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.”
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
darced wrote: » If she was financially rewarded for it yes.
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.
martingriff wrote: » Do you think all those who are not working due to the lockdown are having a great time.
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.
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
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".
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I believe they should have said something along the lines of: "We keep current restrictions until May 5th, May 13th latest, upon which we will begin to ease them".
pjohnson wrote: » Yes but in reality this was never going to be possible? You just refuse to accept reality.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Why not?
pjohnson wrote: » Because unless they had a crystal ball they simply had no way of knowing how the disease would actually spread.
easypazz wrote: » Necessary journeys are allowed already, shops, elderly, work etc. I don't see why long distance journeys will be necessary in May, other than the reasons already allowed.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I don't mean they should have said such a thing from the get go i.e. back in March. I'm broadly supportive of all measures taken so far. But I don't believe at this stage they haven't got some date in mind with regards to easing restrictions.
easypazz wrote: » Interesting question. Say we are pulling 2 x €350, €700 a week, kick the debts down the road and apart from shopping and the usual few bills there isn't a lot of expense. Sounds ok, but I know the fallout from this gets worse every week and will be with us for years.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I never said permanent lockdown. That's not the argument I'm making. And yet you, without irony, stated earlier that I was putting words in peoples mouths! Yes, you can be in favour of eventually lifting restrictions aswell as have your position. I've never suggested otherwise. But the current strategy is to continue on with them for an indefinite period of time, a strategy that you said you have supported. And such you support a lockdown for an indefinite period of time. I believe the Government at the stage we are 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: "We keep current restrictions until May 5th, May 13th latest, upon which we will begin to ease them".
martingriff wrote: » There is not a lot of expense. How about utility bill's rent or a mortgage. Yes they have been stopped briefly but will have to be paid. Also it's not just the money it's been in and around your house all day and meeting others. I have never said the lockdown can go on check my history if you want but it needs to be done in a controlled manner or else we will be back to this in a months time
easypazz wrote: » I can't see this lockdown happening again. They will have to let it rip at some point.
lord quackinton wrote: » Not everyone works 39 hours a week Jesus wept
