CtevenSrowder wrote: I believe the Government, considering the stage we are at now, should have indicated a date upon which we will begin to ease restrictions. I believe they should have said something along the lines of:
CtevenSrowder wrote: "We keep current restrictions until May 5th, May 13th latest, upon which we will begin to ease them".
lord quackinton wrote: » Check and mate One of my first posts was that these workers should receive a large tax rebate I actually respect these workers You dont care about them, just like you don’t care about the elderly You care about you and that’s that
Breezin wrote: » What do people think are the prospects for lifting the ban on road travel?
Cupatae wrote: » You ll just have to broaden your ridged thinking.. this might blow your mind... but im both for the lockdown (as in i understand and accept it) and! am for lifting the restrictions when it is safe to do so.. This might come as a shock to you but people can and do care about more than one thing at once! The anchor point around ur whole argument is based on having a concrete date for lifting the restrictions... since i didnt have one (as im neither in the postion to make such decisions nor am i clairvoyant) you took that as YOU SUPPORT PERMANENT LOCK DOWN blah blah.... But! the irony of the whole thing is when i asked you for a concrete date and to my shock! you didnt have one either! but yet insisted you are thoroughly against the lockdown. Its a case of one set of rules (stupid ones) for you and another for everyone else in terms of your argument.
martingriff wrote: » Do you think all those who are not working due to the lockdown are having a great time.
Ace2007 wrote: » Yawn, You avoid the Nazi question, You avoid admitting you don't care about sick etc and all you want is for everyone to go back to work on Monday and to hell with the consequences. what impact this will have on the healthcare sector - but again you don't care. Doctors are working now as well, restaurants are open and offering click and collect services. There are a lof of industries out there working. There are deliveroo drivers, there are pizza deliveries, there are hundreds of people working now because they want to work. You talk about the low paid jobs - from looking at your history of posts you never once complained about their low pay for the virus - you never once said that should get paid more. But now you do - because it means you can attack the government etc. When the economy reopens will you organize a mass protest to ensure these workers get better pay ? Or will you forget about them, and just go back to your cushy office job? whatever about anything else - in all your posts you come across as not caring about the sick/elderly and vulnerable in our society.
darced wrote: » If she was financially rewarded for it yes.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You haven't proven me wrong. You know full well I said is correct, as it's what you have said yourself. Here it is again, in your own words: and then, So if the experts disagree, we continue on as are. If they say no continue beyond again, we do.
Ace2007 wrote: » Given your sister's job - would you be happy for her to be in a lock down situation- i.e. live in a hotel and only be allow to go to/from nursing home - given that she could be a source of infection?
growleaves wrote: » Ctstevencrowder, These are excerpts from blog posts by William M. Briggs, who was Professor of Statistics at the Cornell University Medical School and a Research Scientist at New York Methodist Hospital and has a PhD in Mathematical Sciences. I recommend the full posts if time permits.Fauci WalkbackShould We Have Trusted Expert Epidemiological Models?
darced wrote: » I'd be for paying these staff that are keeping the place running extra first and foremost. The lockdown can go on to May as planned. It has to end then though, keep the at risk locked away, everyone else back to reality.
lord quackinton wrote: » You still have not answered seriously the issue of low paid expected to work at the coal face What if they did what you have and go into lockdown Where we would all be then? All you did was make a joke of the issue
This Anthony “Don’t Shake My Hand” Fauci is already walking back the predictions of reported deaths. He and his team went from 1 to 2.2 million, to 100 to 250 thousand even assuming full compliance with panic measures, to now admitting reported deaths will be “likely closer to 60,000“. Words, you notice, which allow him to claim success if it’s 30,000. [...] As I said on Tuesday, anything under 100 thousand is a blown forecast. They cannot claim “social distancing worked even better than we thought!” No. The low ball 100 thou was with “social distancing”. If under 100K, it’s a blown model. We have to look for other reasons for the corpse shortfall. Like maybe the same causes of what made the other pandemics and flu to go away are more important that the experts thought. Or we have to redefine what “social distancing” means.
Neil Ferguson and his Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team colleagues scared the world silly in mid-March. They announced they ran a sophisticated epidemiological model which said Doom was on the way. They said that if we did nothing to stop the coronavirus, that “In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB [Great Britain] and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.” If there were negative effects, and if we did nothing, the totals would soar even higher. To avoid this apocalypse the authors recommended two possible strategies. They were: “(a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread–reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely.” Relying on their model, they insisted that “optimal mitigation policies…might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems…being overwhelmed many times over”. By mitigation they meant such things as “combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease.”
The Spanish flu of 1918 was a horrific event. It befell a world fresh from a global war, one with poor medical care, aspirin poisoning, shortages of every kind. Between 17 and 58 million were killed worldwide. The CDC estimated that about 675,000 Americans died, when the population in the US was about 106 million. This makes 637 per 100,000 dead of Spanish flu in the US. Imperial college predicted 670 per 100,000 would die of coronavirus. When the COVID-19 Response team constructed their model on 16 March there were only “6,470 deaths confirmed worldwide” and 97 in the US. Yet, somehow, in the presence of modern medicine and these low figures, coronavirus was predicted to be deadlier than the Spanish flu.
Strumms wrote: » It’s fair, of course it is. Your sister is involved in a key function that without her working, people could or would die. What do you think happens in a nursing home if no doctors, carers, physios, catering, cleaners turn up ? If she is working for a pittance, that’s not covid related, she agreed on a wage when she accepted the job surly ? People who are sitting at home WANT to work but are prohibited from working. They STILL have bills and financial commitments that need fulfilling and the payment is helping. They’d fûcking bite your hand off if someone on the news came on and said “ok, all fixed, back to the grindstone.”
Cupatae wrote: » So you say, but ive proven you wrong multiple times now go back and read the posts, your desperate attempts to save face are boring me now. You are just tryna twist and muddy the waters.
Cupatae wrote: » When the health officials back it and we have a clear well defined plan on how to lift em with long term goals in mind.
Cupatae wrote: » You do realise that me and you get no say on the date its lifted? do you want a date for arguement sake? May 5th with clear well defined plans and the backing of health officials Happy?
Ace2007 wrote: » @Darced, would you support the approach of just lifting up all restrictions come Monday and we all get back to work?
darced wrote: » He has a point, my sister works in a Nursing home and gets 350ish a week. Its not really fair that she is risking infecting our elderly parents for a pittance while others are sitting at home on the same money, crazy.
Ace2007 wrote: » Please show me the post when i ask about the min wage today? I've said that i want the restrictions lifted slowly and society to work for all together - yet you seem to think that means i want a lock down - you sir cannot read - go search my posts today/yesterday I've said it more than once. You want to lift all restrictions come Monday and just lets all get back at it - and to hell with the consequences - that's how your posts come about - and you don't even try to hide it I asked you why you keep using the term Nazi to describe posters and you refuse to answer?
GazzaL wrote: » What's everyone planning for the May bank holiday weekend now? If there weather's good, I reckon a trip to the beach is on the cards.
lord quackinton wrote: » All pro lockdown people answer this post I know aldi and Lidl and Tesco are mad looking for workers Can you do your bit for the lockdown?
lord quackinton wrote: » You especially of all the posters who support the lockdown will not answer seriously the issue around low paid employees in retail bin collection and health care being treated unfairly When you lead with what’s the minimum wage now , €10 I know you hold little value in what these workers are doing This lockdown suits you personally and the longer it lasts it suits u even better That’s the harsh reality you won’t admit I feel sorry for you
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You say you don't but you do. You can't give any indication of when you would lift restrictions. You say May 5th, but only if the experts agree with you. So if they don't you extend again. As such your May 5th date is not a definite one. And if the experts want to extend again after that, then I'm guessing you do. And it goes on. When do you say, hold on, extending will cause bigger problems then it will solve and give a date, or at least a rough period of time, for us to begin lifting restrictions?
