Jump to content

leicsmac

Member
  • Post count

    14,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by leicsmac

  1. 25 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

    Look about 6 posts up from yours, @leicsmac lives in SK & they did much of what your preferable path would be but its still there & rising currently yes they have a little more freedom currently but its not a case of ying & yang on how much of this is panning out.

    The up shot of all this is that there are 2 options lockdowns or no lockdowns both come with their own set of problems.

    To add further clarity to this and my own posts above, what Korea did well right at the start was hunting down the first outbreaks and jumping on them as soon as they first arrived, and having a Track and Trace system all ready to go to back it up. Through that, they've been able to get through all this without anything approaching what could be called a lockdown because the number of cases has never really got out of control. There has been a certain amount of economic damage, but not nearly to the degree of other placesand a lot of businesses have survived - some through timely government help.

     

    Of course, we're currently hitting what would be called a third wave and things could yet spiral (especially as this particular one isn't quite so localised as the others have been) but the authorities over here have been doing the right thing so far in terms of being able to balance fighting this thing while keeping the economy at least viable.

     

    3 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

    It's amazing how people think this is all we want. I haven't been able to work properly since March. When I did get the opportunity to work again, my shifts were cut down massively and I hardly had any money coming in. Then, we shut down again when we went in to Tier 3 to then go in to another lockdown. After the lockdown, we are still in Tier 3 so yet again I cannot go to work - even if its for my own sanity of getting out the house. 

    That is a problem with government aid to business, not an argument that restrictions aren't necessary to contain the virus itself.

     

    What should be done?

    • Like 3
  2. 1 hour ago, bmt said:

    I don't think to criticise something you need to have a better alternative.

     

    However, I think here there would be a myriad of different responses but the key differences with what the government has done with all of them would be:

    - Clear messages to the population to avoid confusion, and no mixed messages 

    - A spelled out end game for any new restrictions and rules (what the rules aim for and how it will achieve it) 

    - Evidence that a proper cost-benefit analysis has been done and decisions aren't being made based on media hype 

    - A unified approach which doesn't try to shift blame to groups of the public (eg. students)

    - An equitable response which doesn't prioritise London ahead of other places

     

    For me there have always been two preferable paths which the government could have taken but haven't:

    1. Very strict initial lockdown to get domestic cases down to near-zero, strict track and trace, complete halt on most international activities/travel and very harsh testing/quarantining where travel is unavoidable. Similar to NZ, China, areas of Asia. End game: wait until a vaccine is produced whilst accepting economic contraction in areas such as airlines etc. Pros: low deaths, very protective of population. Cons: sharp shocks to the economy, life comes to complete standstill during the initial harsh lockdown.

    2. Very strict protection of vulnerable groups whilst letting lower risk groups act similar to normal albeit with masks, capacity limits on things, and testing to control spread. Similar to what Sweden intended to do but they messed it up. Pros: economy is mostly protected. Cons: higher deaths, life would be hell for vulnerable groups, NHS may become overwhelmed if spread is quicker than intended.

     

    We have done mixes of both with no clear evidence as to why, and no clear end game. Pros: you can say you've tried to protect health and the economy. Cons: does nothing to protect health or the economy. Too much importance is placed on trying to retain political power and not enough on what is good for the country in the long term.

     

     

    No, you don't have to have a better alternative or even any alternative at all, but it does make ones argument much more credible. So your response is much further ahead of the usual discourse we've had on here about the topic and if this had been said a long time ago it would have made that particular point of view look much better.

     

    For what it's worth I totally agree that the UK government had only a couple of choices, tried to combine them to be all things to all people, and messed it up horribly.

     

    NB. I can't speak for other places, but over here, while there has been a lot of economic strife, the effects haven't been felt nearly as badly by people as a lot of other places who have taken a more hands off approach, as far as I can tell.

     

     

    11 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

    Out of interest, when will some of you say 'enough is enough'? Or will you do everything the government tells you to do even if it makes absolutely no sense? Yes, I'll be that guy. It lockdowns work, why would you put places in a higher tier than they were before? (I'll await some response about not undoing our hard work)

     

    It's very important to ask questions when there is our freedom and livelihoods involved. 

    ...when someone has come up with reasonable alternative suggestions that don't cripple the NHS rather than just soundbite criticism, which the above poster did very eloquently.

     

    Asking questions is fine. Not supplying an answer of one's own doesn't look as good, as per above.

  3. 35 minutes ago, Nalis said:

    Also helps if the people are very compliant in general.

    Compliant when the need is understood, not so much when it is not.

     

    Ask Park Gyun-Hye how compliant the people were for her governance back in 2016, for instance.

     

    Edit: oh, and the churches this year, too.

  4. Something else that occurs: there seems to be a prevailing attitude, not only on here but also out in many parts of the wider world, that an incompetent government response (and yes, judging by the numbers the UK response as well as other places has been incompetent) means that there should be no real kind of response/restrictions at all.

     

    Now, with that assumed, a couple of thoughts.

     

    Firstly, how does no restrictions at all actually cause anything other than healthcare system and subsequent business collapse anyway? And if I'm reading the room wrong and the naysayers want a different kind of response rather than none at all, what exactly would that response be and how would it avoid the above outcome?

     

    • Like 1
  5. Brief update from this side of the world, cases had been creeping up recently then they jumped to a (comparatively) big number of 550-600 cases yesterday and today, more young people catching it this time so less hospitalizations.

     

    No lockdown, but some restrictions county wide on restaurants and schools doing only two days per week staggered for groups of students. Gatherings of above 100 people not allowed. Other than that, things are reasonably calm, no one having problem with masks being worn in a public environment. Hopefully numbers still start to wind down again as the restrictions have an effect.

     

    Amazing how two different places with similar population numbers and one big important cultural and financial centre each can differ in the way things have turned out.

     

    • Like 1
  6. 30 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

    Of course not.  Nothing is essential to life except eating and sleeping.  If all you do is sit in a darkened room concentrating on breathing, you should live longer.  And if you don't, it will seem longer.

     

    Life was made to be lived, not to be survived.  God help us all if these vaccines don't work or if the government somehow realises they haven't abolished death after all.

     

    20 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

    Correct. Astounding how many people accept this. Feel so sorry for small business owners and whatnot. Their lives being decimated by insanity.

    With respect, this is often said by folks who actually haven't come close to death and therefore have never experienced one of the most unifying human emotions of all - right at the end, when it looks like it is all over, the want not to die.

    Accounts from suicide attempters who survived bear this out.

    • Like 2
  7. :dunno: People are entitled to their own opinions, that's what a forum like this is for, after all.

     

    What they are not entitled to is their own facts, and they are especially not entitled to influence public policy based on those opinions when they run counter to those facts.

  8. As other people have said, a deeply flawed genius. Wanted to win, to do things to the max and didn't care if it broke rules or broke people while doing so.

     

    But he wrote himself into footballing immortality for both club and country in a way none of the modern stars since Zidane have been able to. Incredible talent especially in a time where such talents were less protected on the pitch.

     

    Enjoy whatever comes after, Diego.

  9. 29 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

    This is weird - I don't really know much about Jordan Peterson or why he's controversial but it appears some people who work at book publishers also want to ban books:

     

     

     

    Meanwhile, the same publishers:

    https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/102/1028644/mein-kampf/9780712652544.html

     

    Enq8KouWEAE8brb?format=jpg&name=4096x409

     

     

     

    Well, Peterson is a misogynist and xenophobic piece of work who is likewise a misogynists and xenophobes idea of a smart intellectual...but as you say, it doesn't look great just canning his book and not others.

  10. 44 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

    Imagine being dumb enough to donate money to a ****ing billionaire.

    TBF television evangelists have made a living out of that for a long time now.

     

    I'd have a grudging tip of that hat for Trump somehow managing to raise the bar to a new level regarding such con artistry if the consequences of it all didn't extend so far beyond just the people he's conned (and is conning).

  11. 2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

    Some? The contemporary European political landscape in particular, is riven by polarised extremes, in terms of politicians, parties and the electorate. 

    To be honest I think that East Asia (where there are democracies there) and Australasia are about the only places with democratic governments where such extremes aren't existing. It's creeping in even in the Nordic countries,

  12. 8 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

    How would they be a threat? If the vulnerable and old have the vaccine, we've almost eradicated the problem. 

    Not everyone who needs it can take a vaccine for various reasons, such as the immunocompromised - that is the reason why such emphasis is placed on vaccines for other diseases (like the MMR vaccine) being administered to even those who might not be at high risk if they get it - so as to effect herd immunity. There isn't a single disease for which we have achieved herd immunity without a vaccine.

     

    So yes, those who didn't vaccine would still be a threat in the same way any other antivaxxer would be.

     

    5 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

     

    How would this be done?. Do we make them wear an armband, paint a symbol on their door and eventually put them in to camps?

    I do love a bit of (implied) Godwins Law in the evening. :D

     

    The answer would be to treat them in the same way as any other person who refuses other vaccines that are given as a matter of course in the UK.

    • Like 1
  13. 24 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

    Do people believe that if you don't take the vaccine, you should have your liberties taken away if you do? For example, going in to the supermarket, pubs etc. I've seen quite a few calling for this this on social media, and it baffles me that people would want to live in a world where you're being dictated to like that. 

     

    Or do people believe you should be free to put whatever you want in to your body? 

     

     

    There are a multitude of circumstances where a person who is a direct or indirect threat to other people in society is removed from part or most of that society.

     

    This would just be one more.

  14. 5 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

    I’ll be honest, I would have much preferred he was lured on a trophy hunt in Africa with a gun that fired springbok pheromones to attract lions, rather than COVID, but I’m excited either way. 

    Yeah, me too. Lions are a much better option given his age and health tbh.

     

  15. 9 hours ago, Buce said:

     

    Well, of course you can't, Jon, I wouldn't have expected anything else.

     

    I never thought I'd miss MattP's contributions but at least he was honest about his unashamed bias.

    TBH I'd like to see Matt back here just so he can explain exactly how the protests in the US right now by right-wingers are justified and the ones at the same time in 2016 by left-wingers are not - despite the numerical result being exactly the same in favour of the winner both times.

  16. 35 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

    The funny thing is the call themselves the land of the free, but look at other nations, like Canada with assisted suicide, or the UK with gambling or the Netherlands with its drug and prostitution laws. I mean we have freedom in different areas, but the aren't some stand alone bastion of freedom.

     

    I'm not saying they aren't free, but there are other free countries and they may not be the most free of them all.

    Yeah, it's the notion of freedom, not the real deal.

     

    It would be sad if such beliefs weren't so directly threatening to anyone in their way, to the environmental future of the Earth, and, ultimately, to those who hold them too.

    • Like 1
  17. 3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

    This is the mentality you're having to fight against.

     

    More concerned with "MY RIGHTS" and the idea that their 'freedom' is unique or even that they have that much freedom in the first place, than with following extremely simple and easy guidelines that could save lives. Even after 250,000 of their fellow Americans are ****ing dead.

    They honestly, for the most part, think the notion of freedom in all circumstances (not even the reality, as you say, but just the notion) is worth dying for.

     

    I wonder how many of them stick to that belief so hard when such freedom brings the consequences it often does and their time, or that of someone they truly care about, looks like it has come? Not many, I would guess.

×
×
  • Create New...