Coronavirus

[Bjornebye]

46 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Which bit don't you understand?

The let "everyone else" crack on bit. The everyone else are the ones who are testing positive more. 

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

The let "everyone else" crack on bit. The everyone else are the ones who are testing positive more. 

But they are not dying, so they are assisting with getting to a level of herd immunity.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

But they are not dying, so they are assisting with getting to a level of herd immunity.

Oh right ok. 

 

Fuck off. 

[Spy Bee]

 

[Spy Bee]

Johnson's £100bn moonshot monster. Just another way of siphoning money into his mates pockets: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3558?fbclid=IwAR3ReiSrWYMuuDnY5ZnEd9H8IdHDjTHWh0Ze1u-h3ngwW7k7GqIHjHnWQDQ

[Guest Alex_K]

3 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

 

Good post. Clearly the way forward.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

Johnson's £100bn moonshot monster. Just another way of siphoning money into his mates pockets: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3558?fbclid=IwAR3ReiSrWYMuuDnY5ZnEd9H8IdHDjTHWh0Ze1u-h3ngwW7k7GqIHjHnWQDQ

He may as well try and shoot the moon the fucking fat philandering scruffy racist cunt 

[Spy Bee]

10 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Oh right ok. 

 

Fuck off. 

You might not likew it, but it's either that or wait for a vaccine, which might never come and when it does, it is unlikely to be a silver bullet. 

 

Do you have another solution?

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, belarus said:

With 28 of their mates

Rico will be one, he'll give us the lowdown of how it went.

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

No increase in infections of over 70's, so with a bit of tweaking we could protect the most vulnerable and let everyone else crack on, preventing more damage to public health from other conditions, ruining the economy and dramatically increasing mental health issues.

 

The focus from the start should have been to aggressively shield the genuinely vulnerable, and let everyone else get on with their lives as the disease moved through the majority for whom the risk is minute. Instead we seem determined to prolong the misery, perhaps for years, as we emulate King Canute sitting on the beach trying to prevent the tide coming in.

 

The epidemic will be over when it is over for younger people. Because oddly enough, not many 93 year olds are getting infected in nightclubs or McDonald's or schools or offices.

[Bjornebye]

9 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

You might not likew it, but it's either that or wait for a vaccine, which might never come and when it does, it is unlikely to be a silver bullet. 

 

Do you have another solution?

Yep. Shoot every cunt who refuses to wear a mask on the spot. 

[Bjornebye]

I want things back to normal as quick as anyone but people saying its been "over-hyped" and playing it down are genuine fucking bellends. 

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Yep. Shoot every cunt who refuses to wear a mask on the spot. 

So no, you don't. You'd rather just throw stones at the fucking moon!

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

So no, you don't. You'd rather just throw stones at the fucking moon!

Listen Eggbert, you don't have the right solution, I don't have it, nobody on here no matter how much they think they know has it. 

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Listen Eggbert, you don't have the right solution, I don't have it, nobody on here no matter how much they think they know has it. 

My solution is pretty much in line with the epidemiologist that I just posted. You don't even try. You just look down on anybody who would like to get back to something of normality. Supercilious as fuck!

[Megadrive Man]

25 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Johnson's £100bn moonshot monster. Just another way of siphoning money into his mates pockets: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3558?fbclid=IwAR3ReiSrWYMuuDnY5ZnEd9H8IdHDjTHWh0Ze1u-h3ngwW7k7GqIHjHnWQDQ

 

At least £20 billion less than the 'mad' 2019 Labour manifesto, yet not one single person is questioning where the money is coming from?  

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, MegadriveMan said:

 

At least £20 billion less than the 'mad' 2019 Labour manifesto, yet not one single person is questioning where the money is coming from?  

It’s the magic money tree, silly! 

[Captain Turdseye]

12 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

My solution is pretty much in line with the epidemiologist that I just posted. You don't even try. You just look down on anybody who would like to get back to something of normality. Supercilious as fuck!

So we should open up footy matches and concerts and the like but turn away anyone under 60 and/or with underlying health issues? In the Prem alone that’s 30,000-80,000 gathering at 10 different places every weekend. Within a month it would be rampant in care homes again because the government are saying they’ll still discharge positive cases to said homes. 

[Tony Moanero]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

No increase in infections of over 70's, so with a bit of tweaking we could protect the most vulnerable and let everyone else crack on, preventing more damage to public health from other conditions, ruining the economy and dramatically increasing mental health issues.

 

We need transparency, effective communication, leadership and direction from the government.

 

How do you propose we protect the most vulnerable? Should we keep them shut indoors indefinitely whilst everyone else “cracks on” and just does as they please? What about their mental health?

 

Some people are taking the piss. For example, I know of a person who, once furloughed from work, was extremely vocal about “staying at home, protecting the NHS and saving lives”. Every Thursday, he would stand outside his house, clapping and cheering the NHS, banging pots and pans. The government relaxed lockdown and he couldn’t wait to “eat out to help out”, both in town and for miles and miles around, again and again. In the past ten days alone, he has been to the pub and/or eaten out in restaurants on at least half a dozen occasions, including a 400 plus mile round trip to London, to stay in a posh hotel, buy clothes, eat steak and get pissed on gin and lager.

 

I’m not saying people shouldn’t go out and do things that they enjoy, but there has to common sense and consideration for others.

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

Some people are taking the piss. For example, I know of a person who, once furloughed from work, was extremely vocal about “staying at home, protecting the NHS and saving lives”. Every Thursday, he would stand outside his house, clapping and cheering the NHS, banging pots and pans. The government relaxed lockdown and he couldn’t wait to “eat out to help out”, both in town and for miles and miles around, again and again. In the past ten days alone, he has been to the pub and/or eaten out in restaurants on at least half a dozen occasions, including a 400 plus mile round trip to London, to stay in a posh hotel, buy clothes, eat steak and get pissed on gin and lager.

None of that is taking the piss. It's all totally within guidelines.

 

As for your first question, I refer you to the video I posted. I agree, we need a fuck lot more from the government than we are getting. 

[Spy Bee]

11 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

So we should open up footy matches and concerts and the like but turn away anyone under 60 and/or with underlying health issues? In the Prem alone that’s 30,000-80,000 gathering at 10 different places every weekend. Within a month it would be rampant in care homes again because the government are saying they’ll still discharge positive cases to care homes. 

Not immediately, as we need to be careful. Slowly but surely we should be increasing freedoms, while making sure that what we are doing is working. We want maximum infections and minimum hospitalisations. The danger with just going balls out is that it doesn't work as planned. As it is, we are probably seeing people that have underlying conditions being exposed to the virus, because the government has made no provision for these people.

[Tony Moanero]

10 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

None of that is taking the piss. It's all totally within guidelines.

 

As for your first question, I refer you to the video I posted. I agree, we need a fuck lot more from the government than we are getting. 

I’m not saying people shouldn’t go out and do things that they enjoy but there has to be common sense, surely?

 

So, basically what you are saying is, with Covid-19 still very much in circulation, people should be free to just do as they please, go out and get pissed, etc, as often as they like, but the vulnerable, those who are unfortunate enough to have physical health issues that put them at risk, should stay indoors indefinitely.

[Sugar Ape]

1 minute ago, Captain Turdseye said:

So we should open up footy matches and concerts and the like but turn away anyone under 60 and/or with underlying health issues? In the Prem alone that’s 30,000-80,000 gathering at 10 different places every weekend. 

It quite clearly can’t be done without an extensive and successful track and trace system and significantly larger mass testing which we are nowhere near. And even then it wouldn’t work in my opinion. 
 

Do you lockdown young people if they work in care homes or hospitals? For example one of my mates wife works in Arrowe Park. Another works as a home carer going into the homes of elderly people.
 

They’re both in their 30s. Do they need to isolate or shield as well so they don’t pass it on? What about their husbands? What if they catch it, pass it on to their wife who then infects vulnerable people? Because that is what is going to happen if it runs unchecked through the younger population. It eventually spreads to older and vulnerable people. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Tony Moanero said:

So, basically what you are saying is, with Covid-19 still very much in circulation, people should be free to just do as they please, go out and get pissed, etc, as often as they like, but those who are unfortunate enough to have physical health issues, should stay indoors indefinitely.

 

Isn't a few months of isolation a small price to pay for not dying?

[Bjornebye]

23 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

My solution is pretty much in line with the epidemiologist that I just posted. You don't even try. You just look down on anybody who would like to get back to something of normality. Supercilious as fuck!

Shut up you absolute fucking tree-stump. No I don't at all because as I've put above I too would like to get back to normality or do you not properly read anything other than your own inane repetitive bollocks? I look down on people who downplay the virus and suggest it isn't a big deal. 

 

You spoke about mental health concerns with another lockdown, what about the mental health of the over 60's who are locked down while the world carries on? What sort of state do you think they will be in mentally? 

 

You are a fucking clown.