Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, BKLFox said:

Sure, (extreme) as in i'm going to the extreme here, potential of mankinds destruction, as in destroy mankind.

Back in March 2020 the world didn't know what it was dealing with & at 1 point it felt like it was a death sentence if you got it & the whole world shut down.
Obviously now after time we know more about it & through £billions spent on research around the world.

You may mock but a virus must be in the top 3 things that will wipe us out eventually & back in March/April a lot of people a 100 times smarter than me were really starting to 5hit themsleves over this i believe.

Ah, I wasn't sure what you were referring to, now I know it's the virus. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Only thing I'll add there is that regardless of the necessity (and it certainly was necessary), it is still a mite hypocritical on the part of the Tories.

[String fellow]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Yep, we - and by 'we' I mean the ordinary working man and woman, not the rich or the big corporations - will be paying off the economic burden for decades through tax rises and cuts in services, and raising the pension age (yet again).

 

Amazing to find, after how Labour were derided when they considered borrowing for major investment, that the Magic Money Tree exists after all.

Don't forget that it's the 'rich' who pay twice as much income tax as 'the ordinary working man'. As regards the pension age, isn't it entirely reasonable to increase it, if life-expectancy increases? 

[BKLFox]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, I wasn't sure what you were referring to, now I know it's the virus. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Only thing I'll add there is that regardless of the necessity (and it certainly was necessary), it is still a mite hypocritical on the part of the Tories.

I'd fully agree if the "Tree" was being shaken for a like for like cause

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

I'd fully agree if the "Tree" was being shaken for a like for like cause

I was thinking more from the angle that if it positions were reversed right now, you could bet a Tory shadow cabinet would be speaking rather loudly about the cost of the response and the term "Magic Money Tree" would likely be used. Of course that's purely hypothetical, but there you go.

 

In any case, yes, the economic fallout will go on way past the time the virus is sorted, but there really wasn't any alternative - I've yet to see any coherent argument about letting it run riot where the overall result is better long-term economically - not with the medical and human costs.

 

[yorkie1999]

51 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Don't forget that it's the 'rich' who pay twice as much income tax as 'the ordinary working man'. As regards the pension age, isn't it entirely reasonable to increase it, if life-expectancy increases? 

No, because it causes old people to stay in employment longer therefore reducing the available jobs market for the young, forcing a slowdown in new ideas and thinking and taking us backwards as a society.

[whoareyaaa]

The fourth self employed grant won't be paid out until late April ridiculous, that's almost a  month after it ended  

[Buce]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

Don't forget that it's the 'rich' who pay twice as much income tax as 'the ordinary working man'.

 

As they should, though being able to afford top accountants means they rarely do (see Donald Trump). And 20% from someone on minimum wage leaves far less disposable income than 50% of millions does. I guess it depends on your views on social justice.

 

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

 

As regards the pension age, isn't it entirely reasonable to increase it, if life-expectancy increases? 

 

No.

 

First off, increased life expectancy isn't the same as increased health - we're just better at keeping sick, old people alive - and second, I don't view the idea of working till you drop to be desirable; people should be able to enjoy a bit of real life at the end of their working life, not go straight to the knacker's yard. It's not many years ago that when parity between men and women was discussed, it was with the intention that men should retire at sixty like women were doing. The Tories have done some evil things over the years, but raising pension ages tops the lot for me.

 

If I may ask, I'm guessing by your user name that you are possibly retired yourself? How would you feel if you were still being made to work?

[String fellow]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As they should, though being able to afford top accountants means they rarely do (see Donald Trump). And 20% from someone on minimum wage leaves far less disposable income than 50% of millions does. I guess it depends on your views on social justice.

 

 

No.

 

First off, increased life expectancy isn't the same as increased health - we're just better at keeping sick, old people alive - and second, I don't view the idea of working till you drop to be desirable; people should be able to enjoy a bit of real life at the end of their working life, not go straight to the knacker's yard. It's not many years ago that when parity between men and women was discussed, it was with the intention that men should retire at sixty like women were doing. The Tories have done some evil things over the years, but raising pension ages tops the lot for me.

 

If I may ask, I'm guessing by your user name that you are possibly retired yourself? How would you feel if you were still being made to work?

As it happens, my own pension age was pushed up from 65 to 66, which worked out well, because it meant that I had an extra year of pension credits from the carer's allowance which I was paid until age 66. This meant that I qualified for the full state pension. It's really easy to keep knocking the government, but if you dig a bit deeper into the way they handle the economy, you'll find that they are no more 'evil' than Labour. That party's economic policies would almost certainly result in higher inflation, resulting in money going less far. 

Edited 3 March 2021 by String fellow

[David Guiza]

Who had Matt Le Tissier tweeting about the Nuremberg Code in the 'unlikely scences of 2021' bingo? 

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, String fellow said:

As it happens, my own pension age was pushed up from 65 to 66, which worked out well, because it meant that I had an extra year of pension credits from the carer's allowance which I was paid until age 66.

 

That doesn't really answer my question, though; if you were expected to work until you were in your seventies, would you be ok with that? Or would you rather spend the winter of your years travelling or enjoying the grandkids, or just having a well-earned rest after 50+ years of hard graft?

 

32 minutes ago, String fellow said:

 

This meant that I qualified for the full state pension. It's really easy to keep knocking the government, but if you dig a bit deeper into the way they handle the economy, you'll find that they are no more 'evil' than Labour. That party's economic policies would almost certainly result in higher inflation, resulting in money going less far. 

 

You are labouring under a misapprehension if you assume I'm a Labour supporter; when Labour get my vote it's only because we live in a functionally two-party state and they at least represent some of my values.

 

But after ten years of failed austerity policies, the Tories have lost the right to be considered a safe pair of hands with the economy.

 

It's all about social justice, for me; if you don't believe in that concept, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

The fourth self employed grant won't be paid out until late April ridiculous, that's almost a  month after it ended  

Tbf with it (finally!) including people who became self employed in 19/20, the time will be needed to redo all of the calculations, which is fair enough.

[String fellow]

43 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That doesn't really answer my question, though; if you were expected to work until you were in your seventies, would you be ok with that? Or would you rather spend the winter of your years travelling or enjoying the grandkids, or just having a well-earned rest after 50+ years of hard graft?

 

 

You are labouring under a misapprehension if you assume I'm a Labour supporter; when Labour get my vote it's only because we live in a functionally two-party state and they at least represent some of my values.

 

But after ten years of failed austerity policies, the Tories have lost the right to be considered a safe pair of hands with the economy.

 

It's all about social justice, for me; if you don't believe in that concept, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Don't forget that many older people actually want to continue working after their official retirement date. Another point is about retirement itself. Like many other folk, I used to dream of it - not having to get up every morning and trek across town to get to work. But now, although that burden has gone (though not my now unpaid caring duties at home haven't) the reality is that life isn't the bed of roses you might expect. All life's other struggles and anxieties are still there, and some are actually increasing. So please don't assume that retirement is all it's cracked up to be! On the question of social justice, it's such a vague term that it can used to fit virtually any narrative, depending on one's perspective. Generally speaking, I'm a proponent of the embourgeoisement thesis. 

 

[Stoopid]

12 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Don't forget that many older people actually want to continue working after their official retirement date. Another point is about retirement itself. Like many other folk, I used to dream of it - not having to get up every morning and trek across town to get to work. But now, although that burden has gone (though not my now unpaid caring duties at home haven't) the reality is that life isn't the bed of roses you might expect. All life's other struggles and anxieties are still there, and some are actually increasing. So please don't assume that retirement is all it's cracked up to be! On the question of social justice, it's such a vague term that it can used to fit virtually any narrative, depending on one's perspective. Generally speaking, I'm a proponent of the embourgeoisement thesis. 

 

Have to say, retirement's fine by me. There again, I never really bought into the 9 - 5 view of the world or being a wage slave for the purpose of affording stuff you're supposed to want. In truth  I could do without most of it. 

Not sure what 'embourgeoisment' is, but I never had any desire to join the middle-classes. 

What people tend to forget about us oldies is that we grew up in the 60s, most of us, and quite often retain the pretty weird and non-materialistic views of that time.

Not having to go to some yes-boss workplace everyday gets my vote. 

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Don't forget that many older people actually want to continue working after their official retirement date.

 

And there is nothing preventing them from doing so, if they wish. I know a lady of 82 who chooses to work, but that's her choice.

 

10 minutes ago, String fellow said:

 

Another point is about retirement itself. Like many other folk, I used to dream of it - not having to get up every morning and trek across town to get to work. But now, although that burden has gone (though not my now unpaid caring duties at home haven't)

 

That raises another point: do you really think it fair that your caring was so undervalued by the govt, that you had to work an extra year to get a full pension?

 

10 minutes ago, String fellow said:

 

the reality is that life isn't the bed of roses you might expect. All life's other struggles and anxieties are still there, and some are actually increasing. So please don't assume that retirement is all it's cracked up to be!

 

It is what it is but adding the burden of actively seeking work to all those other (increasing) stresses just makes life even shitter.

 

 

[BenTheFox]

Massive increase in the number of second doses being issued in the latest vaccination figures. We'll start to see even more as the Oxford Vaccine started to be rolled out two months ago. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

9 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

The fourth self employed grant won't be paid out until late April ridiculous, that's almost a  month after it ended  

 

8 hours ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Tbf with it (finally!) including people who became self employed in 19/20, the time will be needed to redo all of the calculations, which is fair enough.

Had the email re SEISS 4. Was very surprised to see you can't claim until mid-late April. This period (if I recall correctly) was due to cover Feb/Mar/April.

Then SEISS 5 (to cover from May-Sep) isn't available until late July.

Going to have to juggle some savings around as I hoped we'd be getting SEISS 4 paid this month.

First world problems though, eh. Crack on.

[yorkie1999]

12 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

Massive increase in the number of second doses being issued in the latest vaccination figures. We'll start to see even more as the Oxford Vaccine started to be rolled out two months ago. 

Just reading about the over 80's who've now had 2 jabs, over 50% of them are breaking lockdown rules as they believe they are now safe. Don't know whether that's a good thing or bad but there can't be many of em jogging and spreading it to the the rest of us.

[Leicester_Loyal]

And now after 12 months the Government is telling us to start eating healthier Not like we've had ICU nurses on this very forum telling us most of their younger patients are fatties, yet it's took this Government 12 months to notice

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

And now after 12 months the Government is telling us to start eating healthier Not like we've had ICU nurses on this very forum telling us most of their younger patients are fatties, yet it's took this Government 12 months to notice

It didn't take the government 12 months to notice, there was a big campaign last summer. They can't force people to eat healthy, that is the responsibility of the individual.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-obesity-strategy-unveiled-as-country-urged-to-lose-weight-to-beat-coronavirus-covid-19-and-protect-the-nhs

[filbertway]

Is this Health Minister suggesting that we're likely to get mutations because we're vaccinating people/currently in lock down.

 

Is he under the belief that the virus has consciousness and it making a conscious effort to change in the face of adversity?

 

High infection rate i'm on board with, that makes sense. The fact it changes because it realises that it's in danger seems ludicrous to me haha

 

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

6 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

It didn't take the government 12 months to notice, there was a big campaign last summer. They can't force people to eat healthy, that is the responsibility of the individual.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-obesity-strategy-unveiled-as-country-urged-to-lose-weight-to-beat-coronavirus-covid-19-and-protect-the-nhs

Fair enough, I don't remember hearing any of that last summer but it feels like a lifetime ago, so I'll admit I was wrong there.

 

It's definitely not up to them, but we should have been encouraging people to go to the gyms rather than going to McDonalds throughout lockdowns. Sticking a tax on sugar items or whatever just punishes everyone rather than the fat people, why should I pay more because some fatty can't stop drinking full fat coke

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Is this Health Minister suggesting that we're likely to get mutations because we're vaccinating people/currently in lock down.

 

Is he under the belief that the virus has consciousness and it making a conscious effort to change in the face of adversity?

 

High infection rate i'm on board with, that makes sense. The fact it changes because it realises that it's in danger seems ludicrous to me haha

 

 

 

Eh? Thought it was common knowledge by now that viruses mutate to survive? 

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Is this Health Minister suggesting that we're likely to get mutations because we're vaccinating people/currently in lock down.

 

Is he under the belief that the virus has consciousness and it making a conscious effort to change in the face of adversity?

 

High infection rate i'm on board with, that makes sense. The fact it changes because it realises that it's in danger seems ludicrous to me haha

 

 

 

um.....

[filbertway]

Just now, Innovindil said:

Eh? Thought it was common knowledge by now that viruses mutate to survive? 

My understanding that a virus mutation is an accidental replication, if it happens to be more transmissable/better at surviving then it'll carry on being replicated.

 

Thus, the more people infected, the more chance of a mutation occuring that improves the virus.

 

What I'm fair sure doesn't happen is that the virus sits down to watch the news at 6 and goes "crap, they're onto us, better change".

 

I might be wrong, but that seems absurd to me

 

[egg_fried_rice]

Just now, filbertway said:

My understanding that a virus mutation is an accidental replication, if it happens to be more transmissable/better at surviving then it'll carry on being replicated.

 

Thus, the more people infected, the more chance of a mutation occuring that improves the virus.

 

What I'm fair sure doesn't happen is that the virus sits down to watch the news at 6 and goes "crap, they're onto us, better change".

 

I might be wrong, but that seems absurd to me

 

A vaccine acts as a selection pressure on a pathogen, meaning the 'fittest' (read: mutated) versions of the virus will be the ones most likely to survive