doing ok mentally but his mrs is really struggling. Doesn’t even get out of bed some days. I guess what I can’t get my head around is the level of damage compared to the amount of corona I see in my life. Maybe I’m lucky but I just don’t know anybody who’s even had it let alone been really ill from it. Anyway, that’s how I’m feeling. I’m not going to be getting into any debates about the pros and cons, I don’t have the energy, that’s just where I’m at right now
The Paz Man
0
National lockdown - the case against on 18:40 - Nov 5 with 1465 views
National lockdown - the case against on 18:15 - Nov 5 by 26_Paz
I had 5 a side last night, last game for a while. It’s a big centre with about 12 pitches. Was chatting to the manager, he said they have about 300 people in a night. They’ve been doing all the track and trace and have had a grand total of 1 case since they reopened. I then went for a beer after with a mate and he and his mrs have both been made redundant. He’s ok financially for a while and is doing ok mentally but his mrs is really struggling. Doesn’t even get out of bed some days. I guess what I can’t get my head around is the level of damage compared to the amount of corona I see in my life. Maybe I’m lucky but I just don’t know anybody who’s even had it let alone been really ill from it. Anyway, that’s how I’m feeling. I’m not going to be getting into any debates about the pros and cons, I don’t have the energy, that’s just where I’m at right now
All you've got to do is turn on the TV, go online or talk to people on here to see the devastation it can cause. You're willfully ignoring it because it suits you to do so.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
National lockdown - the case against on 18:40 - Nov 5 by SpruceMoose
All you've got to do is turn on the TV, go online or talk to people on here to see the devastation it can cause. You're willfully ignoring it because it suits you to do so.
I’ve said I’m not getting into and I’m not. I was just saying I was struggling a bit. I don’t need you making it worse.
The Paz Man
0
National lockdown - the case against on 19:16 - Nov 5 with 1422 views
National lockdown - the case against on 19:07 - Nov 5 by 26_Paz
I’ve said I’m not getting into and I’m not. I was just saying I was struggling a bit. I don’t need you making it worse.
Genuinely sorry to hear you're struggling. I'm just saying that I hope you now appreciate that the way you feel now is how many people were feeling while you were excited about having pub crawls etc.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
National lockdown - the case against on 16:10 - Nov 5 by Harry_Palmer
No he doesn't get the right to speak so bluntly, he is in clear breach of the T&Cs of this site and regardless of the very valuable and no doubt stressful job he does I don't think its really acceptable.
Despite that, I would not want to see him banned and will certainly not report it as I do understand emotions run high on topics such as this. Thanks for the support by the way.
Thing is Harry that Badger's obviously working in the front line in practice and having to cope with things bad as they are, whilst you're sat at a screen promoting something in the abstract that his expertise & experience is telling him would make his job even more stressful, difficult, demanding both physically and emotionally than it already is. That incorporates he, his colleagues, friends and relatives being placed at even greater risk than they already are.
Basically, what you're doing is endlessly waving a red rag in front of a bull. For that reason I'm prepared to cut Badger a lot of slack here. As well as doing his job in practice, he's also obviously someone who does a lot of reading & thinking around it, so maybe if you'd showed him a bit more respect for that, he wouldn't have reached the end of his tether with you as he obviously did.
I also think there've been a few crossed wires in the thread generally btw. Please correct me if I've got it wrong, but your main concern seems to be the long-term effects of lock-down, which is fair enough - I think most people are greatly worried by that. The point of the current lockdown though is that it's an emergency short-term measure to contain the immediate danger and stop the number of infected people escalating to the point of millions because of exponential growth. If you want to stick to the argument of 'the economy' - well, dead people make no economic contribution.
National lockdown - the case against on 23:03 - Nov 4 by BlueBadger
I live and work in a 'less affected area' and frankly I'd hate to work one that's been more affected because the toll it's taken on me and my colleagues has been horrific. This year has been the worst of my professional life and the main things that have seen me through have been my years of experience, the coping strategies I've developed(mainly beer and loud music - and to be honest, they're struggling hard, right now) Your blithe indifference and smug, wilful ignorance is, frankly, genuinely, upsetting and offensive particularly given your enthusiasm in quoting proven charlatans and frauds to prove whatever f*ckwitted point you're trying to make.
Don't try to kid me that you're a 'decent, caring' person. You don't 'care' any more than people like Johnson, Cummings or bottom-feeders like Paz 'care'. You 'care' when you think your point is 'proved' by flawed science whilst people are suffering, you 'care' when one in several million suffers a couldn't-be-predicted anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, you 'care' when you're vaguely incovenienced by having to wear a mask for 30 minutes Tescos, you 'care' when you haven't had to deliver end of life care via Zoom, you 'care' when you you're happy to blithely ignore long-term incapacity. You' can gan go f*ck yourself, you utter ireemdemable t0sser, I'm done trying to be polite to you, you c*nt.
What on earth are you having a go at me for? I’ve barely commented here yet still get called a ‘bottom feeder’ for literally no reason. Why are you even bringing me into that post? I was literally nothing to do with the conversation at that point
[Post edited 5 Nov 2020 19:32]
The Paz Man
0
National lockdown - the case against on 19:40 - Nov 5 with 1378 views
National lockdown - the case against on 19:18 - Nov 5 by Ryorry
Thing is Harry that Badger's obviously working in the front line in practice and having to cope with things bad as they are, whilst you're sat at a screen promoting something in the abstract that his expertise & experience is telling him would make his job even more stressful, difficult, demanding both physically and emotionally than it already is. That incorporates he, his colleagues, friends and relatives being placed at even greater risk than they already are.
Basically, what you're doing is endlessly waving a red rag in front of a bull. For that reason I'm prepared to cut Badger a lot of slack here. As well as doing his job in practice, he's also obviously someone who does a lot of reading & thinking around it, so maybe if you'd showed him a bit more respect for that, he wouldn't have reached the end of his tether with you as he obviously did.
I also think there've been a few crossed wires in the thread generally btw. Please correct me if I've got it wrong, but your main concern seems to be the long-term effects of lock-down, which is fair enough - I think most people are greatly worried by that. The point of the current lockdown though is that it's an emergency short-term measure to contain the immediate danger and stop the number of infected people escalating to the point of millions because of exponential growth. If you want to stick to the argument of 'the economy' - well, dead people make no economic contribution.
Hi Ryorry, If you read the thread back you will see that he has come after me numerous times and I have barely responded for the most part. He has shown me little respect from the beginning quite frankly and has clearly not even read the OP properly or watched the video as it clearly demonstrated how there were flaws in the data the Government used and several experts had backed this up. If you look at the BBC link that Stokie has posted this further proves that there is validity to my argument.
I really find it strange that you paint the picture that I was somehow winding him up and therefore his abusive posts are justified. This is a perfectly valid topic for discussion and if Badger can't discuss it without resorting to abuse then perhaps he needs to avoid it and move on to other threads that aren't likely to upset him so much. Other posters such as Stokie will disagree with me all day long but still remain respectful, it's not that much to ask is it?
You say that you are prepared to cut him slack, well so am I. I don't imagine too many other posters would have accepted that level of personal abuse and attack on their character with the restraint I did. I understand the strain he is under though and offer compassion to that situation. You talk of his thinking and reading as if to presume I don't do any when with respect you don't know anything about me.
Regarding your last paragraph, I don't honestly believe it will be an emergency short term measure, they have already extended the furlough scheme to March so that in itself suggests this is going to go on for longer than a month. It is not simply the economy in and of itself that concerns me it is the wide reaching impacts on the whole of society. If you have a population where millions become unemployed, depressed and impoverished you will get many many more dead people. We haven't even touched on the future deaths already caused by missed diagnosis and treatments from the first lockdown.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
