Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
....except possibly North Korea.To be fair I think the Chinese government can lockdown in a way nowhere else can
....except possibly North Korea.To be fair I think the Chinese government can lockdown in a way nowhere else can
True....except possibly North Korea.
Really, do give me the benefit of your crystal balls<Sigh>
Quite possibly the most dangerous decision that could have been taken.
What has India got to do with it?I am sure that your perceived pearls of wisdom would be well received in India at this moment in time by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who felt it was in good order to allow vast numbers to attend election rallies.
To be frank you are the one that needs to dial back. You clearly were trying to pre-judge me and you got it wrong. I never mentioned Farage, nor would I because he clearly doesn't represent the working class. But given his form, neither does Starmer.Oh calm yourself down. I mentioned Farage because he has been held up as representing the working class. I didn’t say you had that opinion. It’s called advancing the conversation, but there isn’t much point in doing that.
Twelve consecutive days with over 300,000 new cases and a Prime Minister who uses a "Nelson's Eye" to the blindingly obvious as elections are taking place where like that idiot Trump, he sees nothing wrong with large election gatherings.Really, do give me the benefit of your crystal balls
What has India got to do with it?
To be frank you are the one that needs to dial back. You clearly were trying to pre-judge me and you got it wrong. I never mentioned Farage, nor would I because he clearly doesn't represent the working class. But given his form, neither does Starmer.
Lockdown 1, 2 and 3 should have started earlier than they did. Johnson dithered at the start and work places we’re sending their employees home before the government made any announcement on lock down. Starting the process earlier would have stifled the infection rate earlier, which could have resulted in fewer deaths during each of the three waves. We wouldn’t have come out of lockdown faster, but we might have not had the highest death toll in Europe. I just can’t agree with you on any level that there should have been fewer or shorter restrictions. The 130,000 deaths we have on the official recorded statistics could and should have been a lot lower. And as to your question about India, just read the news and take in what is happening there.Really, do give me the benefit of your crystal balls
What has India got to do with it?
India have had very little in the way of restrictions which is closer to your opinion of how we should have managed the pandemic here. Their lack of oxygen supply is a different factor however, but it doesn’t avoid the fact that in your world, infection rates would have been astronomical and as a consequence a much bigger death rate. It’s not rocket science.Neither of you have explained the relevance of the current India situation and that of the UK.
Keeping people working not just the ones needed to serve the well to do.
It means nothing - it’s nonsense.What on earth is that supposed to mean?
There is no evidence that mask wearing makes any significant difference.Social distancing, hand washing and maybe masks are fine as restrictions. It's lockdowns where I am completely opposed to because there is no evidence that they work.
That’s got more holes in it than Swiss cheeseIndia have had very little in the way of restrictions which is closer to your opinion of how we should have managed the pandemic here. Their lack of oxygen supply is a different factor however, but it doesn’t avoid the fact that in your world, infection rates would have been astronomical and as a consequence a much bigger death rate. It’s not rocket science.
Well the pro lockdown folks are very happy that their take ways and Amazon deliveries are being made. They’re also happy that their rubbish is being collect, their water being supplied and treated and the electricity is still flowing from their sockets.What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Well the pro lockdown folks are very happy that their take ways and Amazon deliveries are being made. They’re also happy that their rubbish is being collect, their water being supplied and treated and the electricity is still flowing from their sockets.
They don’t give a fig for the income of anyone that they don’t use or benefit from; they have been thrown by the way side.
Can you be a little more explicit about "the water being supplied and treated". Precipitation levels are certainly a point to note and is that point to which you allude or are you worried that the water treatment plants are under undue pressure to meet the domestic demand with so many people on furlough being at home increasing domestic requirements?Well the pro lockdown folks are very happy that their take ways and Amazon deliveries are being made. They’re also happy that their rubbish is being collect, their water being supplied and treated and the electricity is still flowing from their sockets.
They don’t give a fig for the income of anyone that they don’t use or benefit from; they have been thrown by the way side.
Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact
Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadonfullfact.org
Lockdown sceptics should read this.
I am sorry to tell you but your comments attempted to label me. But as with so many social media commenters, you were very wrong.No I don’t need to dial back at all. There was nothing wrong with the wording of my comment and my follow up comment to you.
On the contrary; the decisions you and the Labour party would have taken sound far more damaging to society, in a wider sense.<Sigh>
Quite possibly the most dangerous decision that could have been taken.
I don't agree; locking down for longer doesn't really achieve much.Lockdown 1, 2 and 3 should have started earlier than they did
You don't have any actual evidence to support these claims. If you look at the Republic of Ireland, they locked down harder and longer than us, but this resulted in a lack of immunity in the population which meant cases sky rocketed when they did finally unlock, leading to the highest infection rates in Europe at the time.Johnson dithered at the start and work places we’re sending their employees home before the government made any announcement on lock down. Starting the process earlier would have stifled the infection rate earlier, which could have resulted in fewer deaths during each of the three waves.
There is no evidence that following the policies proposed by yourself and/or the Labour party would have reduced the death toll; you need to look at the bigger picture. Did you read the thread I posted regarding the link with inactivity and obesity? How would locking down longer and/or harder (as proposed by various Labour politicians and supported by yourself) have helped with that?We wouldn’t have come out of lockdown faster, but we might have not had the highest death toll in Europe.
Many of us can't agree with you either.I just can’t agree with you on any level
Why not? There is no evidence that harsher/longer restrictions reduces deaths or increases the health of a population.that there should have been fewer or shorter restrictions.
But you have no evidence that the policies proposed by hard left authoritarian Labour MPs and supporters would have actually reduced the death count. Furthermore, you should bear in mind the average age of a death with Covid is 82 (older than the average age of all deaths) and in the UK we had a few really good flu seasons where we had fewer deaths than normal, which resulted in more susceptible people for this virus.The 130,000 deaths we have on the official recorded statistics could and should have been a lot lower.
This has no relevance to our situation.And as to your question about India, just read the news and take in what is happening there.
That's a nonsense report, clearly created by biased individuals, which fails to properly take into account countries like Sweden which did not lock down. It also ignores the comparison with US states which released restrictive measures with those that continue to have restrictive measures.Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact
Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadonfullfact.org
Lockdown sceptics should read this.
And specifically why we can be compared to India, but not to other developed European nations like Sweden...Neither of you have explained the relevance of the current India situation and that of the UK.
I mean that locktivists are quite happy for the people who keep our water clean and running to carry on working as it suits them and they’re at home comfortable position.Can you be a little more explicit about "the water being supplied and treated". Precipitation levels are certainly a point to note and is that point to which you allude or are you worried that the water treatment plants are under undue pressure to meet the domestic demand with so many people on furlough being at home increasing domestic requirements?
Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact
Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadonfullfact.org
Lockdown sceptics should read this.
On the contrary; the decisions you and the Labour party would have taken sound far more damaging to society, in a wider sense.
I don't agree; locking down for longer doesn't really achieve much.
You don't have any actual evidence to support these claims. If you look at the Republic of Ireland, they locked down harder and longer than us, but this resulted in a lack of immunity in the population which meant cases sky rocketed when they did finally unlock, leading to the highest infection rates in Europe at the time.
The Czech Republic was very successful in the first season, but this only meant they were worse affected in the following season.
By the way, experts tend not to talk of "waves" nor try to exaggerate the number of so-called "waves"; such language appears to be used for dramatic effect to detract from having a sensible factual discussion.
There is no evidence that following the policies proposed by yourself and/or the Labour party would have reduced the death toll; you need to look at the bigger picture. Did you read the thread I posted regarding the link with inactivity and obesity? How would locking down longer and/or harder (as proposed by various Labour politicians and supported by yourself) have helped with that?
Many of us can't agree with you either.
Why not? There is no evidence that harsher/longer restrictions reduces deaths or increases the health of a population.
But you have no evidence that the policies proposed by hard left authoritarian Labour MPs and supporters would have actually reduced the death count. Furthermore, you should bear in mind the average age of a death with Covid is 82 (older than the average age of all deaths) and in the UK we had a few really good flu seasons where we had fewer deaths than normal, which resulted in more susceptible people for this virus.
This has no relevance to our situation.
How is India more relevant than, say, Sweden which didn't lock down?
That's a nonsense report, clearly created by biased individuals, which fails to properly take into account countries like Sweden which did not lock down. It also ignores the comparison with US states which released restrictive measures with those that continue to have restrictive measures.
The Labour party and those like you who support them are so obsessed with imposing authoritarianism that they are absolutely desperate to distort the truth. I vow never to vote for Labour while such policies and views persist.
You have failed to provide any evidence that authoritarianism would have reduced deaths, nor are you considering the wider harms to society.
Well maybe if we weren’t supporting you for six months then maybe you’d have a more open mind to other possibilitiesReally? You didn’t ask for anyone’s opinion about that and you don’t know personal circumstances either. I was furloughed for 6 months and lost more than 20% of my salary, yet I can see the benefit of the lockdown.
I was not aware that any part of Britain imported water as you imply above. Perhaps you feel the NHS staff should follow your line of reasoning also.I mean that locktivists are quite happy for the people who keep our water clean and running to carry on working as it suits them and they’re at home comfortable position.
Surely a proper lockdown and these people should be at home too just like the seal the border folks, no more imports.
I was not aware that any part of Britain imported water as you imply above.
Which in particular are these chemicals and are these something that cannot be sourced from the geological stratae of Britain? Has the British chemical industry lost much of its former manufacturing capacity?Chemicals required to operate water treatment facilities are imported however
I wasn’t implying anything of the sort.I was not aware that any part of Britain imported water as you imply above.
Very true. I wonder what some may have to say to this?And specifically why we can be compared to India, but not to other developed European nations like Sweden...
Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact
Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadonfullfact.org
Lockdown sceptics should read this.