hmmm wrote: » It depends on whether you are happy to accept the substantial risk that we will have to lockdown again within a few weeks by opening too fast, or whether you'd prefer us to be reasonably confident that things can go back to relative normality. Leaving aside the gambling with the health of people and hospital staff.
dashdoll wrote: » I do think teachers grt a bad rap in general from the public and do great work. However, part of me also thinka teachers that are not working should be getting 350e covid payment until summer holidays (and then revert to full pay as they usually get) the same as everyone else who is out of work. I know its impossible to police this as some schools and teachers seem to be doing lots of eotk whereas I have a family member who is a primary teacher and she is doing no work at all with her pupils and hasnt since this started. I'm assuming this differs for each school but seems a bit unfair.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The big problem for our finances is not the lock down, it is that key markets are closed to us. I'm not concerned at all regarding the measures. The most damaging thing for our economy is allowing the virus to run riot. This will only lead to another lock down and far greater damage reputationally. It's better to lance the boil now and keep the foot down.
fatalll wrote: » I think your family member is the one in the wrong, not the teachers that are working. She/He should be doing some work for their students. they will fall back in school, its very irresponsible that she/he is not at least doing something.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » A necessary and inevitable side effect, lock down or no lock down. We need to keep going and push down the rate of infection relentlessly. This will give us a stronger base for the next phase of the resurgence of the virus and we may be able to avoid the worst re-impositions on society.
Rodin wrote: » Your family member is why people have a problem with many teachers. I suppose a check by their headteacher is too much to ask. Some of the best terms and conditions in the public sector but yet still always complaining.
normanoffside wrote: » So you want a certain destruction of the economy in order to avoid a possible second wave (with no evidence that there will be a second wave or how deadly it will be if it does come). It's like shooting off my entire foot for fear that one of my toes might get infected.
normanoffside wrote: » So you want a certain destruction of the economy in order to avoid a possible second wave (with no evidence that there will be a second wave or how deadly it will be if it does come).It's like shooting off my entire foot for fear that one of my toes might get infected.
road_high wrote: » Economic conversations really stepped up today. Regina Doherty on the Covid payment -“this can only be a short term measure, not sustainable long term”.... I don’t think that could be any clearer?
normanoffside wrote: » So you want a certain destruction of the economy in order to avoid a possible second wave (with no evidence that there will be a second wave or how deadly it will be if it does come).
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The economy is going to be hit really badly regardless of a lock down. Markets around the world are suffering. We are an open economy, we don't avoid that. What would be even worse is having to go through the exact same thing again in a couple of months time. What we have here is a small group of posters who are clearly vulnerable, desperate for change. I understand that. It does not change the facts. We need to keep the rate of infection down as low as possible to give us the best platform later on. Then we can avoid having to implement some of the measures again. This will lead to a much quicker recovery.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The economy is going to be hit really badly regardless of a lock down. Markets around the world are suffering. We are an open economy, we don't avoid that. What would be even worse is having to go through the exact same thing again in a couple of months time.
KrustyUCC wrote: » 211 cases is encouraging Hopefully we can keep the cases on a downward trend
Nermal wrote: » https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-may-only-need-a-10-per-cent-infection-rate/amphttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/funds-will-vaccine-coronavirus-really-possible/ Tick tock, tick tock. Never too late to admit we made the wrong decision.
AdamD wrote: » 1200 posts in the Coronavirus forum, I actually think you're enjoying this.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The Spectator and the Torygraph - lol 693 deaths today in the UK and 4,404 new cases.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » I am unsure whether thats what we want. Say we get down our daily cases to 10. And then phase 2 kicks in and our daily cases will be 40. Did we just have a fourfold increase in cases? I am fearful Leo will shut us down in that case and we will spend another 3 months on these forums all the way up to October :S
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » I am unsure whether thats what we want. Say we get down our daily cases to 10. And then phase 2 kicks in and our daily cases will be 40. Did we just have a fourfold increase in cases?I am fearful Leo will shut us down in that case and we will spend another 3 months on these forums all the way up to October :S
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The Spectator and the Torygraph - lol
LiquidZeb wrote: » Did you actually read the articles or did you snobbishly dismiss them. The 'Torygraph' is a paper of record. Maybe stick to the Beano for your news.