Why should any of us do research when you're willing to make unsupported statements and you don't do any of your own research?
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
That's a lot of information you are after. If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research
So when you said, Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless, you did not know whether what you were saying was true.
(I doubt that's a surprise to anyone on the thread. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
I see pictures of people at illegal raves. I see people in crowded streets. I could go on but I think you are also well aware of this
Why should any of us do research when you're willing to make unsupported statements and you don't do any of your own research?
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
That's a lot of information you are after. If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research
So when you said, Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless, you did not know whether what you were saying was true.
(I doubt that's a surprise to anyone on the thread. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
I see pictures of people at illegal raves. I see people in crowded streets. I could go on but I think you are also well aware of this
And you know that they constitute "many" of the sources of infection how?
Why should any of us do research when you're willing to make unsupported statements and you don't do any of your own research?
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
That's a lot of information you are after. If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research
So when you said, Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless, you did not know whether what you were saying was true.
(I doubt that's a surprise to anyone on the thread. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
I see pictures of people at illegal raves. I see people in crowded streets. I could go on but I think you are also well aware of this
And you know that they constitute "many" of the sources of infection how?
Should be obvious to you. Completely contrary to the rules of social distancing
Why should any of us do research when you're willing to make unsupported statements and you don't do any of your own research?
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
That's a lot of information you are after. If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research
So when you said, Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless, you did not know whether what you were saying was true.
(I doubt that's a surprise to anyone on the thread. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
I see pictures of people at illegal raves. I see people in crowded streets. I could go on but I think you are also well aware of this
And you know that they constitute "many" of the sources of infection how?
Should be obvious to you. Completely contrary to the rules of social distancing
Without knowing what proportion of infections took place in the environments you describe, you cannot meaningfully describe it as "many".
@Telford I note you are unwilling or unable to substantiate your earlier statements (which were not just on the subject matter you said you had finished with earlier today).
@Telford I note you are unwilling or unable to substantiate your earlier statements (which were not just on the subject matter you said you had finished with earlier today).
<snip>Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
How do you know this? Where is the evidence? What are the statistics that justify your ‘many’?
Since when did posters have to prove common sense
Do you think that people staying at home are the cause of the problem ?
It’s not ‘common sense’ that many doing the infecting are selfish or reckless. It’s common sense that people seize on this sort of rumour and misinformation because it provides them with psychological reassurance that since they are not in their view either selfish or reckless, and they mostly observe the rules they can’t catch the disease. (If you’re interested to know more about this human tendency, there’s an introductory level article here.)
This supposed ‘common sense’ may be common, but it’s not sense. It’s unsupported by evidence, and based on a fairly small number of high profile contraventions of law or guidance the actual infectiveness of which is unknown.
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
If you ignore the bit about Powell, I have not supported any of the rest of your post.
In other words you support government policies that drive people into increasing poverty, where they're unable to afford to feed their children. Presumably you think food banks are a brilliant idea, and it's great that so many hard working families rely on the generosity of strangers because the pittance they earn is insufficient to be able to buy enough food (and pay all the other bills). You presumably celebrate 10 years of Conservative government robbing the ordinary people of the country of the dignity of being able to support themselves. Well, bully for you. For most of us here, that's an evil, that in a wealthy nation no one should be in that position. For most of us this situation something to fight against by all reasonable means possible - and that certainly includes telling those who support driving people into poverty that they're total wankers.
As for Powell I said that he had reported the complaints from some of his constituents. Some of the decriptions of black people were certainly racist and to be totally honest I did not hear about them for years later.
He reported illegitimate fears (fears which had almost certainly been stoked by racists), and rather than point out the fallacies he used them to propose making things worse - both by reinforcing the narrative that these fears were legitimate, and by advocating racist controls on population growth which would deny the UK of many of the people we needed to address the real problems. And, within months his words had been widely reported and were being used by the NF and other racist thugs to justify attacks on people. I admit we can't go back and introduce you to one of the most infamous speeches of all time earlier. It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to vote wasn't aware of that speech and a general idea of the content from the moment it was delivered - even if just the concluding bit about rivers of blood. But, clearly at least one person took no notice of politics, even if he'd thought enough to conclude that Powell was a good MP for the area. But, you've now read the speech, you can see that it's a racist diatribe that uses the illegitimate fears of a few individuals to propose a solution that wouldn't have been out of place in Germany in the late 1930s, you've had the opportunity to apologise for supporting this piece of filth with your vote and acknowledge that your vote assisted in the oppression of black people in this country by suggesting there are votes for racists (an evil that continues to this day with blatant appeals to racists to bring in the Leave vote, and the support among Conservatives for the "hostile environment" for migrants). If you're not going to repudiate your past then you're continuing to be part of the problem. If your words continue to support racism of yesterday then you're supporting the racism of today - and fuck you.
I have previously said that I do support free school meals all year round and that school kitchens should remain open. I note that in some areas they are
Would you acknowledge that free school meals to provide for the poor are a second class solution, that it would be far better if there was no one who had so little that they couldn't put decent food on the table for their children? School meals should either be free for all (a position I'd support) or everyone has the money needed to pay for them. Provision over school holidays has been a problem for years, the pandemic has highlighted that, not caused it, mainly because the usual provision isn't available (the holiday clubs etc aren't able to run). Of course, if all families had the income to feed their children properly it wouldn't be a problem.
At the moment having the school kitchens open isn't a solution, because you still need to have a small army of volunteers to deliver the dinners to the kids (plus, all the containers etc to pack the meals into, which schools that serve dinner onto plates probably don't have). Food packages should work, there's no reason why they can't be made up with ample content, put in some recipe cards and they also serve an educational purpose teaching children (and their parents) nutrition and how to cook, I've heard of some examples of this happening. But, the far too common practice of giving the contract to the lowest bidder, who then provides a substandard service creaming off public money into their pockets, has been followed in many cases. Vouchers are limited, they may not be accepted everywhere, but are preferred by Tories because they've bought into the lie that the poor can't be trusted with cash - you never know parents given cash to buy food for their children may be tempted to spend it on frivolous things like paying the electric bill so that they have power to heat their home and cook dinner. Put £30 per week per child into the hands of parents and they'll be able to feed their children properly, and heat the home during the day so they don't get sick, and have the dignity of being able to control their lives.
So you are against food banks. I assume that, unlike a lot of caring people, you never contribute anything to them.
You are also against school kitchens being open in holidays to feed poor children.
I wish you would use paragraphs
I have stayed out of this for a while and am catching up now. Telford you are still twisting peoples words and you know it.
All people I know who volunteer in food banks are against food banks. Food banks should not be needed the fact they are is disgrace. You cannot just walk up to food and get stuff you need to be sent there. Not only that but you are only allowed so many turns. You can’t just keep going.
You are manipulative, you shift the goalposts either that or you are just playing a little game to see how you can wind people up.
<snip>Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
How do you know this? Where is the evidence? What are the statistics that justify your ‘many’?
Since when did posters have to prove common sense
Do you think that people staying at home are the cause of the problem ?
It’s not ‘common sense’ that many doing the infecting are selfish or reckless. It’s common sense that people seize on this sort of rumour and misinformation because it provides them with psychological reassurance that since they are not in their view either selfish or reckless, and they mostly observe the rules they can’t catch the disease. (If you’re interested to know more about this human tendency, there’s an introductory level article here.)
This supposed ‘common sense’ may be common, but it’s not sense. It’s unsupported by evidence, and based on a fairly small number of high profile contraventions of law or guidance the actual infectiveness of which is unknown.
Please convince me that you do not approve of these spreader events
According to the Guardian the Mail has been deliberately publishing photos of people in parks socially distancing responsibly or at least in accordance with government guidelines taken at angles that make it appear that they're crowded closely together.
Johnson knows, because he's been told often enough, that the chief spreading events are happening at school, and at work. If we closed the schools (properly) and workplaces (properly) as in Lockdown 1, then we'd see a dramatic fall in the infection rates.
It's the government's behaviour that's killing people, not that of individual citizens.
According to the Guardian the Mail has been deliberately publishing photos of people in parks socially distancing responsibly or at least in accordance with government guidelines taken at angles that make it appear that they're crowded closely together.
Why do you think we have foiotball grounds closed to crowds? Why are nighhtclubs and pubs closed
Two people are standing in Trafalgar Square, one says “we are sitting in a dragon”, one says “we are in fucking London”. The truth value of these statements is not determined by the presence or absence of swear words.
Trafalgar square is shitting London. It's a short walk to get to fucking London.
According to the Guardian the Mail has been deliberately publishing photos of people in parks socially distancing responsibly or at least in accordance with government guidelines taken at angles that make it appear that they're crowded closely together.
Why do you think we have foiotball grounds closed to crowds? Why are nighhtclubs and pubs closed
If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research.
(Also, you are changing the subject. No infections are happening due to selfish or reckless behaviour in closed nightclubs or pubs.
Also, since pubs are a problem was the government doing the right thing when it encouraged people to eat out to help out, with or without scotch eggs?)
According to the Guardian the Mail has been deliberately publishing photos of people in parks socially distancing responsibly or at least in accordance with government guidelines taken at angles that make it appear that they're crowded closely together.
Why do you think we have foiotball grounds closed to crowds? Why are nighhtclubs and pubs closed
If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research.
Don't need to
(Also, you are changing the subject. No infections are happening due to selfish or reckless behaviour in closed nightclubs or pubs.
That's because they are now closed. There are idiots who arrange their own events
Also, since pubs are a problem was the government doing the right thing when it encouraged people to eat out to help out, with or without scotch eggs?)
Eat out to help out was at a time when infections were very low.
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
So Boris has told his MPs to abstain in extending the extra Universal Credit money. He was the budget is the time to sort it. Labour are saying people n Ed to know now. Last minute Boris again. The extra credit ends at the end of March, the Budget is in March.
Tighter coronavirus restrictions are being considered by ministers, The Telegraph understands, amid concerns that the current lockdown is not being followed strictly enough.
which suggests that the reason the virus continues to spread is that people are not following the lockdown rules, compared to this Sky News story from 13 January (link), that looks at some current research
The COVID-19 Social Study, which collected responses from more than 70,000 participants, found that the number of people reporting "majority compliance" - that is, following most or almost all of the rules - rose to 96% for the week ending 10 January, which was the highest figure since April.
And the number of people saying that they were in "complete compliance" with the rules rose to 56%, the highest figure since May.
"Compliance is really good," said Dr Daisy Fancourt of University College London, which conducts the study.
"The fact that we're still seeing rising virus cases suggests that compliance on its own is not enough."
I would suggest that the problem is more that the current lock down rules are too lax, too many people in work, too many children in school, too many people travelling to exercise, noticeably far more traffic on the roads compared to the first lock down* all of which are allowed within the rules.
* During the first lock down it was so quiet next to the nearby motorways I could hear skylarks loud and clear, and notice the silence when a peregrine flew over. No way I could this time, the roads are enveloped by their normal thunderous roar.
Tangent (sorry!): Telford airs prejudices that are perhaps acceptable amongst his cronies, but fails to understand that in a forum he needs to argue his case. Which he can't, as comments like, "Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless" cannot be argued.
For example, if he says "My auntie Gladys caught the virus when a selfish person sneezed over her in the supermarket", you might counter with, "My uncle Toby was infected at the surgery by a nurse who didn't know she was a carrier", and we are no further forward.
I have, alas, encountered too many 'Telfords' in church communities. As a strategy, I used to get them to pray for situations which directly contradicted their unexamined prejudices. This could be fun! I'm afraid Telford is no fun at all on the various threads where he plants what would be called, face-to face, "Conversation stoppers". What the answer is I don't know, as many kindly shipmates have tried to explain these things to him. With, alas, no change in behaviour.
Why should any of us do research when you're willing to make unsupported statements and you don't do any of your own research?
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
Why do you assume that you're the only one watching TV, reading newspapers, following the medical science literature and thinking about these things? We're all doing that. We're all accessing the same information, and most of us are coming to different conclusions from you. Now, it's possible that we're all wrong, but it's going to take a lot more than someone we don't know post a one-liner "you're wrong" for us to see our error. Which is why we need to see what evidence you're relying on, what you're ignoring (and why) and how you get from that to the assertions that you make. It's called discussion, which is what these forums are for. We're not Twitter where people can just throw a few words into the mix and walk away.
So, I'm going to break my own resolution to not bother with you again because I'm a nice guy who wants to help people understand. So, in relation to your assertion that the spread of the virus is down to many people acting recklessly, in the context being a let-off for the government as they're not in control of individuals who deliberately break the rules. Here's the evidence I would consider important:
1. The virus spreads by direct contact between people (being in the same room, breathing the same air), and to a slightly lesser extent through indirect contact (touching the same surfaces)
2. The spread can be reduced, but not eliminated, by physical distancing, good air flow, wearing masks, washing hands etc
3. Places where people come into direct and indirect contact with others are numerous and include home, workplaces, shops, pubs/restaurants, travel on a bus, taking a walk in the local park ...
4. Many people have been going to their place of work - some definitely and unavoidably essential (health workers, teachers, supermarket workers, bus drivers ...) others should have been able to work from home but for various reasons were unable to do so (I know of one government department running a call centre who didn't provide their staff the equipment needed to work from home, though most other call centres managed this perfectly well, resulting in all staff who were not shielding coming into the office every day).
5. In a large number of cases employers got away with declaring that their business was essential, and that if staff didn't come in they'd be sacked or at least not paid. Few people can afford to lose their job, so many people have been forced by their employers to go into work, in many cases even if ill.
6. The government also declared many activities to be safe, and thus created situations where people were mixing in enclosed spaces - examples include the already mentioned "eat out to help out", add in the full return to school and university, encouraging people to travel overseas for holidays and so on.
Even without any individuals acting recklessly and breaking the rules these would all have resulted in significant spreading of the virus. And, there were many things that were in the ability of the government to act to reduce the spread of the virus, including but not limited to:
7. Mandatory mask wearing could have been introduced earlier, likewise shutting down international travel with a quarantine requirement
8. Make it illegal for anyone to be sacked or have their wages cut for self-isolating if they were symptomatic or had a positive test (if necessary provide extra cash to top up sick leave entitlements)
9. Ensure furlough schemes were maintained long enough to cover the full suppression of the virus, that schemes covered everyone without various groups excluded, and had flexibility to allow businesses to adapt as circumstances changed
10. Provide their own civil servants the equipment needed to work from home, as most private businesses had done, and have these departments lead by example
11. Procure sufficient and suitable PPE and other supplies needed to reduce spread of the virus in hospitals and care homes
12. Build up the local authority public health services to run effective contact tracing, which is something that they're experts at, rather than give the contract to people with no expertise to produce an expensive and useless system.
13. Enforce the rules, and to do so without bias. There's no excuse for a government advisor who had been in No10 just to talk to people (which could have been done via Zoom, as the rest of us had had to do) and thus exposed to Johnson when he got the virus, developed symptoms and then didn't stay at home as he should have done (instead driving half way the length of England, visiting a second home (also not allowed) to visit mummy on the excuse that he couldn't look after his child without support), and certainly no excuse for the government to gang up to say it was OK.
So, given all of the above it seems to me inevitable that the vast majority of transmission of the virus has been through activities that are either unavoidable or were declared safe (even encouraged) by the government. With the recklessness of individuals being a relatively small contribution (though, possibly still enough to be described as "many"). And, that the government could have done more to reduce the spread of the virus and is thus in the lap of Mr Johnson, and we can legitimately blame him for not acting soon enough or strongly enough.
(and, see, I've made a nice bulletised list as you say you can't follow paragraphs of more than a sentence or two).
The answer @RockyRoger, is to get back to the subject of the thread and discuss it with those who can do so properly.
So, back to de Pfeffel - how long will he last as PM? Do you think a fellow Conservative will oust him before the next election?
Not yet. We have not reached tipping point. I long for that day for the good of my country.
Here's a thing; in the context of the US, I was reminded that 73 million Americans voted for Trump. But by mid 2021, as with Nixon (who really did win in a landslide) it will soon be very difficult to find one (apart from his minority cult). Whilst Johnson currently enjoys good polling, that can change very, very quickly.
Here's a thing; in the context of the US, I was reminded that 73 million Americans voted for Trump. But by mid 2021, as with Nixon (who really did win in a landslide) it will soon be very difficult to find one (apart from his minority cult). Whilst Johnson currently enjoys good polling, that can change very, very quickly.
I think the dynamics are different, the transition will be one that pays tribute to Johnson. Look at the accolades the two architects of the hostile environment policy and the Windrush scandal still pick up in parts of the media. Look at the rehabilitation of George W in some parts of the US liberal scene.
Yeah, the dynamics are different and the narrative is very important. Which is why the right wing media are so invested in shaping the narrative to suit them with bugger all regards for the facts. "BORIS" - the lovable buffonish nice guy is one such example.
But I am not without hope. But unless and until such a tipping point is reached, there is no chance of the Conservative Party deposing him. They love a winner. In electoral terms (only) "Boris" is a winner.
I did try to bring things back to Boris with my comment on the up coming vote re the extra Universal Credit but failed.
Boris is popular. I don’t understand why but there you go. My question is how much of Brexit problems and other bad choices are being hidden behind Covid
I did try to bring things back to Boris with my comment on the up coming vote re the extra Universal Credit but failed.
Boris is popular. I don’t understand why but there you go. My question is how much of Brexit problems and other bad choices are being hidden behind Covid
A good question.
I suspect that you are right, and that the pandemic is clouding other issues, which will doubtless become more noticeable once Covid is on the run (yes, I know - when? O Lord, when?).
Once that happens, the Lord Protector will be seen clearly as the mendacious, incompetent apology for a haystack that he actually is.
Child poverty will not go away, for example, however happy the newly-British Fish are...and it may well be that the incredible amounts of loot pocketed during the current crisis by the Chumocrats will affect the way the newly-poor voters turn at the next General Election.
We've an election in 4 months. If the Conservatives weren't finding themselves inexplicably as the only credible Unionist Party they'd be struggling for any votes. But, Labour just imploded with Richard Leonard resigning so they're now infighting over who the next leader will be, though they were struggling for credibility anyway. The LibDems may pick up some votes from Labour but have their own long-standing credibility issues. That leaves anyone opposed to independence holding their nose and voting Tory even if they oppose everything else they stand for. Johnson will claim that as an endorsement for his government by the people of Scotland anyway.
It'll depend upon the focus of the campaign. At the moment both Conservative and SNP are lining it up to be entirely about independence - and Brexshit plays into the pro-indy hand on that. For those who actually think that's the only issue then pro-indy will go SNP and unionist will go Conservative. Of course the system here isn't simple FPTP and a lot more people can vote than is the case for a UK general election (including 16 and 17 year olds and non-UK citizens, who are generally strongly opposed to Brexshit and anti-Tory for that). It will be interesting. The SNP will almost certainly get the most seats, possibly a majority, but that needs 50% vote in almost all the regions to achieve or a very strong constituency vote. More likely a minority government supported by a large Green contingent (currently 6 MSPs, polls predict at least 11) which would be a continuation of the current situation, which needs the Greens to get 10-15% of the vote in each region which is entirely achievable. The Conservatives are aiming to unite the Unionist vote behind them, if they succeed then they'll be the second largest party and Labour and LibDems could be below the Greens in number of seats. If Brexshit and the general farce of the Johnson government play strongly then the Unionist vote could split significantly and Labour and LibDems will do better possibly pushing Greens into 5th (but still holding the seats needed to support an SNP government).
Typically trenchant piece but Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times tracing the evolution of the SNP and the independence question since 1979. I would link, but it's behind a paywall.
However, here is the conclusion:
"Brexit has rubbed the noses of the Scots in their status as junior partners in the union. They have been told repeatedly that their vote against it means nothing, and that their duty is just to suck it up.
None of this means that there is any certainty about Nicola Sturgeon’s destiny to be the first prime minister of an independent Scotland. Her challenges in even getting a second referendum, let alone successfully answering the questions about the practicalities of independence that sunk her cause in 2014, are formidable.
But she has the most unexpected of allies. For five years, Johnson and his ruling faction have been preaching the gospel that national sovereignty matters above all else, including mere economics. He has placed on the table those radioactive questions: so what is the nation and how can it become sovereign?
Sturgeon has one eloquent and forceful set of answers to those questions."
Why should any of us do research when you're willing to make unsupported statements and you don't do any of your own research?
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
Why do you assume that you're the only one watching TV, reading newspapers, following the medical science literature and thinking about these things? We're all doing that. We're all accessing the same information, and most of us are coming to different conclusions from you. Now, it's possible that we're all wrong, but it's going to take a lot more than someone we don't know post a one-liner "you're wrong" for us to see our error. Which is why we need to see what evidence you're relying on, what you're ignoring (and why) and how you get from that to the assertions that you make. It's called discussion, which is what these forums are for. We're not Twitter where people can just throw a few words into the mix and walk away.
So, I'm going to break my own resolution to not bother with you again because I'm a nice guy who wants to help people understand. So, in relation to your assertion that the spread of the virus is down to many people acting recklessly, in the context being a let-off for the government as they're not in control of individuals who deliberately break the rules. Here's the evidence I would consider important:
1. The virus spreads by direct contact between people (being in the same room, breathing the same air), and to a slightly lesser extent through indirect contact (touching the same surfaces)
2. The spread can be reduced, but not eliminated, by physical distancing, good air flow, wearing masks, washing hands etc
3. Places where people come into direct and indirect contact with others are numerous and include home, workplaces, shops, pubs/restaurants, travel on a bus, taking a walk in the local park ...
4. Many people have been going to their place of work - some definitely and unavoidably essential (health workers, teachers, supermarket workers, bus drivers ...) others should have been able to work from home but for various reasons were unable to do so (I know of one government department running a call centre who didn't provide their staff the equipment needed to work from home, though most other call centres managed this perfectly well, resulting in all staff who were not shielding coming into the office every day).
5. In a large number of cases employers got away with declaring that their business was essential, and that if staff didn't come in they'd be sacked or at least not paid. Few people can afford to lose their job, so many people have been forced by their employers to go into work, in many cases even if ill.
6. The government also declared many activities to be safe, and thus created situations where people were mixing in enclosed spaces - examples include the already mentioned "eat out to help out", add in the full return to school and university, encouraging people to travel overseas for holidays and so on.
Even without any individuals acting recklessly and breaking the rules these would all have resulted in significant spreading of the virus. And, there were many things that were in the ability of the government to act to reduce the spread of the virus, including but not limited to:
7. Mandatory mask wearing could have been introduced earlier, likewise shutting down international travel with a quarantine requirement
8. Make it illegal for anyone to be sacked or have their wages cut for self-isolating if they were symptomatic or had a positive test (if necessary provide extra cash to top up sick leave entitlements)
9. Ensure furlough schemes were maintained long enough to cover the full suppression of the virus, that schemes covered everyone without various groups excluded, and had flexibility to allow businesses to adapt as circumstances changed
10. Provide their own civil servants the equipment needed to work from home, as most private businesses had done, and have these departments lead by example
11. Procure sufficient and suitable PPE and other supplies needed to reduce spread of the virus in hospitals and care homes
12. Build up the local authority public health services to run effective contact tracing, which is something that they're experts at, rather than give the contract to people with no expertise to produce an expensive and useless system.
13. Enforce the rules, and to do so without bias. There's no excuse for a government advisor who had been in No10 just to talk to people (which could have been done via Zoom, as the rest of us had had to do) and thus exposed to Johnson when he got the virus, developed symptoms and then didn't stay at home as he should have done (instead driving half way the length of England, visiting a second home (also not allowed) to visit mummy on the excuse that he couldn't look after his child without support), and certainly no excuse for the government to gang up to say it was OK.
So, given all of the above it seems to me inevitable that the vast majority of transmission of the virus has been through activities that are either unavoidable or were declared safe (even encouraged) by the government. With the recklessness of individuals being a relatively small contribution (though, possibly still enough to be described as "many"). And, that the government could have done more to reduce the spread of the virus and is thus in the lap of Mr Johnson, and we can legitimately blame him for not acting soon enough or strongly enough.
(and, see, I've made a nice bulletised list as you say you can't follow paragraphs of more than a sentence or two).
Thanks for all that. I have read it all and carefully considered it. Much of what you wrote I already agreed with espercially the BIB
Typically trenchant piece but Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times tracing the evolution of the SNP and the independence question since 1979. I would link, but it's behind a paywall.
However, here is the conclusion:
"Brexit has rubbed the noses of the Scots in their status as junior partners in the union. They have been told repeatedly that their vote against it means nothing, and that their duty is just to suck it up.
None of this means that there is any certainty about Nicola Sturgeon’s destiny to be the first prime minister of an independent Scotland. Her challenges in even getting a second referendum, let alone successfully answering the questions about the practicalities of independence that sunk her cause in 2014, are formidable.
But she has the most unexpected of allies. For five years, Johnson and his ruling faction have been preaching the gospel that national sovereignty matters above all else, including mere economics. He has placed on the table those radioactive questions: so what is the nation and how can it become sovereign?
Sturgeon has one eloquent and forceful set of answers to those questions."
Classic O'Toole writing, very trenchant. The arguments about sovereignty go back and forth; on the one hand, Brexit blazes a trail for autonomy of nations, on the other hand the Anglo-fascists sneer that the Scots want to leave one union (UK), in order to join another (EU). Yes, but the EU does not impugn Scottish sovereignty, the UK does.
<snip>Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
How do you know this? Where is the evidence? What are the statistics that justify your ‘many’?
You have already partly answered this for me. Attendance at a super spreasder event is selfish and reckless. I only have the evidence of what I see on film and in pictures. I do not have any statistics for you
Typically trenchant piece but Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times tracing the evolution of the SNP and the independence question since 1979. I would link, but it's behind a paywall.
However, here is the conclusion:
"Brexit has rubbed the noses of the Scots in their status as junior partners in the union. They have been told repeatedly that their vote against it means nothing, and that their duty is just to suck it up.
None of this means that there is any certainty about Nicola Sturgeon’s destiny to be the first prime minister of an independent Scotland. Her challenges in even getting a second referendum, let alone successfully answering the questions about the practicalities of independence that sunk her cause in 2014, are formidable.
But she has the most unexpected of allies. For five years, Johnson and his ruling faction have been preaching the gospel that national sovereignty matters above all else, including mere economics. He has placed on the table those radioactive questions: so what is the nation and how can it become sovereign?
Sturgeon has one eloquent and forceful set of answers to those questions."
Classic O'Toole writing, very trenchant. The arguments about sovereignty go back and forth; on the one hand, Brexit blazes a trail for autonomy of nations, on the other hand the Anglo-fascists sneer that the Scots want to leave one union (UK), in order to join another (EU). Yes, but the EU does not impugn Scottish sovereignty, the UK does.
That's a bit unfair. Scotland had a once in a generation referendum in 2014. I accept that now that the situation has altered another referendum would in appropriate
The government have made mistakes since early last year but people with the virus have not infected themselves. Thay have been infected by those who already have the virus.
The majority of those infected have been unlucky. Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
I can’t find any report of a UK-based potential super spreader event since the beginning of the first lockdown, let alone one found to be responsible for multiple infections.
Your statement that ‘Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless’ appears to be no more than baseless rumour or misinformation.
We've an election in 4 months. If the Conservatives weren't finding themselves inexplicably as the only credible Unionist Party they'd be struggling for any votes. But, Labour just imploded with Richard Leonard resigning
Leonard resigned because a couple of the large donors objected to him, good to see that party democracy is working as intended.
The government have made mistakes since early last year but people with the virus have not infected themselves. Thay have been infected by those who already have the virus.
The majority of those infected have been unlucky. Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
I can’t find any report of a UK-based potential super spreader event since the beginning of the first lockdown, let alone one found to be responsible for multiple infections.
Your statement that ‘Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless’ appears to be no more than baseless rumour or misinformation.
At the delayed end of the 2019/2020 Premier League football season many thousands who had not been able to get in to watch the game decided to gathered in a packed crowd outsidce the stadium to celebrate Liverpool's first win for many years. This is not a baseless rumour or misinformation. It happened.
There have also been many events organised by Jeremy Corbyn's brother
There have also been many events organised by Jeremy Corbyn's brother
The imbecile in question has a name of his own, you know. Your attempt at guilt by association is as transparent as it is petty (which is a lot, in case you were in any doubt).
There have also been many events organised by Jeremy Corbyn's brother
The imbecile in question has a name of his own, you know. Your attempt at guilt by association is as transparent as it is petty (which is a lot, in case you were in any doubt).
Never the less he organises these events. No social distancing of course because "the pandemic doesn't exist"
There have also been many events organised by Jeremy Corbyn's brother
The imbecile in question has a name of his own, you know. Your attempt at guilt by association is as transparent as it is petty (which is a lot, in case you were in any doubt).
Never the less he organises these events. No social distancing of course because "the pandemic doesn't exist"
And his name is Piers Corbyn. So why mention Jeremy's name but not Piers'?
Look at the rehabilitation of George W in some parts of the US liberal scene.
To be fair, I think a lot of that is because when you stand him next to Mr. Trump, he looks like a functional adult. The existence of Donald Trump has rather lowered the bar for what you might consider either competency or decency.
(And, for reference, idiocy by Jeremy Corbyn's brother is as relevant to Jeremy or the Labour party as idiocy by Boris Johnson's dad is to do with the PM.)
Comments
Let me clarify the situation I give opinions. I look at the situation, I read about what's goping on, I watch tv reports and I draw my own conclusions. If you and others are unable to do this, that's not my fault.
I see pictures of people at illegal raves. I see people in crowded streets. I could go on but I think you are also well aware of this
How do you know? What are your sources of information?
How do you know it’s often not the case? What are the statistics? Where is your evidence for this statement?
If you’re going to answer that it’s ‘common knowledge’, how do you know it’s not just rumour, misinformation or malice?
Several people have complained that the matters were a diversion from the subject of this thread
And you know that they constitute "many" of the sources of infection how?
Without knowing what proportion of infections took place in the environments you describe, you cannot meaningfully describe it as "many".
But now How do you know this? Where is the evidence? What are the statistics that justify your ‘many’?
Since when did posters have to prove common sense
Do you think that people staying at home are the cause of the problem ?
It’s not ‘common sense’ that many doing the infecting are selfish or reckless. It’s common sense that people seize on this sort of rumour and misinformation because it provides them with psychological reassurance that since they are not in their view either selfish or reckless, and they mostly observe the rules they can’t catch the disease. (If you’re interested to know more about this human tendency, there’s an introductory level article here.)
This supposed ‘common sense’ may be common, but it’s not sense. It’s unsupported by evidence, and based on a fairly small number of high profile contraventions of law or guidance the actual infectiveness of which is unknown.
I have stayed out of this for a while and am catching up now. Telford you are still twisting peoples words and you know it.
All people I know who volunteer in food banks are against food banks. Food banks should not be needed the fact they are is disgrace. You cannot just walk up to food and get stuff you need to be sent there. Not only that but you are only allowed so many turns. You can’t just keep going.
You are manipulative, you shift the goalposts either that or you are just playing a little game to see how you can wind people up.
Please convince me that you do not approve of these spreader events
It's the government's behaviour that's killing people, not that of individual citizens.
Why do you think we have foiotball grounds closed to crowds? Why are nighhtclubs and pubs closed
Trafalgar square is shitting London. It's a short walk to get to fucking London.
(Also, you are changing the subject. No infections are happening due to selfish or reckless behaviour in closed nightclubs or pubs.
Also, since pubs are a problem was the government doing the right thing when it encouraged people to eat out to help out, with or without scotch eggs?)
And now, please do me the courtesy of answering my questions. You said How do you know this? Where is the evidence? What are the statistics that justify your ‘many’?
1. Wilful ignorance
2. A cheap, snide insult.
Quick question: are you actually Boris Johnson?
AFZ
They were not low enough to run a scheme like Eat Out To Help Out without it acting as a national super spreader event: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/30-10-20-eat_out_to_help_out_scheme_drove_new_covid_19_infections_up_by_between_8_and_17_new_research_finds/
Here's a nice bit of evidence for you to ignore:
‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme drove new COVID-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, new research finds.
AFZ
which suggests that the reason the virus continues to spread is that people are not following the lockdown rules, compared to this Sky News story from 13 January (link), that looks at some current research
I would suggest that the problem is more that the current lock down rules are too lax, too many people in work, too many children in school, too many people travelling to exercise, noticeably far more traffic on the roads compared to the first lock down* all of which are allowed within the rules.
* During the first lock down it was so quiet next to the nearby motorways I could hear skylarks loud and clear, and notice the silence when a peregrine flew over. No way I could this time, the roads are enveloped by their normal thunderous roar.
For example, if he says "My auntie Gladys caught the virus when a selfish person sneezed over her in the supermarket", you might counter with, "My uncle Toby was infected at the surgery by a nurse who didn't know she was a carrier", and we are no further forward.
I have, alas, encountered too many 'Telfords' in church communities. As a strategy, I used to get them to pray for situations which directly contradicted their unexamined prejudices. This could be fun! I'm afraid Telford is no fun at all on the various threads where he plants what would be called, face-to face, "Conversation stoppers". What the answer is I don't know, as many kindly shipmates have tried to explain these things to him. With, alas, no change in behaviour.
So, back to de Pfeffel - how long will he last as PM? Do you think a fellow Conservative will oust him before the next election?
So, I'm going to break my own resolution to not bother with you again because I'm a nice guy who wants to help people understand. So, in relation to your assertion that the spread of the virus is down to many people acting recklessly, in the context being a let-off for the government as they're not in control of individuals who deliberately break the rules. Here's the evidence I would consider important:
1. The virus spreads by direct contact between people (being in the same room, breathing the same air), and to a slightly lesser extent through indirect contact (touching the same surfaces)
2. The spread can be reduced, but not eliminated, by physical distancing, good air flow, wearing masks, washing hands etc
3. Places where people come into direct and indirect contact with others are numerous and include home, workplaces, shops, pubs/restaurants, travel on a bus, taking a walk in the local park ...
4. Many people have been going to their place of work - some definitely and unavoidably essential (health workers, teachers, supermarket workers, bus drivers ...) others should have been able to work from home but for various reasons were unable to do so (I know of one government department running a call centre who didn't provide their staff the equipment needed to work from home, though most other call centres managed this perfectly well, resulting in all staff who were not shielding coming into the office every day).
5. In a large number of cases employers got away with declaring that their business was essential, and that if staff didn't come in they'd be sacked or at least not paid. Few people can afford to lose their job, so many people have been forced by their employers to go into work, in many cases even if ill.
6. The government also declared many activities to be safe, and thus created situations where people were mixing in enclosed spaces - examples include the already mentioned "eat out to help out", add in the full return to school and university, encouraging people to travel overseas for holidays and so on.
Even without any individuals acting recklessly and breaking the rules these would all have resulted in significant spreading of the virus. And, there were many things that were in the ability of the government to act to reduce the spread of the virus, including but not limited to:
7. Mandatory mask wearing could have been introduced earlier, likewise shutting down international travel with a quarantine requirement
8. Make it illegal for anyone to be sacked or have their wages cut for self-isolating if they were symptomatic or had a positive test (if necessary provide extra cash to top up sick leave entitlements)
9. Ensure furlough schemes were maintained long enough to cover the full suppression of the virus, that schemes covered everyone without various groups excluded, and had flexibility to allow businesses to adapt as circumstances changed
10. Provide their own civil servants the equipment needed to work from home, as most private businesses had done, and have these departments lead by example
11. Procure sufficient and suitable PPE and other supplies needed to reduce spread of the virus in hospitals and care homes
12. Build up the local authority public health services to run effective contact tracing, which is something that they're experts at, rather than give the contract to people with no expertise to produce an expensive and useless system.
13. Enforce the rules, and to do so without bias. There's no excuse for a government advisor who had been in No10 just to talk to people (which could have been done via Zoom, as the rest of us had had to do) and thus exposed to Johnson when he got the virus, developed symptoms and then didn't stay at home as he should have done (instead driving half way the length of England, visiting a second home (also not allowed) to visit mummy on the excuse that he couldn't look after his child without support), and certainly no excuse for the government to gang up to say it was OK.
So, given all of the above it seems to me inevitable that the vast majority of transmission of the virus has been through activities that are either unavoidable or were declared safe (even encouraged) by the government. With the recklessness of individuals being a relatively small contribution (though, possibly still enough to be described as "many"). And, that the government could have done more to reduce the spread of the virus and is thus in the lap of Mr Johnson, and we can legitimately blame him for not acting soon enough or strongly enough.
(and, see, I've made a nice bulletised list as you say you can't follow paragraphs of more than a sentence or two).
Johnson has fucked up the UK's Covid response from the beginning.
He continues to do so.
The result is that thousands of people have died who would not have done if things had been managed better.
He continues to (successfully at the moment) shift the blame to others.
He absolutely deserves this hell thread.
I am beyond angry but I am managing my righteous anger.
Apologists for Johnson need to provide some actual evidence that my anger is misplaced to be taken seriously.
Not yet. We have not reached tipping point. I long for that day for the good of my country.
Here's a thing; in the context of the US, I was reminded that 73 million Americans voted for Trump. But by mid 2021, as with Nixon (who really did win in a landslide) it will soon be very difficult to find one (apart from his minority cult). Whilst Johnson currently enjoys good polling, that can change very, very quickly.
I pray for that day.
AFZ
I think the dynamics are different, the transition will be one that pays tribute to Johnson. Look at the accolades the two architects of the hostile environment policy and the Windrush scandal still pick up in parts of the media. Look at the rehabilitation of George W in some parts of the US liberal scene.
I also think de Pfeffel will be credited with the phenomenal vaccine rollout, for which he deserves no credit whatever.
"BORIS" - the lovable buffonish nice guy is one such example.
But I am not without hope. But unless and until such a tipping point is reached, there is no chance of the Conservative Party deposing him. They love a winner. In electoral terms (only) "Boris" is a winner.
AFZ
Boris is popular. I don’t understand why but there you go. My question is how much of Brexit problems and other bad choices are being hidden behind Covid
A good question.
I suspect that you are right, and that the pandemic is clouding other issues, which will doubtless become more noticeable once Covid is on the run (yes, I know - when? O Lord, when?).
Once that happens, the Lord Protector will be seen clearly as the mendacious, incompetent apology for a haystack that he actually is.
Child poverty will not go away, for example, however happy the newly-British Fish are...and it may well be that the incredible amounts of loot pocketed during the current crisis by the Chumocrats will affect the way the newly-poor voters turn at the next General Election.
Please? Pretty please?
Is the Brexshit fishing fiasco likely to affect the potential tory vote?
It all seems more complex than I thought, but there is Hope...I think...
However, here is the conclusion:
"Brexit has rubbed the noses of the Scots in their status as junior partners in the union. They have been told repeatedly that their vote against it means nothing, and that their duty is just to suck it up.
None of this means that there is any certainty about Nicola Sturgeon’s destiny to be the first prime minister of an independent Scotland. Her challenges in even getting a second referendum, let alone successfully answering the questions about the practicalities of independence that sunk her cause in 2014, are formidable.
But she has the most unexpected of allies. For five years, Johnson and his ruling faction have been preaching the gospel that national sovereignty matters above all else, including mere economics. He has placed on the table those radioactive questions: so what is the nation and how can it become sovereign?
Sturgeon has one eloquent and forceful set of answers to those questions."
Thanks for all that. I have read it all and carefully considered it. Much of what you wrote I already agreed with espercially the BIB
Classic O'Toole writing, very trenchant. The arguments about sovereignty go back and forth; on the one hand, Brexit blazes a trail for autonomy of nations, on the other hand the Anglo-fascists sneer that the Scots want to leave one union (UK), in order to join another (EU). Yes, but the EU does not impugn Scottish sovereignty, the UK does.
That's a bit unfair. Scotland had a once in a generation referendum in 2014. I accept that now that the situation has altered another referendum would in appropriate
I can’t find any report of a UK-based potential super spreader event since the beginning of the first lockdown, let alone one found to be responsible for multiple infections.
Your statement that ‘Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless’ appears to be no more than baseless rumour or misinformation.
Leonard resigned because a couple of the large donors objected to him, good to see that party democracy is working as intended.
At the delayed end of the 2019/2020 Premier League football season many thousands who had not been able to get in to watch the game decided to gathered in a packed crowd outsidce the stadium to celebrate Liverpool's first win for many years. This is not a baseless rumour or misinformation. It happened.
There have also been many events organised by Jeremy Corbyn's brother
The imbecile in question has a name of his own, you know. Your attempt at guilt by association is as transparent as it is petty (which is a lot, in case you were in any doubt).
Never the less he organises these events. No social distancing of course because "the pandemic doesn't exist"
And his name is Piers Corbyn. So why mention Jeremy's name but not Piers'?
...and P*ers is just another Daemon...
To be fair, I think a lot of that is because when you stand him next to Mr. Trump, he looks like a functional adult. The existence of Donald Trump has rather lowered the bar for what you might consider either competency or decency.
(And, for reference, idiocy by Jeremy Corbyn's brother is as relevant to Jeremy or the Labour party as idiocy by Boris Johnson's dad is to do with the PM.)