Coronavirus Thread

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, Nod.E said:

For context, the national bloody lottery distributes £600m per year. £22m is nothing.

 

Context isn't fashionable, though.

We're not talking about charity, though, are we? 

[whoareyaaa]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

This has been exhaustively covered and addressed on this thread, along with the rationale behind lockdown, the science behind face masks in addition to the clinical trial period associated with the introduction of a vaccine. 

 

You'll find 5G mostly on the conspiracy theory thread. 

What you going on about mate I'm not saying it's anything to do with 5g I was on about the deaths stating people are dying WITH covid not because of it.

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

What you going on about mate I'm not saying it's anything to do with 5g I was on about the deaths stating people are dying WITH covid not because of it.

Sigh..yes, I'm aware of that. I was referring to your posts on here yesterday. 

[Nod.E]

17 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

We're not talking about charity, though, are we? 

I don't understand how people can simultaneously be apparently so bothered about the health of a population and so disinterested in thousands of businesses failing.

 

It's all human.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, SecretPro said:

Well given they have double the population of Liverpool and a business density far higher, its pretty clear why some areas should get more than others. It could never be a one size fits all approach, that would be nonsensical.

The comparison with Merseyside and Lancashire is pounds per head population ....Manchester would clearly get more money offered total  because they have more people 

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Anybody who blames Burnham for this is an Ostrich. He would’ve accepted pretty much any lockdown measure if the government could financially protect businesses who wouldn’t be able to operate. The government were not willing to oblige, so he refused on the basis that the effects of the economic damage would massively outweigh short term health damage. He was then expecting the minimum £60m offered. Boris, Sunak and Cummings have spitefully withdrawn all funding to the bare minimum of £22m (for the whole of Greater Manchester) because he wasn’t playing by their rules. He dared to stand up for his people. And now pubs, cafe’s, places of leisure are left penniless. It’s nothing short of a disgrace. 

That just isn't true. The £22m is just to help implement the restrictions, nothing to do with jobs and pubs. The £60m for that is still available. So much outrage, yet so little understanding. 

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-matt-hancock-coronavirus-19138052

[FoxesDeb]

6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I don't understand how people can simultaneously be apparently so bothered about the health of a population and so disinterested in thousands of businesses failing.

 

It's all human.

What are you talking about now?  The money for the businesses is still to be agreed? 

[Nod.E]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

What are you talking about now?  The money for the businesses is still to be agreed? 

But Burnham is a greedy cvnt for wanting more for businesses in his region in your words?

 

Don't pretend to care what funds will be made available for business support! We both know you don't.

 

Businesses mean jobs.

Jobs mean money.

Money means food.

Food means health.

 

Or something like that.

[Samilktray]

Greedy cvnt Andy Burnham. Blimey 

[Lionator]

10 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

That just isn't true. The £22m is just to help implement the restrictions, nothing to do with jobs and pubs. The £60m for that is still available. So much outrage, yet so little understanding. 

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnham-matt-hancock-coronavirus-19138052

Maybe they should make that a little bit clearer then and not report everything through the press again. 
 

These are people’s lives they’re pissing around with.

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

But Burnham is a greedy cvnt for wanting more for businesses in his region in your words?

 

Don't pretend to care what funds will be made available for business support! We both know you don't.

 

Businesses mean jobs.

Jobs mean money.

Money means food.

Food means health.

 

Or something like that.

I haven't pretended to care or otherwise, no idea where you got that from. I've just pointed out that £60m is available for Manchester businesses, plus £22m for implementing the restrictions.  

 

We also both know that you are happy to sacrifice people's lives for your right to carry on as normal, you've made that really clear many times,  so I'm going to agree to disagree with you again, and leave it here.

[Nod.E]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I haven't pretended to care or otherwise, no idea where you got that from. I've just pointed out that £60m is available for Manchester businesses, plus £22m for implementing the restrictions.  

 

We also both know that you are happy to sacrifice people's lives for your right to carry on as normal, you've made that really clear many times,  so I'm going to agree to disagree with you again, and leave it here.

The reason I'm here is primarily because of my selfish desire to carry on as normal. I'm not hiding that.

 

It just so happens my desires also align to the prosperity and health of the population.

[Innovindil]

Just now, Nod.E said:

The reason I'm here is primarily because of my selfish desire to carry on as normal. I'm not hiding that.

 

It just so happens my desires also align to the prosperity and health of the population.*

*excluding the ones that die

[whoareyaaa]

11 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Sigh..yes, I'm aware of that. I was referring to your posts on here yesterday. 

Why

[Alf Bentley]

31 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Good to see people are consistently only hearing or reading what they want to hear, as usual. Lots of outrage at the £22m, have people not read the full story? The £60m is still available, presumably it involves a bit more discussion given the greedy cvnt went in for £90m but was suddenly willing to take £65m. Big difference there...

 

I gather that Hancock has now said the £60m was still on the table (if he still has any say within cabinet). But that wasn't what was being said earlier - or what the council leaders were told earlier.

 

Have a look at the sections at 17.21, 17.24, 17.32 & 18.17: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54611402/page/2

 

Perhaps, if the £60m was still on the table the Govt should have announced that earlier - rather than giving the impression that it might well have been withdrawn. Utterly irresponsible or incompetent, depending on whether they did it deliberately.

 

I know 2 people who have known Burnham well. Both said that he was a very honourable, moral person. These were people who were critical of other Labour politicians. Indeed, one thought that Burnham might be too idealistic and not calculating enough to be Labour leader (the conversation was in 2015). Burnham claims that the £90m figure was calculated by a former Treasury official......but I'm sure some negotiating tactics went into it (sounds like £90m first bid, while hoping for £75m, with £65m as the figure below which they wouldn't go - probably agreed with multiple council leaders, some of them Tories). A bit like LCFC wouldn't announce their bottom line at first bid in transfer negotiations. So, I find your "greedy cvnt" comment out of order.

 

A bit of context: the eventual negotiating difference was £5m.....whereas Johnson has blustered on about "Operation Moonshit" giving everyone a daily Covid test or whatever. Someone costed that project at £100bn - that's 20,000 times more money, I think, if my Maths are correct. I understand that he's trying to draw a line in the sand for other councils he expects to put into Tier 3 with inadequate support, but are the financial savings worth all the anger this will cause?

 

 

[Nod.E]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

*excluding the ones that die

Obviously. 

 

Who said anything about there being a magic solution that results in zero deaths?

 

This is the situation we find ourselves in. Let's navigate a way out that results in the least suffering.

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

Why

Because you posted them on here.

[Claridge]

37 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Greedy cvnt Andy Burnham. Blimey 

Doesn’t look greedy to be fair. 

[MattFox]

The Tories got 35% of the vote in Greater Manchester at the last election btw. It’s hardly the Labour one party state that people think it is.

 

Would love someone to explain the logic in Boris going to battle with one of the areas that basically made him PM

[SecretPro]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I gather that Hancock has now said the £60m was still on the table (if he still has any say within cabinet). But that wasn't what was being said earlier - or what the council leaders were told earlier.

 

Have a look at the sections at 17.21, 17.24, 17.32 & 18.17: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-54611402/page/2

 

Perhaps, if the £60m was still on the table the Govt should have announced that earlier - rather than giving the impression that it might well have been withdrawn. Utterly irresponsible or incompetent, depending on whether they did it deliberately.

 

I know 2 people who have known Burnham well. Both said that he was a very honourable, moral person. These were people who were critical of other Labour politicians. Indeed, one thought that Burnham might be too idealistic and not calculating enough to be Labour leader (the conversation was in 2015). Burnham claims that the £90m figure was calculated by a former Treasury official......but I'm sure some negotiating tactics went into it (sounds like £90m first bid, while hoping for £75m, with £65m as the figure below which they wouldn't go - probably agreed with multiple council leaders, some of them Tories). A bit like LCFC wouldn't announce their bottom line at first bid in transfer negotiations. So, I find your "greedy cvnt" comment out of order.

 

A bit of context: the eventual negotiating difference was £5m.....whereas Johnson has blustered on about "Operation Moonshit" giving everyone a daily Covid test or whatever. Someone costed that project at £100bn - that's 20,000 times more money, I think, if my Maths are correct. I understand that he's trying to draw a line in the sand for other councils he expects to put into Tier 3 with inadequate support, but are the financial savings worth all the anger this will cause?

 

 

Nail on head. 

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

How about stopping the 14.5 billion quid we give for foreign aid, including the 71 million we send to China and using that money for support in the U.K.. charity starts at home.

 

If the Oxford vaccine proves to be a success, it'll be because of the foreign aid budget funding it in the first place.

 

[Finnaldo]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Burnham claims that the £90m figure was calculated by a former Treasury official......but I'm sure some negotiating tactics went into it (sounds like £90m first bid, while hoping for £75m, with £65m as the figure below which they wouldn't go - probably agreed with multiple council leaders, some of them Tories). A bit like LCFC wouldn't announce their bottom line at first bid in transfer negotiations. So, I find your "greedy cvnt" comment out of order.

I know very little of Burnham’s character, so I couldn’t say either way whether there’s any politicking going on, but calling someone a ‘greedy cvnt’ for trying to get a better deal for the businesses under his charge, which have been through a hellish year as it is, seems a little off.

[String fellow]

The number of hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the North West is currently more than for London, the East of England, the South East and the South West combined. So Boris isn't 'going into battle' with the North West, he's trying to control the virus there by putting Manchester in Tier 3, for benefit of its citizens. That's something that Andy Burnham seems to have overlooked in the heat of the debate about money. (In contrast, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire are all taking fairly severe precautions, so maybe that's also something Burnham should think about.)  

[CosbehFox]

9 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

I know very little of Burnham’s character, so I couldn’t say either way whether there’s any politicking going on, but calling someone a ‘greedy cvnt’ for trying to get a better deal for the businesses under his charge, which have been through a hellish year as it is, seems a little off.

‘Greedy cvnt’ trying to protect the lowest paid members of the Greater Manchester area. Deary me. 
 

Being paid 66% of your minimum wage salary is absolutely brutal 

[CosbehFox]

9 hours ago, String fellow said:

The number of hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the North West is currently more than for London, the East of England, the South East and the South West combined. So Boris isn't 'going into battle' with the North West, he's trying to control the virus there by putting Manchester in Tier 3, for benefit of its citizens. That's something that Andy Burnham seems to have overlooked in the heat of the debate about money. (In contrast, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire are all taking fairly severe precautions, so maybe that's also something Burnham should think about.)  

The difference being that the Tier 3 precautions are not to the same level of those nations. 
 

Burnham’s counter acting point as been that the SAGE scientists are saying Tier 3 won’t work, so why have the double whammy of businesses trying to keep open without financial support whilst the virus continues to spread with an inadequate precaution.