Coronavirus Thread

[Paninistickers]

8 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

Oh absolutely. People act like they know him personally and it's really weird. He has created this brand and people really buy into it. If you want to see evidence of it, all you have to do is see how many people call him by his first name. 

Absolutely.

 

and I understand the concept of charisma and personality. . Yet, funnily enough, he appears to.lack that in person  His direct meetings with the public often seem excruciatingly awkward.

 

I wonder those that worship him would feel the same if they were confronted in person by his apparent lack of social skills. 

[fox_up_north]

I will say this - as someone who works in a major hospital in the north west, I am beyond flabbergasted that there are posters directed at staff aimed at combatting vaccine conspiracies. 

 

To think that there are enough doctors, nurses and cleaners who think that it will change their DNA or stop them getting pregnant, that these posters need to be created.

 

If I get ill or require treatment, I don't want those people anywhere near me.

 

 

 

Also - I worked in Barnsley for 18 months. Can confirm Leicester is not a shithole.

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

People warm to Borat - it's baffling for many of course but the brand does work.

Maybe Labour need to work on the 'first name brand' for their own leader as it's very easy to get wrong.

 

Yes, during a major health crisis, rather than someone dull and competent, it's important to have a top entertainer as PM.

And I do appreciate that it's easy to get a name brand wrong.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Well I know I would have jumped of the nearest cliff by now had May or Brown been addressing the nation this last 13 months.

 

There would have been one advantage in sticking with Theresa or Gordon, then..... 

[Spudulike]

9 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

Oh absolutely. People act like they know him personally and it's really weird. He has created this brand and people really buy into it. If you want to see evidence of it, all you have to do is see how many people call him by his first name. 

Probably because his name is Boris which is unusual. If he was called Tony, Gordon, John or Dave (or Theresa) then most probably the public wouldn't be on first name terms. 

 

Not many famous Boris' are there? A tennis player and Frankenstein. 

[Facecloth]

I would like to apologise to @UpTheLeagueFoxas he clearly struggles to spell anyones name correctly 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

Probably because his name is Boris which is unusual. If he was called Tony, Gordon, John or Dave (or Theresa) then most probably the public wouldn't be on first name terms. 

 

Not many famous Boris' are there? A tennis player and Frankenstein. 

 

Except that apparently Boris was not his (main) name until about his late teens, I think. It was his middle name. He was mainly known as Alex. Even Jennifer Arcuri knows him as "Alexander the Great". 

Close family and old friends still know him as Alex. He decided to change his (main) name to Boris - probably creating a brand for self-advancement, given that he'd declared he wanted to be "World King" as a boy.

 

He's entitled to change his name. The more serious point is everyone else, sometimes even media, calling him "Boris" and not "Boris Johnson", as in "Tony Blair", "Gordon Brown", "David Cameron" or "Theresa May".

 

Mind you, I reckon he should have opted for his more distinctive middle name and re-branded himself "De Pfeffel" (he's Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson).

I think I'll get rid of my dull, er, real name, too. Henceforth, I no longer wish to be known as Alf Bentley, but as "The Incredible Hunk". 

[dsr-burnley]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Except that apparently Boris was not his (main) name until about his late teens, I think. It was his middle name. He was mainly known as Alex. Even Jennifer Arcuri knows him as "Alexander the Great". 

Close family and old friends still know him as Alex. He decided to change his (main) name to Boris - probably creating a brand for self-advancement, given that he'd declared he wanted to be "World King" as a boy.

 

He's entitled to change his name. The more serious point is everyone else, sometimes even media, calling him "Boris" and not "Boris Johnson", as in "Tony Blair", "Gordon Brown", "David Cameron" or "Theresa May".

 

Mind you, I reckon he should have opted for his more distinctive middle name and re-branded himself "De Pfeffel" (he's Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson).

I think I'll get rid of my dull, er, real name, too. Henceforth, I no longer wish to be known as Alf Bentley, but as "The Incredible Hunk". 

We can look forward to seeing if you have the charisma to carry it off.  

[Scotch]

The name Boris is just part of his character, alongside the bad fitting suits and the "I just combed my hair with a balloon" look. It's his persona. The scruffy bumbling PM is far more palatable than the ruthless Tory that he really is. Similarly with the way he speaks, there is no way that an intelligent fella who is educated to the level he is, isn't a comfortable public speaker. 

 

I can't remember who it was but someone on the last leg was saying they once saw him before an interview and he purposely ruffled his hair. It's all part of the desired image. 

[Nod.E]

Not naming names

 

 

[Shane]

14 hours ago, Shane said:

The corruption has never been so transparent.

 

 

Just to add onto this,

 

Whilst people have lost their jobs, careers, businesses and livelihoods, the govt have been giving handouts and PPE contracts to their mates.

 

They are taking the p*** out of us.

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

The name Boris is just part of his character, alongside the bad fitting suits and the "I just combed my hair with a balloon" look. It's his persona. The scruffy bumbling PM is far more palatable than the ruthless Tory that he really is. Similarly with the way he speaks, there is no way that an intelligent fella who is educated to the level he is, isn't a comfortable public speaker. 

 

I can't remember who it was but someone on the last leg was saying they once saw him before an interview and he purposely ruffled his hair. It's all part of the desired image. 

 

I wonder if the persona is partly modeled on Columbo....

 

"Columbo is a shrewd but inelegant homicide detective whose trademarks include his rumpled beige raincoat, unassuming demeanor, cigar, old Peugeot 403 car, unseen wife and often leaving a room only to return with the catchphrase "Just one more thing."

 

"Columbo's genius is hidden by his frumpy, friendly and disarming demeanor, luring the killer into a false sense of security. In some cases, the killer's arrogance and dismissive attitude allow Columbo to manipulate his suspects into self-incrimination. Columbo's true thoughts and intentions are almost never revealed until close to the end of the episode. Columbo generally maintains a friendly relationship with the murderer until the end".

 

[Shane]

If the govt give you a vaccine passport just grind it up and eat it on your cornflakes folks 

 

 

 

 

[Scotch]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I wonder if the persona is partly modeled on Columbo....

 

"Columbo is a shrewd but inelegant homicide detective whose trademarks include his rumpled beige raincoat, unassuming demeanor, cigar, old Peugeot 403 car, unseen wife and often leaving a room only to return with the catchphrase "Just one more thing."

 

"Columbo's genius is hidden by his frumpy, friendly and disarming demeanor, luring the killer into a false sense of security. In some cases, the killer's arrogance and dismissive attitude allow Columbo to manipulate his suspects into self-incrimination. Columbo's true thoughts and intentions are almost never revealed until close to the end of the episode. Columbo generally maintains a friendly relationship with the murderer until the end".

 

Nail on the head. There is now, no doubt in my mind that Alex Johnson has been sitting one free period of his prestigious college education, watching some Peter Faulk and thought..... "BINGO". 

[String fellow]

25 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

The name Boris is just part of his character, alongside the bad fitting suits and the "I just combed my hair with a balloon" look. It's his persona. The scruffy bumbling PM is far more palatable than the ruthless Tory that he really is. Similarly with the way he speaks, there is no way that an intelligent fella who is educated to the level he is, isn't a comfortable public speaker. 

 

I can't remember who it was but someone on the last leg was saying they once saw him before an interview and he purposely ruffled his hair. It's all part of the desired image. 

Maybe a majority of the public prefer the dishevelled look of the 'buffoon' to that of Mr. Moisturiser, whose seems as deficient in personality as the PM has in abundance. 

[Scotch]

2 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Maybe a majority of the public prefer the dishevelled look of the 'buffoon' to that of Mr. Moisturiser, whose seems as deficient in personality as the PM has in abundance. 

No..... I think the public just prefer to believe that he is an idiot who doesn't have the first clue about what he is doing rather than face the truth of him being as cold and ruthless as any other Conservative politician. 

[String fellow]

6 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

No..... I think the public just prefer to believe that he is an idiot who doesn't have the first clue about what he is doing rather than face the truth of him being as cold and ruthless as any other Conservative politician. 

Being a ruthless politician isn't necessarily a bad thing. Churchill was ruthless against Nazi tyranny, Mrs.T was ruthless against Argentine aggression, and the current PM is trying to be ruthless against Covid-19. Do we really want political leaders who lack the will to fight against bad stuff, or do we want them to give in to everyone and everything they're confronted with during their period in office, as would probably have happened if Mr. Corbyn had won the last election?   

[Scotch]

Just now, String fellow said:

Being a ruthless politician isn't necessarily a bad thing. Churchill was ruthless against Nazi tyranny, Mrs.T was ruthless against Argentine aggression, and the current PM is trying to be ruthless against Covid-19. Do we really want political leaders who lack the will to fight against bad stuff, or do we want them to give in to everyone and everything they're confronted with during their period in office, as would probably have happened if Mr. Corbyn had won the last election?   

It is when you are just as ruthless towards the people you govern as you are to your enemy. 

[Samilktray]

Say what you want about Corbyn and those who like him, but these Brand Boris followers are weirdos in their own right 

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Being a ruthless politician isn't necessarily a bad thing. Churchill was ruthless against Nazi tyranny, Mrs.T was ruthless against Argentine aggression, and the current PM is trying to be ruthless against Covid-19.    

 

Returning the thread to topic.....

I agree that we want to have a PM who displays decisiveness (ruthlessness against threats, if you prefer), together with other required qualities: strategic wisdom, effective investment, clarity of message etc.

While the vaccination programme has been highly effective and the current roadmap seems well-judged thus far, Johnson was anything but "ruthless" against Covid-19 for almost a year before that.

More appropriate adjectives for 2020 would've been "shambolic", "vacillating", "unclear", "incompetent", "uncaring", "massively damaging" and "potentially corrupt".

Let's hope the big improvement in 2021 is sustained.....though the thinking on vaccine passports and foreign travel seems rather unclear so far.

 

Briefly digressing from topic again (I won't continue the digression, mods!)....

Mrs. T was eventually ruthless against Argentine aggression, but the full picture is a lot more complex:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#Build-up

 

"Argentina exerted pressure at the UN by raising hints of a possible invasion, but the British either missed or ignored this threat and did not react. The Argentines assumed that the British would not use force if the islands were invaded. According to British sources, the Argentines interpreted the failure of the British to react as a lack of interest in the Falklands due to the planned withdrawal (as part of a general reduction in size of the Royal Navy in 1981), including the last of the Antarctic Supply vessels, HMS Endurance, and by the British Nationality Act of 1981, which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland Islanders with a more limited version".

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Not naming names

 

 

Chicken.

 

But in all seriousness, I don't get the logic here - following "The Rules" with respect to vaccination (to say nothing of anything else) is the *only* way we do get the pandemic to end. Half measures in that matter won't be enough.

 

Well, actually it's not the only way, we could wait for it to mutate to a less virulent strain, but that doesn't sound like much fun to be given what it would do to lives, economies and health infrastructure in the meantime.

Edited 6 April 2021 by leicsmac

[Super_horns]

4 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

How can the government give a date for opening borders to lands who’s pandemic management they do not control? It has to be a reactionary measure. Never will understand this date demand from people in these situations.

All self interest.

 

One week it’s hospitality, then the travel sector and the next the  retail sector demanding to be opened up.

 

Right from the start in some cases before even the the fist lockdown !

 

Never mind the pandemic and thousands dying - more worried about the bank balance.

 

[Nod.E]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Chicken.

 

But in all seriousness, I don't get the logic here - following "The Rules" with respect to vaccination (to say nothing of anything else) is the *only* way we do get the pandemic to end. Half measures in that matter won't be enough.

 

Well, actually it's not the only way, we could wait for it to mutate to a less virulent strain, but that doesn't sound like much fun to be given what it would do to lives, economies and health infrastructure in the meantime.

I'm not arguing against following the rules. I myself follow them.

 

But it becomes tiresome to see people shouting about them from the rooftops, focusing on the negatives etc.

 

Even though I follow the rules, I'm more annoyed at doom spreaders than I am people meeting up in groups of more than 6 outdoors, for instance. Realistically it shouldn't slow our route out of lockdown. Constant negative pressure however might. As we've seen, even the biggest gambler we've had in number 10 has to opt for the most cautious route. Cautiousness isn't always the right approach. Data, not dates, right? 

Edited 6 April 2021 by Nod.E

[Otis]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I don’t think it’s that context .....personally, I just want to be able to hug my family (and see my mum before she really doesn’t know who I am ) and if the price of that is sticking a swab down my throat now and again/ having an app on my phone and wearing a bit of polyester in front of my mouth sometimes then quite frankly I don’t give a sh1t ....... too many are looking for mission creep. 
 

that same argument applies to everything else that I took for granted from going to the shops all the way up to long haul business travel. 

once it’s considered safe then there won’t be the need for the masks and tests ......if we had these tests available across the world twelve months ago then we wouldn’t still be in the midst of this. ITS THE WAY OUT OF IT !!

 

 

I thought the vaccine was the way out of it? 

Not an unreliable test.

[Buce]

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I'm not arguing against following the rules. I myself follow them.

 

But it becomes tiresome to see people shouting about them from the rooftops, focusing on the negatives etc.

 

Even though I follow the rules, I'm more annoyed at doom spreaders than I am people meeting up in groups of more than 6 outdoors, for instance. Realistically it shouldn't slow our route out of lockdown. Constant negative pressure however might. As we've seen, even the biggest gambler we've had in number 10 has to opt for the most cautious route. Cautiousness isn't always the right approach. Data, not dates, right? 

Personally I think a cautious approach rather than taking too many chances when you're dealing with something that is beyond negotiation and a force of nature is probably the best way to go lest it surprise you unpleasantly, but I can see why some folks would think otherwise.