Keir Starmer and the Labour Party’s stance during the pandemic.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To be fair I think the Chinese government can lockdown in a way nowhere else can

....except possibly North Korea.

 

[scotrail158713]

....except possibly North Korea.

True

 

[VauxhallandI]

<Sigh>

Quite possibly the most dangerous decision that could have been taken.

Really, do give me the benefit of your crystal balls

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.

What has India got to do with it?

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Really, do give me the benefit of your crystal balls


What has India got to do with it?

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.

 

[Purple Orange]

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.

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.

Really, do give me the benefit of your crystal balls


What has India got to do with it?

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.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Neither of you have explained the relevance of the current India situation and that of the UK.

 

[Purple Orange]

Neither of you have explained the relevance of the current India situation and that of the UK.

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.

 

[ExRes]

Keeping people working not just the ones needed to serve the well to do.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

 

[Purple Orange]

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

It means nothing - it’s nonsense.

 

[greyman42]

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.

There is no evidence that mask wearing makes any significant difference.

 

[VauxhallandI]

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.

That’s got more holes in it than Swiss cheese

“Closer to your opinion” but not my opinion and in a completely different environment so in your words - nonsense

 

[Purple Orange]

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon

fullfact.org

Lockdown sceptics should read this.

This link gives a fact checking view on various lockdown sceptic beliefs.

 

[VauxhallandI]

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.

 

[Purple Orange]

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.

Really? 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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon

fullfact.org

Lockdown sceptics should read this.

Or just look at Sweden and Florida as I said earlier. They never had a lockdown and their covid rate is no worse to countries that did implement lockdowns.

One way to prove that there is no evidence that lockdowns work.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

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.

 

[yorkie]

<Sigh>

Quite possibly the most dangerous decision that could have been taken.

On the contrary; the decisions you and the Labour party would have taken sound far more damaging to society, in a wider sense.

Lockdown 1, 2 and 3 should have started earlier than they did

I don't agree; locking down for longer doesn't really achieve much.

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.

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.

We wouldn’t have come out of lockdown faster, but we might have not had the highest death toll in Europe.

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?

I just can’t agree with you on any level

Many of us can't agree with you either.

that there should have been fewer or shorter restrictions.

Why not? There is no evidence that harsher/longer restrictions reduces deaths or increases the health of a population.

The 130,000 deaths we have on the official recorded statistics could and should have been a lot lower.

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.

And as to your question about India, just read the news and take in what is happening there.

This has no relevance to our situation.

How is India more relevant than, say, Sweden which didn't lock down?

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon

fullfact.org

Lockdown sceptics should read this.

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.

 

[Yew]

Neither of you have explained the relevance of the current India situation and that of the UK.

And specifically why we can be compared to India, but not to other developed European nations like Sweden...

 

[VauxhallandI]

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?

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.

This lockdown more and longer brigade a long list of caveats that aren’t mentioned.

 

[yorksrob]

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon

fullfact.org

Lockdown sceptics should read this.

It's an interesting read, but fundamentally it can't say whether the other measures would have brought infection rates under control without lockdown because we didn't stick with the other measures. We went for lockdown shortly after implementing the other measures.

It would be a bit of a pickle, but for the fact that we have other countries which did stick with the other measures short of lockdown, and they seem to have experienced a similar infection profile to ours.

Therefore I remain highly sceptical of the need for lockdown.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

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.

Don't forget the Welsh firebreak lockdown back at the end of October also didn't do anything to reduce the spread. Despite a lockdown, cases and deaths continued to go up in Wales.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Really? 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.

Well maybe if we weren’t supporting you for six months then maybe you’d have a more open mind to other possibilities

I’m not sitting here with a full plan in a document but I open to considering other avenues of action.

Your insistence in bringing India into the picture leads me to dismiss everything you have said as it shows a clear lack of critical thinking.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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. Perhaps you feel the NHS staff should follow your line of reasoning also.

 

[HSTEd]

I was not aware that any part of Britain imported water as you imply above.

Chemicals required to operate water treatment facilities are imported however

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Chemicals required to operate water treatment facilities are imported however

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?

 

[VauxhallandI]

I was not aware that any part of Britain imported water as you imply above.

I wasn’t implying anything of the sort.

The sealing of borders is another thing the locktivists were chasing that is in cloud cuckoo land.

Locktivists cry for more and harder lockdowns but in fact there is a list of caveats to what they want that they don’t mention.

These things are NOT related to each other but are separate issues

- Home food deliveries from supermarkets (including imported products)
- home food delivery from take aways
- Bin collection and waste disposal
- water supply and wastewater treatment
- electricity generation and distribution
- police force
- ambulance service
- fire service
- free salary whatever percentage (in some cases)
- their income supply to continue

Plus many many more I’m sure

Apologies if I didn’t describe it well previously

 

[scotrail158713]

And specifically why we can be compared to India, but not to other developed European nations like Sweden...

Very true. I wonder what some may have to say to this?

 

[cactustwirly]

Can we believe the lockdown sceptics? - Full Fact

Evidence does not support the theories of sceptics Peter Hitchens, Ivor Cummins and Mike Yeadon

fullfact.org

Lockdown sceptics should read this.

A very flawed article which basically says lockdowns work because Ivor Cummings is wrong.

His theories were plausible at the time, obviously not completely correct now.
There is no conclusive proof that lockdowns work either.