Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Coronavirus - the political argument

+13
observer
Sluffy
gloswhite
Ten Bobsworth
BoltonTillIDie
okocha
wessy
Cajunboy
xmiles
karlypants
Norpig
Natasha Whittam
boltonbonce
17 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 11 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 25 ... 31  Next

Go down  Message [Page 20 of 31]

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

My personal view is that the government has been way too soft. We've had Labour and Tory politicians calling for "the people" to be treated like adults when the exact opposite is needed.

It should have been a hard lockdown, large fines and prison time for people caught outside without reason, and the message should have been "Stay At Home, Protect the NHS, OR ELSE".

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wessy wrote:Utter shambolic messaging last night, he left so many questions it was quite embarrassing, It's one thing taking advice and differing from other countries, but to have a split decision and different messaging within the UK is baffling to say the least, he gave 12 hours notice to mobilse the workforce to get to work without using public transport or was it Wednesday?  Either the R rate is essential or it's not if the only way we get rid of this virus is by the rate being under 1 , then why at this point release a mumbled message to allow people to go out and about and almost certainley push the rate up.

I accept this is a really diffcult for any government but i lay the blame for much of this at our starting point after 10 years of neglect, Health care was seen to be something we could cut costs on shamefully, and there he stands clapping the NHS whilst the reality is that when the vote to give the sector a pay rise every conservative MP voted against any award , bloody hypocrits.

In summary there is a reason why a circus uses a ring master and not a clown to run the show.

Just to clarify this bit - the 'R' number is the rate of infection - not the mortality rate.

What I mean is think of having a cold.  If you stayed at home then you would not pass it to anybody other than in your household - but if you went out you probably would.

The same scenario as coronavirus up to now I think you will agree.

But if you did go out with a cold the chances are you wouldn't end up killing anybody - although that ultimately must happen when those who are frail do catch the virus and succumb to it. 

So as for coronavirus following Boris yesterday IF there are still declining death rates and admissions to hospitals - and CONTINUE to be so, then although people may still be catching coronavirus (and the R figure even going up) it is not making them ill enough to need hospitalisation or killing them - or those they are in contact with.

That's why the R number is so important to stop the spread of the virus when it is hospitalising and killing people but not quite as important when the spread ISN'T hospitalising and killing people.

The KEY statistic to look out for is the rise in hospital admissions - if that continues to fall we are ultimately on the right path, if it goes up we are in trouble again.

Guest


Guest

Natasha Whittam wrote:
wessy wrote:I accept this is a really diffcult for any government but i lay the blame for much of this at our starting point after 10 years of neglect, Health care was seen to be something we could cut costs on shamefully, and there he stands clapping the NHS whilst the reality is that when the vote to give the sector a pay rise every conservative MP voted against any award , bloody hypocrits.

.

Please explain how pumping extra billions into the NHS over the last 10 years and recruiting/training a million new doctors and nurses would have made any difference to the current pandemic.


Not just the NHS, our social care and stockpiling of resources to fight a pandemic were also cut.

You can't seriously believe ten years of cuts would have no impact?

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Not just the NHS, our social care and stockpiling of resources to fight a pandemic were also cut.

You can't seriously believe ten years of cuts would have no impact?

It has wider impact, yes, but not on the current pandemic.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I guess the 'government' have accepted that Boris was a bit of a disaster last night because he's having to come back again tonight and try to explain things a great deal better.

13:00
Breaking
Boris Johnson to hold news conference at 19:00
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will hold a news conference at 19:00 BST, following the announcement of his "conditional plan" for lifting England's lockdown on Sunday.
Johnson will take questions from the media and the public.
The government is also due to publish a 50-page lockdown guidance document.

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Revealed in an interview with Eddie Mair on The Andrew Marr Show:-the man who is our PM.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Thought I chuck this in to get a few of you 'steaming'!

Very Happy



Jim Pickard is the Chief Political Correspondent of the Financial Times.

Don't know who the Politico bloke is though but if Pickard is re-tweeting him I guess he accepts as true what he said.

Guest


Guest

Hmm not a surprise, but it's not great is it! Transparency and communication are so important right now and he's failing at both.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Sluffy wrote:
T.R.O.Y. wrote:The messaging was far from clear though, it was a communications nightmare. And I’m left wondering if the speech has had to change significantly in the last day or two to reflect the data.

The message/communication was/is really bad - for example what's the point in telling people they can go out as long as they want from Wednesday onwards but have to be in lockdown tomorrow and Tuesday - what difference will that make - and how many will even bother waiting until Wednesday now?

Yes, I'm fairly certain that the master plan has been changed in the last day or so and certainly since they started to deliberately preluding things were going to be happen (exercise all day, opening garden centres, etc) four or five days ago - I think (and said as much) that I believe the high number of new positive test results (something like 4,000 a day constantly for the last five or six days without any sign of dropping off) had been totally unexpected and that there was far more people walking around with the virus than they ever expected - hence a much reduced easing of lockdown than what was going to be originally announced.

Certainly their trendy word 'lockstep' with solidarity with Scotland and Wales has gone out of the window because they built themselves up to obviously do something they've intended to do but have had to scale it right back to what they eventually said this evening.

Just to add to our theory that things did indeed change at the last minute -




Seems Rabb had misspoke and instead of admitting to an error they changed the date to make him appear correct but make the message foolish as pointed out above.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Facemask U-turn?

And for the first time, people in England are being advised to wear face-coverings in enclosed spaces where they come into contact with other people – including on public transport or in shops

14:02
Breaking
Lockdown guidance: People advised to wear face-coverings

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52612438

gloswhite

gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Guðni Bergsson

Fortunately, we all know how serious this situation is, which is just as well as the government is making a real dogs dinner of the comms, and what is passed as the planning. Handing responsibility over to the 'scientists' for what appears to be all and every action and decision, is now wearing thin. The politicians  need to drive this, and stop using the scientific advice as an excuse for their mismanagement.

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha

Sluffy wrote:Facemask U-turn?

And for the first time, people in England are being advised to wear face-coverings in enclosed spaces where they come into contact with other people – including on public transport or in shops

14:02
Breaking
Lockdown guidance: People advised to wear face-coverings

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52612438

Complete chaos. Why are we no longer following WHO advice on this?

And where exactly am I supposed to obtain these face masks since Hancock has already said the government won't, unlike in France, be providing free face masks?

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I've got masks, but I haven't been further than the dustbin for eight weeks. Might have a walk to the local shop tomorrow and try one out.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

xmiles wrote:
Sluffy wrote:Facemask U-turn?

And for the first time, people in England are being advised to wear face-coverings in enclosed spaces where they come into contact with other people – including on public transport or in shops

14:02
Breaking
Lockdown guidance: People advised to wear face-coverings

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52612438

Complete chaos. Why are we no longer following WHO advice on this?

And where exactly am I supposed to obtain these face masks since Hancock has already said the government won't, unlike in France, be providing free face masks?  

We make our own apparently - official government guidelines on how to do that here -

Making your own face covering
Using a T-shirt

You will need:
an old T-shirt that you do not want anymore (ideally size small or extra small)
scissors
Step 1: Cut a straight line across the width of the T-shirt (front and back) approximately 20cm from the bottom of the T-shirt.

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 20 Image_2

Step 2: From a point 2cm below the top right-hand corner of the fabric, make a 15cm horizontal cut through both sides of the fabric that is parallel to the top of the rectangle.

Step 3: Cut down towards the bottom of the fabric until you reach approximately 2cm above the bottom edge. From here, make another 15cm cut that runs parallel to the bottom of the fabric to make a rectangle that can be discarded.

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 20 Image_3

Step 4: To make the ties, cut open the edge of the 2 long strips of fabric. Unfold the main piece of fabric and place over the mouth and the nose. The 4 strips act as ties to hold the cloth face covering in place and should be tied behind the head and around the neck.

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 20 Image_4


If you have a sewer about (someone who sews not the other type!) you can even make yourself a fancy one, see link below

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-wear-and-make-a-cloth-face-covering/how-to-wear-and-make-a-cloth-face-covering

Also BBC suggestions on self made masks here -

Coronavirus: How to make your own face mask

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52609777

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

My face is not one that should be covered.

It brings joy to many people.

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sluffy Just to clarify this bit - the 'R' number is the rate of infection - not the mortality rate.


I don't think i said it was the morality rate just that the rate would go up, i understand fully that R is the infection rate. Nat I almost agree with your hard line stance but if you think that the preparation for this virus is not at the governments door then your deluded.


They had warnings from the scientist that a pandemic at some point would hit the world, they made a political choice not to prepare for it. Bill Gates etc flagged this up as well.


Do i think this is easy for any government hell no, but when a government is in power for over 10 years and makes no provision or even worse runs down through political choice things like care homes because the care homes were an easy target.


This government are good at bragging about what they are going to do, like 20k new police men and 50k more doctors and nurse , when in reality all they are doing is replacing the cuts they have made another political choice. the result is even if they didn't double count 19k of nurses that they just assume won't leave the service, that's just dishonest. 


The reality is they are replacing these jobs with rookie coppers and nurses who should have had 10 years more experience.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wessy wrote:Sluffy Just to clarify this bit - the 'R' number is the rate of infection - not the mortality rate.


I don't think i said it was the morality rate just that the rate would go up, i understand fully that R is the infection rate. Nat I almost agree with your hard line stance but if you think that the preparation for this virus is not at the governments door then your deluded.


They had warnings from the scientist that a pandemic at some point would hit the world, they made a political choice not to prepare for it. Bill Gates etc flagged this up as well.


Do i think this is easy for any government hell no, but when a government is in power for over 10 years and makes no provision or even worse runs down through political choice things like care homes because the care homes were an easy target.


This government are good at bragging about what they are going to do, like 20k new police men and 50k more doctors and nurse , when in reality all they are doing is replacing the cuts they have made another political choice. the result is even if they didn't double count 19k of nurses that they just assume won't leave the service, that's just dishonest. 


The reality is they are replacing these jobs with rookie coppers and nurses who should have had 10 years more experience.

No, it was myself who mentioned the mortality rate, to attempt to show there is more than one dimension to what is going on, namely just because something is infecting many people very quickly, it doesn't necessarily mean that is such a bad thing - people catch colds from others for instance - but if you catch something that kills you, then it is!

It was that point I was trying to make people more aware of.

As for being prepared for the pandemic, we were not.

What you don't seem to acknowledge though was that no country in the world was apart from two exceptions - South Korea who had learned the lessons from the Sars epidemic that had effected them and Germany that had the massive pharmaceutical infra structure needed behind it.  

Singapore deserves mention also but it only has a relatively small population to deal with.

China, Italy, France, ourselves and even the USA were all scrambling for ventilators and PPE's urgently and sourced the world for them - so even if we HAD invested stocks in those ten years it still would not have been anything like enough because nobody ever expected a pandemic to be so fast in spreading and so lethal to so many so quickly.

We even initially sent some of our PPE stocks to China because they couldn't handle it - and they make most of the world's PPE's!

New York was 'begging' for help at one stage too - probably the richest city/state in the world - and they hadn't enough kit to fight the tsunami that hit them!

The EU apologised to Italy for turning their backs on them and refusing to help them despite their pleas for help because Germany, France, etc, were looking out for themselves at that stage.

So if China, the USA and the EU were insufficiently prepared for coronavirus, I think it is a bit harsh (and totally politically biased) to blame the government of the day for not being prepared for it on the basis of 'political' decisions to underfund pandemic stock piles.

As for your comments about politically deciding to run down care homes I have no idea what you mean?

The majority of care homes are privately run with the person moving into the care home funding their stay.

If they can't fund the provision for themselves the council will pay up to a certain amount towards their costs but will recoup such fees from the estate of that person - remember all the who-ha a bit back about having to sell the family home to pay for the parents stay in care?

It's not the government that has somehow underfunded care homes (based on a political decision?) for the last decade as you seem to be saying?

The issue with care homes has been more to do with the government prioritising the NHS first and foremost over them in respect of PPE's and testing availability.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

wessy wrote:Nat I almost agree with your hard line stance but if you think that the preparation for this virus is not at the governments door then your deluded.


It's very difficult to prepare (and therefore spend funds) on something that hasn't happened in this country for a century. Before this pandemic no one would have accepted their bins not being collected because the funds were being used to stockpile PPE.

Let me ask you this, is it out of the realms of possibility that a month of non-stop rain could completely wipe out half the country due to flooding? Unlikely of course but not impossible. Should the government be spending money on a huge boat for each town, just in case?

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Council's have had over 60% reduction in terms of funding over the last 10 years that is a political decision, that has a knock on effect in terms staffing and conditions that care workers are expected to work on minimum wage, it really is poltical.  It also effects mental health support and all the community based projects that have been cut by this government.


There are very few things that aren't political, you say i do not acknowledge that other country's weren't prepared then quote two that were prepared? Why could we not have been more prepared. Even now two months into lockdown we have failed to meet the testing targets and failed to meet the PPE targets, our death rate is through the roof and probably much higher than reported, It's the Politicians that make all these calls and that means it always comes back to politics.


Quote
In the Autumn Statement, the Government missed its chance to tackle the residential care crisis and restore the £2bn funding it took away to help plug its deficit. Right now, the UK is sleep walking into a full blown residential care crisis.”

28% of care homes at risk of failure because of government underfunding



Last edited by wessy on Mon 11 May - 22:35; edited 1 time in total

wessy

wessy
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Natasha Whittam wrote:
wessy wrote:Nat I almost agree with your hard line stance but if you think that the preparation for this virus is not at the governments door then your deluded.


It's very difficult to prepare (and therefore spend funds) on something that hasn't happened in this country for a century. Before this pandemic no one would have accepted their bins not being collected because the funds were being used to stockpile PPE.

Let me ask you this, is it out of the realms of possibility that a month of non-stop rain could completely wipe out half the country due to flooding? Unlikely of course but not impossible. Should the government be spending money on a huge boat for each town, just in case?
Not a boat but flood defences yes, that's allready happening a pisspoor choice Nat your standards are slipping

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 20 of 31]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 11 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 25 ... 31  Next

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