PHILIPE
Veteran Member
Dominic Cummings undermined lockdown enforcement, says ex-Durham police chief
No real surprise there, then.
And then the PM "manipulates" the interpretation of the rules to be able to defend him.
Dominic Cummings undermined lockdown enforcement, says ex-Durham police chief
No real surprise there, then.
He's clearly hacked off the North's Muslim community more than a little...
He wheeled out a backbencher to blame them, too. Plausible deniability, of course, but make no mistake: that is the message direct from Tory Central Office.
I never knew Dominic Cummings was Bangladeshi and living in a terraced house in Halifax though
Well, there is an upside that if they alienate all the voters then they'll lose the next election. The downside is we have to wait 4 years.
They're appealing to their new core base of racist Brexitists. If it doubt, blame the brown people.
Sad thing is, it works.
The old red wall has gone because the voters there might have been trade unionists, but they were the trade unionists who supported whites-only closed shops well into the 70s.
What has Brexit got to do with it. Remainers like tossing it in.
The Tories' new core voter base is racist Brexitists. They won the election purely based on "getting Brexit done". Do you deny any of that?
This is why they continue to blame brown people for everything, regardless of the truth.
As always - willing to learn. Can you convince me that the majority of Tory supporters are racist? Can you give an example of where they have explicitly 'blamed brown people'?The Tories' new core voter base is racist Brexitists. They won the election purely based on "getting Brexit done". Do you deny any of that?
This is why they continue to blame brown people for everything, regardless of the truth.
The Tories' new core voter base is racist Brexitists. They won the election purely based on "getting Brexit done". Do you deny any of that?
This is why they continue to blame brown people for everything, regardless of the truth.
Why racist ? Boris said "Get Brexit Done" because there had been too many Remainers who couldn't respect the democratic vote and had been doing anything to try and delay and frustrate it.
As always - willing to learn. Can you convince me that the majority of Tory supporters are racist? Can you give an example of where they have explicitly 'blamed brown people'?
The Tories' new core voter base is racist Brexitists. They won the election purely based on "getting Brexit done". Do you deny any of that?
This is why they continue to blame brown people for everything, regardless of the truth.
Can you give an example of where they have explicitly 'blamed brown people'?
For once you don’t need to blame Brexit, or cast around for a conspiracy theory, to attack this government.
They should be a *lot* more concerned by the fact that many of those of us who did vote for them are equally furious with the way they’re (not) handling Covid
It was a side comment to my actual point, which is they're wheeling out the dog whistle to appeal to their core voters who are receptive to such things, and to stop their core voters blaming them for their staggering ineptitude.
Indeed, it's certainly an interesting discussion, perhaps if there's more interest, we should start a thread?I sorta agree - I had an annual repeat prescription review last month, and it was definitely *easier* not having to go to the surgery to see the doctor for two minutes just so they could tick some boxes on the computer.
But on the other hand shouldn't the doctor have been looking at me and deciding if I actually still need the eczema medications I take, or whether things should be changed up?
Routine things are fine if they really are routine, but a good doctor should have the skills to spot something going wrong, possibly even before the patient notices. They're far less likely to be able do that over the phone when they can't see the patients demeanour, attitude, etc.
Now maybe of course my assumption that this will happen is wrong. We could be building up immunity fast. But if so, why aren't infection levels dropping?
We don't have a control for this level of restriction with zero immunity, and given the current infection rates, it's probably too small to make realistic measurements, as even a thousand infections is a small percentage of the 65 million of us.
Couple that with the easing of restrictions, and changes in behaviour and viral prevelence, and it'd be an incredibly difficult thing to measure.
Indeed, but thats a slightly seperate question from "we don't have sufficient immunity to be able to relax further without seeing infections go up and overwhelming the NHS"Perhaps so - it's very hard to decouple building up immunity from all the other changes.
But the fact that infections are level (or rising?) at the moment suggests that we don't have sufficient immunity to be able to relax further without seeing infections go up.
Indeed, but thats a slightly seperate question from "we don't have sufficient immunity to be able to relax further without seeing infections go up and overwhelming the NHS"
Good grief <sigh>The problem is those people in their 20s and 30s could catch the virus and then pass it on to their parents or grandparents. They may not be as lucky as their children / grandchildren in terms of their recovery from the virus.
Good grief <sigh>
I know I’ve made this point several times before on other threads, but I’ve yet to see anyone come back with an answer to this question:
Why have the mass gatherings of 8-9 weeks ago (crowded beaches, BLM demonstrations etc) not resulted in a spike in deaths by now? It’s more than enough time for the people attending such events to have mixed with relatives, other adults in shops and pubs, to have - even asymptomatically - infected vulnerable adults and those people to be in ICU or worse, to have died ? The WHO was making dark pronouncements that even being outdoors won’t save you from this deadly virus, as there is evidence of airborne transmission.
It seems that now daily deaths are ‘flattened’ the government is now using the number of infections as the weapon of fear.
I predict that when public pressure begins to mount for the rules on face-coverngs to be jettisoned, the argument will then be twisted that ‘although infection rates are now below 1 in 100,000, we have to guard against a more deadly, mutated form of this virus‘
I too am past the view that the handling of this crisis is beyond ineptitude. It smacks now of something more sinister
I was referring to indoor events. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.Good grief <sigh>
I know I’ve made this point several times before on other threads, but I’ve yet to see anyone come back with an answer to this question:
Why have the mass gatherings of 8-9 weeks ago (crowded beaches, BLM demonstrations etc) not resulted in a spike in deaths by now? It’s more than enough time for the people attending such events to have mixed with relatives, other adults in shops and pubs, to have - even asymptomatically - infected vulnerable adults and those people to be in ICU or worse, to have died ? The WHO was making dark pronouncements that even being outdoors won’t save you from this deadly virus, as there is evidence of airborne transmission.
It seems that now daily deaths are ‘flattened’ the government is now using the number of infections as the weapon of fear.
I predict that when public pressure begins to mount for the rules on face-coverngs to be jettisoned, the argument will then be twisted that ‘although infection rates are now below 1 in 100,000, we have to guard against a more deadly, mutated form of this virus‘
I too am past the view that the handling of this crisis is beyond ineptitude. It smacks now of something more sinister
Good grief <sigh>
I know I’ve made this point several times before on other threads, but I’ve yet to see anyone come back with an answer to this question:
Why have the mass gatherings of 8-9 weeks ago (crowded beaches, BLM demonstrations etc) not resulted in a spike in deaths by now? It’s more than enough time for the people attending such events to have mixed with relatives, other adults in shops and pubs, to have - even asymptomatically - infected vulnerable adults and those people to be in ICU or worse, to have died ? The WHO was making dark pronouncements that even being outdoors won’t save you from this deadly virus, as there is evidence of airborne transmission.
It seems that now daily deaths are ‘flattened’ the government is now using the number of infections as the weapon of fear.
I predict that when public pressure begins to mount for the rules on face-coverngs to be jettisoned, the argument will then be twisted that ‘although infection rates are now below 1 in 100,000, we have to guard against a more deadly, mutated form of this virus‘
I too am past the view that the handling of this crisis is beyond ineptitude. It smacks now of something more sinister
People gathered in close proximity during those protests, and were standing or sitting together for much more than 15 minutes at a time, to listen to speeches. Many people were not wearing masks at all; many wearing them as chin warmers. If this virus is so easily transmissible, I don’t understand how - given the proximity and extended time - it somehow fails to infect people in that situation, outdoors. Yet government says that passing someone in a supermarket aisle indoors, for 5-20 seconds, is so incredibly dangerous that we all need to wear face-coverings!I was referring to indoor events. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
And despite infections dropping whilst we did that for several months. This is why I ignore government muppets. Present some facts and gain some credibility.People gathered in close proximity during those protests, and were standing or sitting together for much more than 15 minutes at a time, to listen to speeches. Many people were not wearing masks at all; many wearing them as chin warmers. If this virus is so easily transmissible, I don’t understand how - given the proximity and extended time - it somehow fails to infect people in that situation, outdoors. Yet government says that passing someone in a supermarket aisle indoors, for 5-20 seconds, is so incredibly dangerous that we all need to wear face-coverings!
I think with masks we will also get "they will help prevent deaths from common flu so we are keeping them long term".It seems that now daily deaths are ‘flattened’ the government is now using the number of infections as the weapon of fear.
I predict that when public pressure begins to mount for the rules on face-coverngs to be jettisoned, the argument will then be twisted that ‘although infection rates are now below 1 in 100,000, we have to guard against a more deadly, mutated form of this virus‘
I think with masks we will also get "they will help prevent deaths from common flu so we are keeping them long term".
I would be very surprised to see that other than if we have another pandemic or a very bad flu year.
God, I hope not. Interaction via facial expression is fundamental to what makes us human.More likely is that the previous 'stigma' around masks is much reduced so people wear them as a matter of choice anyway.
Let them carry on but I won't be joining them.More likely is that the previous 'stigma' around masks is much reduced so people wear them as a matter of choice anyway.
God, I hope not. Interaction via facial expression is fundamental to what makes us human.
The government had better be prepared if there is civil unrest in the future, because people looting and committing arson will be much harder to identify when wearing ‘everyday’ masks.
Oh, and if as rumoured, they mandate the wearing of gloves, culprits won’t be leaving too many fingerprints either...