Coronavirus Thread

[DJ Barry Hammond]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It's only fishy if you've got a baited hook out. Many companies offered to provide PPE during the early stages, many of which don't produce any PPE is this country at all. It's all about can you fulfil the contract. This tiny pest control company obviously can, or at least they could, because they provided millions of pieces of PPE for the price the government was asking, in the time frame they were provided. You don't need to be a massive business to be a middle man if you've got the right contacts who can provide supplies, which these guys clearly have. I'd say that's why they've been provided additional contracts, because they did excellently with the first one. 

 

Not sure why people are so desperate to drag this company down, when I've seen zero evidence that says they've a) done anything dodgy or b) not provided what they were tasked with. From everything I've seen, they've done an excellent job. I must be missing something. 

 

I think it's more a question of whether the government have acted correctly in spending public money. 

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, Harrydc said:

In recent local lockdowns, only 1 out of 20 places had reduced cases. They do not work. 

They're under restrictions, not lockdown. That's not semantics, but instead a very different set of rules to live by.

 

Local restrictions have reduced infection rate, hence we are seeing a r just above 1, instead of the natural rate of around 3 for the virus.

 

And let's remember the point is to keep infections low enough that we don't breach nhs capacity. 

[Guest Fktf]

9 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I dunno, odd that. Must be something to do with an emergent novel highly infectious virus and a resultant global pandemic that has devastated global economics?

Yeah imagine talking about something that has had the single biggest influence on the world since ww2. Why would anyone do that?

[String fellow]

Imo, the government should have put Greater Manchester into Tier 3 before Andy Burnham had time to put up any resistance. How many deaths will it take before he stops playing politics? That speech he made yesterday completely ignored the gravity of the situation. He'd should perhaps go and see some of the victims dying rather than wasting time talking nonsense about canaries down mines.

[CosbehFox]

 

53 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It's only fishy if you've got a baited hook out. Many companies offered to provide PPE during the early stages, many of which don't produce any PPE is this country at all. It's all about can you fulfil the contract. This tiny pest control company obviously can, or at least they could, because they provided millions of pieces of PPE for the price the government was asking, in the time frame they were provided. You don't need to be a massive business to be a middle man if you've got the right contacts who can provide supplies, which these guys clearly have. I'd say that's why they've been provided additional contracts, because they did excellently with the first one. 

 

Not sure why people are so desperate to drag this company down, when I've seen zero evidence that says they've a) done anything dodgy or b) not provided what they were tasked with. From everything I've seen, they've done an excellent job. I must be missing something. 

 

The gowns PestFix have purchased are currently in storage; awaiting testing. They've also supplied masks to the public which despite being advertised did not have the relevant testing regulation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841 - end of this article

 

The awarding of the contract to Pest Fix was achieved on 10th April....the deadline was 13st April, which leaves a huge hole for legal challenge

 

Additionally one of the other suppliers, Ayanda Capital  reportedly supplied 43.5 million of the wrong FFP2 mask. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-waste-150m-buying-unusable-masks-from-banker-5v8390xtp 

 

It's not solely about delivering on the contract - it's also whether that's been achieved at value for the tax payer. 

Edited 16 October 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Gubbins]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Is it? It's been clearly stated and reported by the government and the press that keeping education going is a priority. If that's their decision, then we have got to target and look at other areas. Whether that's personal lives and not letting people mix at home or certain settings.  It's clear why education is a priority as the knock-on effects are huge of a generation missing out of proper schooling, then you have the knockoff of parents not working because kids are at home and grandparents having to care more for kids etc. 

 

I've seen people going on about of well pubs only cause this small percentage, and gyms only cause that small percentage, restaurants only cause another small percentage. The point is they all add up. 

They all add up but only to a tiny amount compared to the education system and it would be an even smaller amount if the main problem was dealt with.  If the whole point of all this government action is to 'protect the NHS and save lives' and essentially bide time until this magic and miraculous vaccine is gonna show up then they are scandolously ignoring taking action against the one area that will have a big effect on their goals. Is it an easy decision? No. Is it fair on students and some parents? No, but then all of the actions taken recently havent been fair on somebody and will have far reaching effects on the economy and peoples lives. The difference being that action on the education system may well have an actually noticeable effect on the virus which is what this whole cluster**k of a situation is supposed to be about.

[twoleftfeet]

https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/an_open_letter_from_pfizer_chairman_and_ceo_albert_bourla

[RowlattsFox]

At least government always give people time for one last night out before they introduce new restrictions. Blackpool should be fun tonight and tomorrow. Venues probably think whats the point as well if they're closing, and just try to get as much as they can. 

 

Its the inconsistencies in only shutting pubs. I'm not allowed to have a quiet pint in my local, where I'm not close to anyone but its ok for me to sit in a full restaurant with tables relatively close together and could be in there for over an hour. Either hospitality is a danger or not, close it all in an area or not at all. 

 

 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

At least government always give people time for one last night out before they introduce new restrictions. Blackpool should be fun tonight and tomorrow. Venues probably think whats the point as well if they're closing, and just try to get as much as they can. 

 

Its the inconsistencies in only shutting pubs. I'm not allowed to have a quiet pint in my local, where I'm not close to anyone but its ok for me to sit in a full restaurant with tables relatively close together and could be in there for over an hour. Either hospitality is a danger or not, close it all in an area or not at all. 

 

 

They get criticism for not giving warning and criticism for giving it. It’s not an easy job managing a pandemic and a stupid population.

[Paninistickers]

37 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

At least government always give people time for one last night out before they introduce new restrictions. Blackpool should be fun tonight and tomorrow. Venues probably think whats the point as well if they're closing, and just try to get as much as they can. 

 

Its the inconsistencies in only shutting pubs. I'm not allowed to have a quiet pint in my local, where I'm not close to anyone but its ok for me to sit in a full restaurant with tables relatively close together and could be in there for over an hour. Either hospitality is a danger or not, close it all in an area or not at all. 

 

 

Not playing dumb here, but can I for a beer at the weekend as I've planned to do? Or do I have to order a meal? 

 

Anon of Glenfield. 

[RowlattsFox]

Just now, Paninistickers said:

Not playing dumb here, but can I for a beer at the weekend as I've planned to do? Or do I have to order a meal? 

 

Anon of Glenfield. 

Sorry should have been clearer, I'm in Lancashire so I can't. 

 

You're ok in Leicester for time being I believe. 

[Paninistickers]

3 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

Sorry should have been clearer, I'm in Lancashire so I can't. 

 

You're ok in Leicester for time being I believe. 

Lol, I just assumed you were a rowlatts hill boy 

[RowlattsFox]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

Lol, I just assumed you were a rowlatts hill boy 

I was but managed to escape..

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbydisabilitystatusenglandandwales/2marchto14july2020

 

59.5% of all COVID-19 deaths to 14 July in England and Wales were in people that had a disability status.

 

That is mental!

[filbertway]

 

6 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbydisabilitystatusenglandandwales/2marchto14july2020

 

59.5% of all COVID-19 deaths to 14 July in England and Wales were in people that had a disability status.

 

That is mental!

Why do you think that it's mental? I'm surprised it's not a touch higher bearing in mind that the vast vast majority of deaths are in the elderly. Most elderly people will have some form of disability. Dodgy knees, hips, arthritis, dodgy lungs.

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, twoleftfeet said:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/an_open_letter_from_pfizer_chairman_and_ceo_albert_bourla

 

Reading that has definitely given me some hope. Hopefully they pass all of the "tests" in the hoped time frames. We could potentially see vaccines being deployed as early as Jan, if not December then.

 

 

 

[Sampson]

8 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Why do you think that it's mental? I'm surprised it's not a touch higher bearing in mind that the vast vast majority of deaths are in the elderly. Most elderly people will have some form of disability. Dodgy knees, hips, arthritis, dodgy lungs.

Not to mention the article says 16% of people in the UK are classified as disabled - so just over 1 in every 6 people. That's not exactly a small group we're trying to protect. It's around 11million people in this country.

Edited 16 October 2020 by Sampson

[filbertway]

5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not to mention the article says 16% of people in the UK are classified as disabled - so just over 1 in every 6 people. That's not exactly a small group we're trying to protect. It's around 11million people in this country.

Do you think those 11 million people are risk of suffering a serious illness or death from Covid-19 in this country?

[Sampson]

2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Do you think those 11 million people are risk of suffering a serious illness or death from Covid-19 in this country?

No but probably more likely.

 

But Leicester Loyal was clearly trying to say "why are we doing all this for a few disabled people?" And I was just pointing out that category covers a very large amount of people. It doesn't just mean bed bound people already on their last breaths who can't move.

[Leicester_Loyal]

17 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Why do you think that it's mental? I'm surprised it's not a touch higher bearing in mind that the vast vast majority of deaths are in the elderly. Most elderly people will have some form of disability. Dodgy knees, hips, arthritis, dodgy lungs.

Do dodgy knees and hips count as disabled? No-one in my family is disabled so I genuinely have no idea, just thought 60% of people dying have a disability is a huge number.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

No but probably more likely.

 

But Leicester Loyal was clearly trying to say "why are we doing all this for a few disabled people?" And I was just pointing out that category covers a very large amount of people. It doesn't just mean bed bound people already on their last breaths who can't move.

That was not what I was trying to say at all, so don't put words into my mouth, idiot.

[Sampson]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

That was not what I was trying to say at all, so don't put words into my mouth, idiot.

Apologies if not. What were you trying to say then? 

Edited 16 October 2020 by Sampson

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, Sampson said:

Apologies if not. What were you trying to say then? 

That 60% is a huge number and I am very surprised it's that high, I thought it would be 35-40%.

 

I also never realised 1 in 6 people were disabled in the UK either tbf.

[ktfox59]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

I dunno, odd that. Must be something to do with an emergent novel highly infectious virus and a resultant global pandemic that has devastated global economics?

Inject dettol. Does for Donald.

[filbertway]

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

That was not what I was trying to say at all, so don't put words into my mouth, idiot.

Yeah I didn't get that impression at all. I couldn't say 100% tbh with you mate on what is classed as a disability. I just imagine it to be a very very wide spectrum. I mean, having tourettes is classed as a disability. So I would imagine a hell of a lot of things fall under that category.

 

I guess my question for that data is simply, is the data useful at all in targeting potentially vulnerable groups or is it just a number that serves very little purpose?

 

Not aimed at you btw, more just thinking aloud