Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Coronavirus - will we survive?

Coronavirus - will we survive?

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 19 ... 23  Next

Go down  Message [Page 15 of 23]

421Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Thu Sep 17 2020, 22:00

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Get tested when you land in Rome and results in half an hour.

Dido Harding the Head of Test and Trace today saying: 'No one was expecting to see such a big rise in demand' for testing?!

Anyone left thinking this government is anything other than incompetent?

It's simply not as black and white as the headlines suggest when you drill down into what the problems really are.

I thought this was a very fair account as to the issues - an extract below -

"And once we dig down more into this data, it becomes clear why tests have had to be rationed.

Nearly all the community testing is processed at one of five mega-labs. Back in August it was clear they were close to capacity - in fact all the testing capacity was used up on 23 August.

And this goes to the heart of the problem.

These labs were built in super-quick time. Ministers often refer to it as the biggest diagnostic testing expansion in history. That is because the UK had very few diagnostic testing facilities of this type. So it chose to centralise the system at these large labs and has worked with a variety of partners, including private companies and universities, to run them.

What's going on in the labs?
Prof Gordon Dougan, from the University of Cambridge, says it is not surprising they have run into problems and struggled to increase capacity to keep pace with demand. Despite "valiant efforts, the system is not robust enough" and is vulnerable to failure at multiple levels from sourcing equipment to finding the right staff, he says.

It is understood that one of the biggest limitations is hiring enough qualified people to carry out the tests.

This has become a particular issue as academics and post-graduate students have returned to their usual roles. Labs have been unable to offer academic staff contracts. More experienced staff have had to go back to their institutions.

This has led to Prime Minister Boris Johnson writing letters to universities asking them to lend their staff and students for a little longer. It's not clear how many, if any, have agreed to this.

In order to process more tests, labs will need more space, machines and people. This is happening, but it seems not fast enough to keep up with demand.

What next?
Lab capacity is being increased. A sixth mega-lab in Newport is in the process of opening. A seventh near Loughborough will follow suit in the coming weeks.

This should have a big impact on capacity. But meanwhile, the government has said it will have to prioritise - that means making sure hospitals, care homes and areas with outbreaks can get access to testing.

Even when these new labs are fully up and running, there are concerns demand will still outstrip supply. Cases of coronavirus and other respiratory illnesses are going up, so it seems inevitable more people will be seeking access to tests.

An analysis by Health Data Research UK warned that if just 80% of people with annual coughs and fevers applied for a test, capacity could be exceeded for the whole winter.

Problems getting hold of tests could be a persistent problem in coming months.

Full article here -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54163226

422Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Thu Sep 17 2020, 22:06

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Exactly, so you have to manage capacity. One minute we’re being told get to the pubs and eat out, open all the schools and get back to the office.

Now our ‘world beating’ system can’t cope.

423Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Thu Sep 17 2020, 23:20

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Exactly, so you have to manage capacity. One minute we’re being told get to the pubs and eat out, open all the schools and get back to the office.

Now our ‘world beating’ system can’t cope.


Not as simple as that and you know it.

Virus or not we have to keep the economy going - that in turn allows the spread and increased cases.  

What do you want us to do have a lockdown until we have the labs and trained up all the staff which would take what 6 months, 8 months a year, whatever?  Or do what every other country has - opened up their economies and now face the second wave.

I don't know what the crack is with the Italian airline but I know if they could do 30 minute tests for all of Italy, they would be doing!  So this is obviously intended for limited numbers to specifically save their airline/tourist trade - they are not dealing with the whole country like we are.

There's also a lot of 'abuse' going on with our system too - people have gone abroad and instead of isolating, phoned up for a test to see after a day or two to find out if they were clear and swerve the two weeks stay at home.  Some even go for the test before they go on holiday.

Loads of people have worries and gone for tests without having any symptoms - it happens, people are people!

Should schools have gone back - it's led to loads more demand for tests - but would it be worse for the kids and getting people back to work if they didn't?

Should we shut pubs and restaurants down again - we do know there is spread from pubs especially but would it kill their businesses if we did?

The bottom line to my way of thinking is not that the virus is out there - we know it is - but can we manage the risks of opening the economy up and having more daily cases?

As it stands at the moment - irrespective of the ability to cope with supplying the tests - the answer is yes.

In the last 7 days we (the UK) have had 20,000 plus new cases - (details below) yet hospital Patients in Hospital for England have risen from 600 on the 11th to 953 today.  353 more people in hospital is clearly not good but 353 out of 20,000+ new cases works out as something like 59 out of 60 people tested positive are fine to go home!

Fri 11th - 3539
12/3497
13/3330
14/2621
15/3105
16/3991
today 17/3395

Looking deeper still those on ventilators in England have gone from 63 on the 11th to 108 today - 45 more people - roughly 1 in 7 of those admitted are seriously ill unfortunately - or to put it another way about 50 out of 20,000 - or put it the other way around 19,950 out of 20,000 will be ok.

As one of those who catch it may end up as one of those '50' I can't say I'm thrilled at the prospect but currently the risk of death from Covid is still incredibly low - and for now at least - how good/piss pour testing facilities are don't amount to much other than a political point scoring exercise.

As always unfortunately.

424Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Thu Sep 17 2020, 23:44

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
To add even more to my last post

There were something like 1,335,000 test done in England in the last 7 days for Covid of which just 20,000 were positive.

That means there were an awful lot of people seeking tests (around 1,315,000 - what's that in percentage terms around 97/98%?) who didn't actually need them!!!

I'm not saying many/most weren't genuinely concerned but there still must be a huge margin of people who probably knew/strongly suspected they didn't need the test anyway!

As I say people are people.

Pillar 1

Fri 11th - 54415
12/54903
13/53019
14/42281
15/46563
16/62260
Today 17th/68259

About 380,000 tests

Pillar 2

Fri 11tth - 138437
12/146607
13/132383
14/143011
15/131781
16/131580
Today 17th/132918

About 955,000

All data taken from here -

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

425Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 01:18

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
I'll add a little story as well.

I took my car into the garage this morning (well yesterday morning now) and on the door to the office there, was a sign saying please put on a mask before entering - I did.

However the bloke I left my keys with wasn't wearing a mask nor a customer sat down who had arrived before me.

On my stroll home I passed a gang of road workers - one of whom was actually working and six maybe seven having a chat in a group together - non had masks on - the thing that caught my eye was that this group consisted of two older blokes - one with white hair and considerably overweight and the others youngsters in their twenties.

I thought if I was the large white haired bloke the last thing I'd want would be to have folk who probably don't give much of a mind to covid, hanging around too close to me.

On my walk back for my car I popped in a shop where I counted at least four staff with no masks and two customers stood together, one with no mask and one with but covering his mouth only and miles away from his nose.

At the garage there were a group of about 3 or 4 outside who I guessed were probably the managers/owners - all without masks, two in the office without masks and about 6 or 7 mechanics who clearly had finished for the day huddled in a group - all without masks.

My point being that out of around 20 or so people I observed reasonably close up to, most of which were in groups of multiple others, only one had a mask and he wasn't even wearing it properly.

Maybe nobody had the virus who I saw today and no harm as come to anyone - or maybe one or two did and one or two more have now caught it.

The point I'm trying to make is that few people seem to be bothered enough to even do the basics of distance themselves or even put a mask on if they were close to each other.

It's just how it is - I'm not blaming anyone, it's just how people are.

The virus isn't going to go away, the economy won't be shut down, many people WILL catch it but relatively few under the age of 40 are going to be effected much, if at all, by it.

We/the government/anyone can't just simply change peoples behaviour at the flick of a switch - it isn't going to happen, whether we have ample testing facilities and the greatest Track and Trace system - people will still continue not to wear masks, social distance or really give a fuck about anyone other than themselves.

That's how it is - it's not about Dido, or Cummings or Boris - it's about how we - as a nation - behave - and we all know that really isn't that great for much of the time - is it?

426Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 08:38

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Talk of a 2 week national lockdown, things are going to get worse again before they get better  Shocked

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54199642

427Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 12:41

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:I'll add a little story as well.

I took my car into the garage this morning (well yesterday morning now) and on the door to the office there, was a sign saying please put on a mask before entering - I did.

However the bloke I left my keys with wasn't wearing a mask nor a customer sat down who had arrived before me.

On my stroll home I passed a gang of road workers - one of whom was actually working and six maybe seven having a chat in a group together - non had masks on - the thing that caught my eye was that this group consisted of two older blokes - one with white hair and considerably overweight and the others youngsters in their twenties.

I thought if I was the large white haired bloke the last thing I'd want would be to have folk who probably don't give much of a mind to covid, hanging around too close to me.

On my walk back for my car I popped in a shop where I counted at least four staff with no masks and two customers stood together, one with no mask and one with but covering his mouth only and miles away from his nose.

At the garage there were a group of about 3 or 4 outside who I guessed were probably the managers/owners - all without masks, two in the office without masks and about 6 or 7 mechanics who clearly had finished for the day huddled in a group - all without masks.

My point being that out of around 20 or so people I observed reasonably close up to, most of which were in groups of multiple others, only one had a mask and he wasn't even wearing it properly.

Maybe nobody had the virus who I saw today and no harm as come to anyone - or maybe one or two did and one or two more have now caught it.

The point I'm trying to make is that few people seem to be bothered enough to even do the basics of distance themselves or even put a mask on if they were close to each other.

It's just how it is - I'm not blaming anyone, it's just how people are.

The virus isn't going to go away, the economy won't be shut down, many people WILL catch it but relatively few under the age of 40 are going to be effected much, if at all, by it.

We/the government/anyone can't just simply change peoples behaviour at the flick of a switch - it isn't going to happen, whether we have ample testing facilities and the greatest Track and Trace system - people will still continue not to wear masks, social distance or really give a fuck about anyone other than themselves.

That's how it is - it's not about Dido, or Cummings or Boris - it's about how we - as a nation - behave - and we all know that really isn't that great for much of the time - is it?
That's "how it is" in the UK but not in Europe - and that's because their governments have shown strong leadership, put all the requisite resources in place, enforced laws against non-compliance and the people have responded.
Which is why they have substantially lower excess death rates.
"How it is" is no excuse for weak government, unenforceable recommendations rather than enforceable laws, lack of resources and a nation of people with a substantial proportion of idiots who don't really care about others.

428Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 13:56

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@wanderlust wrote:That's "how it is" in the UK but not in Europe - and that's because their governments have shown strong leadership, put all the requisite resources in place, enforced laws against non-compliance and the people have responded.
Which is why they have substantially lower excess death rates.
"How it is" is no excuse for weak government, unenforceable recommendations rather than enforceable laws, lack of resources and a nation of people with a substantial proportion of idiots who don't really care about others.

Mate, that's just complete and utter bullshit and all completely based on your blind and intractable, personal hatred of the government!!!

These are just some of the headlines from the last 24 hours for instance!

A number of European countries are expected to announce new restrictions in response to rising cases.

Several places have announced record increases in daily infections, while others have seen their highest numbers in months.

Spain, France and the Czech Republic have seen some of the most dramatic spikes.

Most cases in Europe are currently being seen in younger people, but there are concerns they could spread the virus to more vulnerable older people.

Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 3d4ec7f5-10e8-42bc-a92c-4695aeb3f335


Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 YH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 4535bfa5-00ce-4431-89ef-0caedd3b5fd6

Coronavirus: WHO warns Europe over 'very serious' Covid surge

Surging coronavirus figures across Europe should serve as "a wake-up call", the World Health Organization's regional director has said.
Hans Kluge said in the past two weeks the number of new cases had doubled in more than half of European member states.
"We have a very serious situation unfolding before us," he said.
Speaking in Copenhagen on Thursday, Mr Kluge said 300,000 new infections were reported across Europe last week alone and weekly cases had exceeded those reported during the first peak in March.
"Although these numbers reflect more comprehensive testing, it also shows alarming rates of transmission across the region," he told reporters.
Mr Kluge said the figures "should serve as a wake-up call for all of us".

France, meanwhile, recorded 10,593 cases on Thursday - the highest daily number since the pandemic began.
Health Minister Olivier Véran acknowledged the coronavirus "is again very active"; Lyon and Nice, two of France's biggest cities, have been given until Saturday to come up with new measures to tackle their outbreaks.
Mr Véran and Prime Minister Jean Castex are among several ministers facing legal action over their handling of the crisis.
Other countries are seeing their own spikes:
Spain on Wednesday recorded 239 new coronavirus deaths, the highest number since June. Many of the country's new infections have been in the capital Madrid, where authorities are planning to announce new lockdown measures
The Czech Republic has reported more than 2,000 daily cases for the first time. The country's prime minister called on people to follow the rules to prevent an exponential increase in infections
Cases have also reached a new daily peak in the Netherlands, with the government expected to announce new coronavirus measures on Friday

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54189575

Madrid, Spain's worst-hit city, plans stricter controls

While Spain suffers the highest levels of Covid-19 transmission in Europe, its capital Madrid is the sickest city in Spain.

The regional government, which manages public healthcare, is poised to introduce draconian restrictions on social activity - possibly confining the capital’s worst-hit areas, three months after Spain’s national lockdown ended.

Accounting for a third of the new cases detected in Spain in recent weeks, Madrid’s cumulative number of Covid-19 cases over two weeks has now reached 659 confirmed positives per 100,000 inhabitants. Some of the most crowded neighbourhoods in the city’s poor south are double that. The Spanish national average is 260. In the UK the number is 59, according to the European CDC.

Madrid's hospitals are approaching the levels of saturation that saw disastrous scenes in the spring, when ambulances were not sent to care homes and a massive field hospital was set up in the capital’s main conference centre.

Health workers’ representatives say some intensive care units have already reached capacity. Of 500 intensive care beds available in public hospitals across the region, 400 are now occupied by Covid patients. But the regional government points to plans to extend that capacity to more than 900.

French restrict social gatherings in Nice

The city of Nice is to ban social gatherings of more than 10 people in a bid to stop the spread of coronavirus in that part of France.

Bernard Gonzalez, prefect for the Alpes-Maritimes, said that bars would also be closed from 00:30 to 06:00 and that the capacity at large events would be reduced from 5,000 to 1,000, according to Reuters news agency.

New measures have already been implemented in Marseilles and Bordeaux.

France recorded its highest number of daily cases since the pandemic began on Thursday, with 10,593 new infections.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-54201656

429Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 13:59

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I now can't meet anyone from another household either inside or out.

So I can't have a chat with my folks in their garden, but I can meet them in the pub?

Now that is fooked up.

Boris out.

430Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 14:50

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
Boris out.

Saying things like that is going to make people think we are the same person. Laughing

431Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 15:08

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
More on the human guineapig story;

Ministers are planning to invoke emergency powers to vaccinate the public against Covid-19  even if it is unlicensed.
If a vaccine becomes available before the end of the Brexit  transition period on 31 December and it has not been approved by the European medicines watchdog, the UK will use its own emergency regulations to sidestep EU law to allow the jab to be deployed due to the serious threat the virus poses to human life.
The government admits it would be an “very unusual” step to use the extraordinary powers for an unlicensed medicine but that it would be necessary, in those circumstances, to save lives from coronavirus.
In a public consultation document on the plans  – which closes at midnight on Friday – the government tries to reassure the public that “unlicensed” does not mean “untested” and that it is expected the vaccine will have gone through several safety trials before use in the general population.

Immunity

However, the plans also include invoking a separate emergency power which would give the government and all firms, organisations and people involved in the supply chain, from manufacture to administering the jab to individuals, immunity from being sued in the civil courts if someone becomes ill or dies as a result of an unlicensed vaccine.



The 6,000-word document says that further legislation may be needed to clarify that the existing emergency powers can be used in relation to a coronavirus vaccine. The planned emergency regulations cover the whole of the UK.
Describing Covid-19 as the “biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history”, the document says a viable vaccine will go through “the usual rigorous testing and development process and be shown to meet the expected high standards of safety, quality and efficacy before it can be deployed”.

Suitable vaccine candidate approval

The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) will advise ministers on which Covid-19 vaccine the UK should use, as well as which priority groups will receive the jab first.
The document says: “If a suitable Covid-19 vaccine candidate, with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and efficacy, becomes available, we will seek to license that vaccine through the usual route.”
Until 31 December this year, the UK is bound by EU legislation on “biotechnological medicines”, including candidate coronavirus vaccines, to be authorised via the European Medicines Agency.



After January 2021, the UK’s licensing authority will have new powers to license all medicines, including vaccines.

‘Compelling case on public health grounds’

But the document adds that it may be necessary to speed up the process in order to save lives and deploy a vaccine before it is fully licensed.
It adds: “If there is a compelling case, on public health grounds, for using a vaccine before it is given a product licence, given the nature of the threat we face, the JCVI may take the very unusual step of advising the UK government to use a tested, unlicensed vaccine against Covid-19, and we need to make sure that the right legislative measures are in place to deal with that scenario.”
These measures would include the “temporary authorisation of the supply of an unlicensed vaccine” under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations, which are permitted in circumstances of public health threats, including “the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation”.
The document says: “If a suitable Covid-19 vaccine candidate – with strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and efficacy – became available before the end of the transition period but it had not yet been licensed by the European Medicines Agency, regulation 174 could be used to enable temporary UK-only deployment.



“For these purposes, it makes no difference whether the vaccine had been developed in the UK, elsewhere in the EU/EEA or completely outside UK/EEA.”
The Department of Health said: “The new rules and safeguards will strengthen the UK’s ability to successfully deploy a UK-wide vaccination programme, which will be crucial in saving lives and bringing the current pandemic to an end."

432Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 15:12

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Natasha Whittam wrote:I now can't meet anyone from another household either inside or out.

So I can't have a chat with my folks in their garden, but I can meet them in the pub?

Now that is fooked up.

Boris out.
Well done, Nat. At last someone prepared to change their mnd in view of all the evidence and application of their own common sense.  Like a Star @ heaven

433Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 16:55

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

434Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Fri Sep 18 2020, 17:39

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@wanderlust wrote:Still am abroad in central Portugal kp - safest place to be. Absolutely f*** all COVID and everyone masked up everywhere.

Yeah right.

Portugal heading towards 1,000 daily cases - PM

Portugal is on course to reach 1,000 new coronavirus cases a day by next week if current trends continue, its prime minister warned on Friday after the first meeting of the government's Covid-19 crisis group in almost three months.

The national health authority, the DGS, reported 780 new cases, up from 770 on Thursday and the highest daily figure since the 10 April peak of 1,516.

"In line with the general trend in Europe we are seeing strong growth in new cases daily," Prime Minister António Costa told journalists in Lisbon. "If this trend is maintained, next week we shall reach 1,000 new cases per day."

"If we all observe the basic rules, we can control the pandemic," he said. He reiterated that Portugal cannot afford a second lockdown, adding: "It would be unthinkable to have a Christmas as we had Easter."

Portugal has so far had 67,176 confirmed cases and 1,894 deaths associated with Covid-19, six of them reported on Friday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-54201656

435Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 08:08

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

Not as simple as that and you know it.

Virus or not we have to keep the economy going - that in turn allows the spread and increased cases.  

Yes, that’s exactly my point. We need to keep the economy going - that’s why it’s vital to manage the outbreak properly.

Question for you, could you have guessed reopening schools would increase demand for tests?

436Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 10:00

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:

Yeah right.

Portugal heading towards 1,000 daily cases - PM

Portugal is on course to reach 1,000 new coronavirus cases a day by next week if current trends continue, its prime minister warned on Friday after the first meeting of the government's Covid-19 crisis group in almost three months.

The national health authority, the DGS, reported 780 new cases, up from 770 on Thursday and the highest daily figure since the 10 April peak of 1,516.

"In line with the general trend in Europe we are seeing strong growth in new cases daily," Prime Minister António Costa told journalists in Lisbon. "If this trend is maintained, next week we shall reach 1,000 new cases per day."

"If we all observe the basic rules, we can control the pandemic," he said. He reiterated that Portugal cannot afford a second lockdown, adding: "It would be unthinkable to have a Christmas as we had Easter."

Portugal has so far had 67,176 confirmed cases and 1,894 deaths associated with Covid-19, six of them reported on Friday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-54201656
Agreed. 780 new infections is very little compared to the UK.
And a twentieth of the deaths.

437Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 10:43

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:

Not as simple as that and you know it.

Virus or not we have to keep the economy going - that in turn allows the spread and increased cases.  

Yes, that’s exactly my point. We need to keep the economy going - that’s why it’s vital to manage the outbreak properly.

Question for you, could you have guessed reopening schools would increase demand for tests?

Yes, I don't doubt the government thought so to - you obviously have a political axe to grind but there's plenty behind the scenes who are non political and know their jobs who would have made it clearly known to them.

So knowing that the government did know this the question you should be asking yourself is was in a 'political' decision to ignore this, was it just incompetent planning by others who provide the service, was it the physical inability to scale up sufficiently for expected demand, or was it an abuse of the system by a margin of people taking tests they simply had no reason to have (say getting one in place of voluntarily self isolating themselves for two weeks).

Clearly the article above I posted showed that there are two large labs coming on line by the end of October, so that's not just by coincidence, they have been commissioned planned and built for expected need, so a greater need for service was heard, listened to, acted upon and being delivered for Autumn.

Full trained staff being recruited and retained does seem to be an issue but by far the biggest issue is not the demand from schools returning but the inability of people not to follow the simple rules of avoiding catching the virus in the first place!

Fwiw some weeks back my daughter was asking me about did I think it was a good idea going back to which I said yes - for all the reasons I've outlined on this thread in the past - but I did suggest it might be at a trade off of closing the pubs and restaurants again to mitigate things - in the why Whitty had been saying about 'managing' by having to take things off the table if we wanted to make room to put other stuff on it.

No doubt there was a political/economic decision made about that at the time and fwiw again I understand the desire/need to get the economy working again as much as possible.

The bottom line is that a government (any government) can only properly function through the will of its people.

Current testing capacity probably was/is sufficient planned and delivered to cope with anticipated need including the demand from schools returning it just underestimated the irresponsible behaviour of the general public in behaving in ways to allow themselves to catch and spread the virus and also how some/many have 'abused' the service for their own benefit rather than again following the rules and having to serve a two week self isolation period.

Fwiw yet again I fully expect another sharp rise in cases as and when the university students (particularly those who live off campus) return home to see their family and friends after mingling with many other of their generation from all parts of the country in (or from) towns and city's where the virus has got a hold on the community already.

Look, this is happening all over Europe in country's with governments of all political persuasions - the simple truth is that many people particularly young adults want to life their lives and have fun and the virus isn't going to stop them (or kill them) and you can't lock them all away - so why not.

I can't blame them either.

It's not a political nut to crack, it is a social one.

Until we find a vaccine or something that controls the virus and keeps us safe then this will continue to happen, not only will we have to face this second wave shortly but when we get through it and cases start to fall, people will only go out and break the rules again until a third wave arrives and then a fourth etc.

You are I believe young enough and healthy enough to get through all this no matter what but some of us aren't.

You should be directing your wrath at the 'rule breakers' and not the 'policy makers' because that's were the problem truly lies.

If people simply social distanced, washed their hands, wore a mask and stuck to their own bubbles there wouldn't even be a problem - surely even you can't lay the blame of them not doing that at the feet of the government!





438Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 10:50

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@wanderlust wrote:
Agreed. 780 new infections is very little compared to the UK.
And a twentieth of the deaths.

But you told us it was the safest place in the world and fuck all Covid, just over a week ago, didn't you?

@wanderlust wrote:Still am abroad in central Portugal kp - safest place to be. Absolutely f*** all COVID and everyone masked up everywhere.

Seems you were just talking utter bollocks yet again and thought you knew better than everyone else.

A constant theme with you.

439Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 10:54

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Saying it’s all society is a far too simplistic view of it.

It’s not either or, it’s both society and government that need to be working effectively to minimise the affects.

Without structures and leadership in place it’s too easy for rules not to be followed or understood.

When the head of test and trace is saying nobody could have predicted something that seems painfully obvious to most, and Boris coming out yesterday with vague speculation like ‘you’ve got to wonder if we need to go further than the rule of six’ - then we clearly have an absence of leadership in two key roles in this battle.

440Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 11:27

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
There is definitely a lack of leadership. Sadly Boris seems to want to please everyone, but by sitting on the fence he's making things worse.

I want my leader to lead, not be popular. If he'd made mask wearing mandatory everywhere inside and out, kept pubs shut, and made an example of people who broke the rules things would look much better in my opinion.

However, there is no doubt a growing number of folk are absolute twats, who seem to think it is their right to do as they please and fuck everyone else. Would they do this in China? Would they fuck.

441Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 11:28

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Saying it’s all society is a far too simplistic view of it.

It’s not either or, it’s both society and government that need to be working effectively to minimise the affects.

Without structures and leadership in place it’s too easy for rules not to be followed or understood.

When the head of test and trace is saying nobody could have predicted something that seems painfully obvious to most, and Boris coming out yesterday with vague speculation like ‘you’ve got to wonder if we need to go further than the rule of six’ - then we clearly have an absence of leadership in two key roles in this battle.

Mate, it isn't hard to understand to keep a social distance, wash your hands and keep within your own bubble.

Nor is it to wear a facemask inside public places such as shops.

If people could simply manage to do that there wouldn't even be a need for increased testing capacity and rules of six.

It's simply cause and effect.

If people followed these very, very simple and basic rules in the first place there would even be a second wave!

I guess if you want to /feel the need to politicalise everything then maybe the question you might be better addressing is would we be better off under a government such as China where people do as they are told and the virus isn't an issue or a free democracy government (whether it be Labour or Conservative for us) where people aren't 'controlled' and the virus is constantly 'let out of the bag'?

I know which one I prefer even if it might well end up killing me - can you even comprehend a fear of ones own death?  I hadn't until this thing came into my personal world.  So this topic is not a 'play' thing to me (and others).

It is a society/behaviour issue - the rules are clear, easy to follow and to comply with and everybody understands them perfectly - even little children, it's just that a vast amount of people simply don't/won't follow them.

It is as simple as that.

I can't lay the blame at Dido, Johnson or Cummings feet for that.

Even if you do.

442Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 11:44

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Again, I think it comes down to very different standards as to what we call good leadership then. I’d call this government a car crash, but you’re happy with their performance - it’s a matter of opinion I suppose.

Personally, I judge based on the evidence I see. I’ve given plenty of examples to show why I think the leadership has been poor and haven’t seen much that shows the opposite. Until I do that opinion won’t change.

443Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 11:46

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Natasha Whittam wrote:There is definitely a lack of leadership. Sadly Boris seems to want to please everyone, but by sitting on the fence he's making things worse.

I want my leader to lead, not be popular. If he'd made mask wearing mandatory everywhere inside and out, kept pubs shut, and made an example of people who broke the rules things would look much better in my opinion.

However, there is no doubt a growing number of folk are absolute twats, who seem to think it is their right to do as they please and fuck everyone else. Would they do this in China? Would they fuck.

Agreed, vague messaging won’t get us anywhere. The rule of six at least tries to simplify it so I’m glad they’ve gone in that direction at least, but it’s been very poor overall.

444Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 11:58

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@Sluffy wrote:

Mate, it isn't hard to understand to keep a social distance, wash your hands and keep within your own bubble.

Nor is it to wear a facemask inside public places such as shops.

If people could simply manage to do that there wouldn't even be a need for increased testing capacity and rules of six.

It's simply cause and effect.

It may be simple to understand but in practice there will always be some people who don't comply. We don't live in China thankfully so policing of this is going to be limited. In addition as children have gone back to school it is a known fact that incidences of colds, coughs and flu will increase. Inevitably some of these children and their parents/associates will have symptoms that could be covid and will want to test.

This is why Dido and Boris are culpable. The increase in demand was entirely predictable and they didn't prepare for it. Instead they prefer to waste money on farcical distractions like Boris' impossible "moonshot".

445Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 12:13

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
It’s also not always possible to social distance in schools, but it’s a calculated risk the government have taken (and the right one) to get children back to school.

Therefore the testing infrastructure has to be robust to support this increased exposure. They had time to prepare and capacity has grown massively but it’s management and how it is being accessed/distributed is clearly an issue. And that’s not society’s fault Sluffy.

446Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 12:16

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Again, I think it comes down to very different standards as to what we call good leadership then. I’d call this government a car crash, but you’re happy with their performance - it’s a matter of opinion I suppose.

Personally, I judge based on the evidence I see. I’ve given plenty of examples to show why I think the leadership has been poor and haven’t seen much that shows the opposite. Until I do that opinion won’t change.

Nah, your missing my point entirely.

I'm not saying anywhere that I'm happy with the governments performance - quite clearly it is poor and I don't think many could argue otherwise.

My point is simply that the governments - virtually all across the world I guess - have told people the clear and unambiguous steps to take to stop the virus in its tracks.

Maybe some country's are too poor for all to comply with the rules but frankly there is no excuse in ours not to do so - yet masses of people simply ignore them every day.

Unless you want a government like China who 're-educates' everyone not toeing the line then you can hardly blame Boris et al for people not giving two fucks for anyone other than themselves. Even good polices and strong governance don't stop people breaking the rules simply because they can't be arsed to follow them.

The problem is a social one - we KNOW how to stop the spread by simply following the rules - the problem is that too many people just don't follow them.

447Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 12:33

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:It’s also not always possible to social distance in schools, but it’s a calculated risk the government have taken (and the right one) to get children back to school.

Therefore the testing infrastructure has to be robust to support this increased exposure. They had time to prepare and capacity has grown massively but it’s management and how it is being accessed/distributed is clearly an issue. And that’s not society’s fault Sluffy.

We are starting to go around in circles now.

Where have the children who took the virus to school in the first place caught the virus from?

If that child and their parents had been following the simple basic rules we've had from the outset they wouldn't have caught it in the first place and wouldn't be spreading it to others.

That's why we had the lockdown in the first place to bring down the infections that had found its way to this country and spread out of control and if when lockdown was lifted and we as a society had continued to social distance, stay within our bubbles, then it wouldn't have kicked off again - but we didn't, and it has.

That's not politics - that's people behaving how they want even after being asked/told/instructed/begged not to.

Do you think people would be social distancing and keeping in bubbles if Corbyn/Starmer/Gary Lineker was in charge of the government - of course they wouldn't they would still be doing the same things and we would still be having the same outcome.

People are the ones spreading this and they know full well they aren't social distancing and meeting up with those outside their bubbles - you can't hold Boris accountable for that unless you want him to run the country like they do in China.

And we all know that isn't an acceptable way to go.


448Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 12:36

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
People will do as instructed as long as they can see that ministers and their unelected advisers follow the rules too. Good leaders lead by example, with a clear set of principles and a moral code.
 
But there is presently no respect for a government which is happy to break the law. Tory rule-breaking is currently supported by a majority of Tories in parliament to general disgust here and across the world, so not sure it will be possible to clinch trade deals with countries looking on in amazement at us.

Is there any Tory minister whose word can be trusted?  

I see that the latest opinion poll has Lab and Cons exactly level on 40% and that Starmer is favoured as a prime minister over Johnson.

449Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 12:41

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@okocha wrote:People will do as instructed as long as they can see that ministers and their unelected advisers follow the rules too. Good leaders lead by example, with a clear set of principles and a moral code.
 
But there is presently no respect for a government which is happy to break the law. Tory rule-breaking is currently supported by a majority of Tories in parliament to general disgust here and across the world, so not sure it will be possible to clinch trade deals with countries looking on in amazement at us.

Is there any Tory minister whose word can be trusted?  

I see that the latest opinion poll has Lab and Cons exactly level on 40% and that Starmer is favoured as a prime minister over Johnson.

I stopped reading at that statement of complete bollocks.

Utter fantasy stuff.

Thatcher was a good leader - she must have been as she was elected three times by the country and certainly had her principles and a moral code.

Didn't stop her being hated and despised my many though and actively acted against by many of them.

450Coronavirus - will we survive? - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - will we survive? on Sat Sep 19 2020, 12:50

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Short of shutting down the economy entirely and a very strict lockdown being in place you won’t stop the spread of the virus just by following the rules Sluffy - and you’d also do massive damage to the economy.

I think you probably do know that to be fair, and you agree that the governments performance has been poor so I’m not really sure what your point is anymore.

Back to top  Message [Page 15 of 23]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 19 ... 23  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum