|
Post by muckypup on Dec 20, 2020 23:39:32 GMT
A read of the BBC news. nationwide and regional. of the number of lockdown parties that the Police have had to deal with and the number of £10K fines issued, for example to students, would seem to demonstrate the extent to which the Police have had their hands full. I would not consider their reports to be 'anecdotal' evidence. As to someone complaining (anecdotally) of the inconvenient cost of an Air B & B in the face of a national lockdown. Well...that's *priceless* isn't it? Link please. www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/two-derby-students-fined-10k-4804248
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Dec 20, 2020 23:49:01 GMT
fair enough.......agree harsher lockdowns might have been better but no excuse for people not being responsible......i actually think that banning alcohol sales full stop from november would have been the best action......but there would be the it's not fair brigade moaning on more than banning xmas.... whats the betting before xmas he announces lockdown no3 from 1jan....... Why? What link is there between alcohol & observing lockdown regulations? plenty.....but drunk people have less inhibitions, poorer judgement and less likely to observe social judgement..... keep pubs open where limits are easier to control and ban none controlled outlets like supermarkets from selling it. but there is no easy answer.........but todays polls show most are with Boris on this decision.....but see the idiots trying to get out of teir 4 area before midnight, makes you realise there are more idiots than we thought.....
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 20, 2020 23:55:01 GMT
Why? What link is there between alcohol & observing lockdown regulations? plenty.....but drunk people have less inhibitions, poorer judgement and less likely to observe social judgement..... keep pubs open where limits are easier to control and ban none controlled outlets like supermarkets from selling it. but there is no easy answer.........but todays polls show most are with Boris on this decision.....but see the idiots trying to get out of teir 4 area before midnight, makes you realise there are more idiots than we thought..... Maybe. But not everyone who drinks gets drunk! I think the closing of pubs seems logical on paper, to people who haven't been to a pub in 20 years & assumes everyone just gets drunk out of their mind. & all those fools trying to leave London is shocking but again put in perspective a minority. But I guess it plays into the government's narrative that the public are to blame not those in power who have systematically failed us.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 20, 2020 23:56:13 GMT
That's a link to the general BBC news site not a specific story that corroborates your anecdotal claim. Nevermind, just another person to add to my ignore list.. I suppose it's some sort of achievement for you to even have an ignore list on possibly the friendliest forum on the internet. Could you add me too, please? Thank you and Happy Christmas. I used to think I was in a very exclusive club, maybe even a club of one. Now it looks like half the forum's in it, there's no cachet any more. Place is going to the dogs.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Dec 21, 2020 0:07:28 GMT
plenty.....but drunk people have less inhibitions, poorer judgement and less likely to observe social judgement..... keep pubs open where limits are easier to control and ban none controlled outlets like supermarkets from selling it. but there is no easy answer.........but todays polls show most are with Boris on this decision.....but see the idiots trying to get out of teir 4 area before midnight, makes you realise there are more idiots than we thought..... Maybe. But not everyone who drinks gets drunk! I think the closing of pubs seems logical on paper, to people who haven't been to a pub in 20 years & assumes everyone just gets drunk out of their mind. & all those fools trying to leave London is shocking but again put in perspective a minority. But I guess it plays into the government's narrative that the public are to blame not those in power who have systematically failed us. i think everyone is to blame dude.......government and public.......no one gets a free pass in my book. i think we on same page......boris is a blundering idiot and the public are morons.......lol have you noticed the ones complain most are the ones who keep saying I've not seen my mum/bro/sister in almost a year..........i keep thinking if it so chuffin important to you why didn't yo see them in july aug sep oct or am i being too cynical ...... stay safe buddy
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 21, 2020 11:10:24 GMT
A few days ago Johnson was mocking the suggestion of further restrictions from the leader of the opposition and basically accused him of wanting to cancel Christmas at PMQs. The mutation to the virus has been known about publicly since last weekend, Chris Whitty indicated it’s been known for weeks. Meanwhile the stats were always heading this way. Tier 3 wasn’t working. This was always coming. This is not a sudden inexplicable development. Someone just finally showed Johnson a graph he couldn’t wish away. Johnson is perfectly willing to rubbish suggestions of public health restrictions for political capital, but mere days later expects the public to adhere to them religiously. I don’t care about Johnson cancelling Christmas. I wasn’t going to see my extended family even with the original compromise. What I do care about is actually competent leadership, and it’s not in abundance today. Yes, the new variant has been known about for a while (and publically, longer than only last weekend I think) but the sudden change in policy was due to the UK 'new viruses' agency analysis and the data which showed this variant estimated to be 70% more infectious than the previous one. That's the development. But it could have been otherwise; sharply rising infection rates in Liverpool (for example) in the autumn had nothing to do with this variant as far as I know, it can 'just happen' in an area.
The way other nations are reacting now, and the government notifying the WHO now, strongly suggests that they did indeed only learn this in the last couple of days. I'm sure some people will believe the UK have known for some time and suppressed it for some strange reason; I don't. I'm sure we would tell the world as soon as the scientists had the data, unlike China.
Unless it's "revealed" to have been otherwise, it seems clear Ministers knew about it about very shortly before we did, hence the sudden flurry of meetings on Friday followed by the more-than-handbrake turn on policy for Christmas on Saturday. I think it's fair to say that Labour got more than they bargained for after calling for relatively modest 'tightening' of rules over Christmas (not even slightly for political capital of course.) They obviously didn't expect this any more than we did, so if the Government did know a long time back, they collectively managed not to leak for the first time this year.
Should the Government have 'cancelled Christmas' a week earlier on finding rising rates in the SE even without knowing this definitive new data? I think 'yes', but wider reaction suggests 'no'. Imagine the headlines if they had and the analysis had later said the new variant wasn't significantly more infectious: "Johnson Cancels Christmas By Mistake".
Personally, given the timing (winter) I would ban all non-essential contact right through until Spring, well into the vaccination rollout. With a strict definition of 'essential' and whatever support and enforcement were needed to make it work.
But while it would undoubtedly bring rates right down, I don't think that policy would be popular either. And then we would hear all the (true) stories about the effects of isolation on some people, and ruined businesses. We've been extra-unlucky to be hit by the new variant, but it's not only the UK facing this situation; getting this right in western democracies is proving almost impossible.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 21, 2020 12:01:06 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 21, 2020 13:44:32 GMT
A few days ago Johnson was mocking the suggestion of further restrictions from the leader of the opposition and basically accused him of wanting to cancel Christmas at PMQs. The mutation to the virus has been known about publicly since last weekend, Chris Whitty indicated it’s been known for weeks. Meanwhile the stats were always heading this way. Tier 3 wasn’t working. This was always coming. This is not a sudden inexplicable development. Someone just finally showed Johnson a graph he couldn’t wish away. Johnson is perfectly willing to rubbish suggestions of public health restrictions for political capital, but mere days later expects the public to adhere to them religiously. I don’t care about Johnson cancelling Christmas. I wasn’t going to see my extended family even with the original compromise. What I do care about is actually competent leadership, and it’s not in abundance today. Yes, the new variant has been known about for a while (and publically, longer than only last weekend I think) but the sudden change in policy was due to the UK 'new viruses' agency analysis and the data which showed this variant estimated to be 70% more infectious than the previous one. That's the development. But it could have been otherwise; sharply rising infection rates in Liverpool (for example) in the autumn had nothing to do with this variant as far as I know, it can 'just happen' in an area.
The way other nations are reacting now, and the government notifying the WHO now, strongly suggests that they did indeed only learn this in the last couple of days. I'm sure some people will believe the UK have known for some time and suppressed it for some strange reason; I don't. I'm sure we would tell the world as soon as the scientists had the data, unlike China.
Unless it's "revealed" to have been otherwise, it seems clear Ministers knew about it about very shortly before we did, hence the sudden flurry of meetings on Friday followed by the more-than-handbrake turn on policy for Christmas on Saturday. I think it's fair to say that Labour got more than they bargained for after calling for relatively modest 'tightening' of rules over Christmas (not even slightly for political capital of course.) They obviously didn't expect this any more than we did, so if the Government did know a long time back, they collectively managed not to leak for the first time this year.
Should the Government have 'cancelled Christmas' a week earlier on finding rising rates in the SE even without knowing this definitive new data? I think 'yes', but wider reaction suggests 'no'. Imagine the headlines if they had and the analysis had later said the new variant wasn't significantly more infectious: "Johnson Cancels Christmas By Mistake".
Personally, given the timing (winter) I would ban all non-essential contact right through until Spring, well into the vaccination rollout. With a strict definition of 'essential' and whatever support and enforcement were needed to make it work.
But while it would undoubtedly bring rates right down, I don't think that policy would be popular either. And then we would hear all the (true) stories about the effects of isolation on some people, and ruined businesses. We've been extra-unlucky to be hit by the new variant, but it's not only the UK facing this situation; getting this right in western democracies is proving almost impossible.
I think people's views of this tends to be affected by their views of the PM generally. Those well disposed to him tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, those who didn't like him to start with tend to seize on every misstep as a stick to beat him with.
I don't think any of us can be truly objective about a marmite politician such as BJ but I'm going to try.
I think the case for the prosecution would be firstly that he has not always listened to scientific advice - the original lockdown came about a week too late, the scientists' call for a 2 week circuit breaker in September was ignored. What would have happened if he had acted sooner is unknown and unknowable - maybe it would have made a big difference, maybe it would have made very little difference.
It is possible to make a case for the defence and justify his decisions, but it does look to me on balance like a clear pattern has emerged and that by resisting calls for earlier, possibly shorter and less severe lockdowns, he has simply brought about longer, more severe and more economically damaging lockdowns. Whether this is because he genuinely agrees with the anti-lockdown MPs on his backbenches or is simply too weak a leader to face them down is not something any of us know.
Secondly, getting people to comply with restrictions is a test of leadership. It is if you like an exercise in mass psychology and I think it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that BJ has failed this one. In fairness he was handicapped by being such a marmite and divisive politician before the pandemic began - fairly or unfairly a lot of people don't like him and think he is a liar. Where I think he has unarguably gone wrong is by over-promising and under-delivering on numerous occasions, i.e. on world-beating test and trace, on having a normal Christmas, etc. His defenders will say it is not his fault these things haven't come to pass, and I accept that is fair, but it is his fault for promising them in the first place when he was far from 100% sure he could deliver. The mismanagement of expectations and the resultant disappointment can be laid at his door. And that's before anyone mentions Dom's drive to Barnard Castle and his non-sacking in May.
In BJ's defence, no government has got it right 100% of the time. The new variant starting in the UK is bad luck, and the current travel bans are posturing by foreign governments for domestic consumption (it's inconceivable the new variant isn't already present in other countries if it has been around a while undetected).
We need a PM who can inspire trust. BJ was never the ideal candidate to do that because of his historically loose relationship with the truth, but the own goals and errors of judgement since March mean he lacks the credibility to lead effectively at this time. Even amongst the Tory supporters / sympathisers, surely they must secretly think that someone like Jeremy Hunt, or even Theresa May, would do a better job?
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 21, 2020 16:09:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 21, 2020 17:35:25 GMT
This not-fit-for-purpose PM muddles his way through another address to the nation. He Must Go.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 21, 2020 18:36:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Dec 21, 2020 19:17:41 GMT
This not-fit-for-purpose PM muddles his way through another address to the nation. He Must Go. only if we never get mogg the log......that prospect is worse than a mutated covid
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 21, 2020 21:06:21 GMT
So there are calls for a national lockdown, will Boris Johnson implement it or as usual dither for a while (which will make things worse) then finally do something!
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Dec 21, 2020 23:03:31 GMT
So there are calls for a national lockdown, will Boris Johnson implement it or as usual dither for a while (which will make things worse) then finally do something! jan 1st.......it will come he will re-emerge from covid-christmas hiding and give us the news on 29th dec too late again, and will go till end of march 3 four week blocks.......
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 22, 2020 0:03:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 22, 2020 11:40:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 22, 2020 17:32:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2020 7:00:21 GMT
Leading by example, well done Sturgeon
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 23, 2020 9:22:57 GMT
Leading by example, well done Sturgeon Well at least it was only brief and she’s owned up and apologised. Better than refusing to admit any wrongdoing and coming up with an epic sob story involving an eye test on a road to a tourist spot...
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 23, 2020 9:24:22 GMT
Meanwhile the government can’t decide whether or not Christmas plans are still subject to change.
|
|