2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 21, 2020 23:48:46 GMT
Here's an interesting statistic. The number of Britons killed per month by Covid-19 since March is about the same as the number killed per month during the Second World War. This is not a problem that can be brushed aside as a mere annoyance. We're dealing with wartime-level casualties. Eighty years ago people had to endure restrictions for six years of war and for some time afterwards. They pulled together and got through it. They'd be disgusted by the way people today are giving up after a few months. "We're all in this together" didn't last long, did it? Not long ago I read an article where people who'd moved to North America or Western Europe talked about the things they found remarkable that the natives took for granted. Being able to contact the emergency services and have them turn up even if you weren't a Party member. The military being something the government funds, not something they are. Not having to know who your local warlord or drug baron is. Being able to go out at night without fear of being murdered for the change in your pocket. Insurance being a thing you pay in case something bad happens, not a thing you pay to make sure it won't. Not having "murdered by the government" as a statistically significant cause of death. We're all immensely privileged by the standards of most of the world. Even during the worst of the lockdown, and no matter how difficult we found it, we were all living far easier lives than many people have to put up with every single day. Do those people complain about it? Of course they do, because their lives f—ing suck. But ours don't suck anywhere near as much. All we're facing is a few restrictions on our freedom, and we have absolutely no right to whine about it as if not being able to do every single thing we want means we're suffering more than any human has ever suffered. Even under lockdown and with all the continuing restrictions we are still some of the luckiest humans who have ever lived. So you have to follow a few rules and can't have a party with your mates or do other things that involve large groups. Get over it. All we need to do to save hundreds of thousands of lives and keep our economy bubbling along is be slightly less privileged for a while. Is that too much to ask? Apparently the answer is yes. We were never "all in this together" - what an utter fallacy.
And the wartime analogy is ridiculously weak.
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 21, 2020 23:50:36 GMT
I believe as unemployment grows and more people become dependent on the Welfare State it will be the outcome that could cause the Government the greatest pain. People have paid in all their lives and will now find that despite the myths and persecution of those on benefits it has been eroded to a level that is impossible for most people to live on. It is hilarious that people genuinely believe the state is going to look after them when state sanctioned economic meltdown arrives. |
|
4,810 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Sept 22, 2020 6:41:43 GMT
Completely reject what Witty says. Can't wait for the growing number of scientific figures to discredit him. His defintion of risk is highly exagerrated and makes no allowances for the economy. The old and vulnerable should be shielded, and let the rest get on with it. End of. Exactly this. Don't see the spreading of this disease as a failure of the people - it's nature, and it's a highly contagious disease, which for a lot of people is similar to a mild cold. Lets keep wearing masks, lets keep sanitizing, lets be sensible (pubs closing 10pm is fine by me), but we can't all become turtles again and hide away from the virus for weeks/months on end - the majority of us have to get on with it. I will do what I can to mitigate risks to others, I already follow a lot of procedures at work to keep myself and others safe. But you can't control a disease in every way you would want. Shield the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it, with measures in place. |
|
2,505 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 22, 2020 6:57:42 GMT
|
|
4,995 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 22, 2020 7:07:55 GMT
It was only 5 minutes ago that cock womble was encouraging us to go back and save our local Pret and Starbucks |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 7:41:34 GMT
Completely reject what Witty says. Can't wait for the growing number of scientific figures to discredit him. His defintion of risk is highly exagerrated and makes no allowances for the economy. The old and vulnerable should be shielded, and let the rest get on with it. End of. Exactly this. Don't see the spreading of this disease as a failure of the people - it's nature, and it's a highly contagious disease, which for a lot of people is similar to a mild cold. Lets keep wearing masks, lets keep sanitizing, lets be sensible (pubs closing 10pm is fine by me), but we can't all become turtles again and hide away from the virus for weeks/months on end - the majority of us have to get on with it. I will do what I can to mitigate risks to others, I already follow a lot of procedures at work to keep myself and others safe. But you can't control a disease in every way you would want. Shield the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it, with measures in place. Exactly! I would love all the people who seem to think we should all be hermits until the virus no longer exists to explain exactly how they plan to pay for everyone to do that, given it might be forever. Common sense precautions of course but otherwise life has to go on (which funnily enough is exactly what happened during WWII...and this is just a virus, not warfare!). We have to learn to live with this and accept that sadly some people will die from it, as is the case with many diseases - no matter how many people on here seem determined not to. The important thing is the precautions to allow people to get on with their daily lives, not trying to keep them locked up and doing nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 22, 2020 7:55:45 GMT
The latest U Turn is now to work from home, only days after their push to get back into offices to save Pret and Starbucks. I imagine it's only a matter of time before furlough is extended:
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 8:51:23 GMT
Exactly! I would love all the people who seem to think we should all be hermits until the virus no longer exists to explain exactly how they plan to pay for everyone to do that, given it might be forever. Nobody is saying that. I don't think anyone has ever said that. |
|
3,355 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Sept 22, 2020 10:07:29 GMT
I wonder if the 10pm curfew will apply to theatrical productions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 10:40:10 GMT
I wonder if the 10pm curfew will apply to theatrical productions? Only if the show's so bad that the audience feel the need to turn to drink during the second act. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 22, 2020 10:56:42 GMT
I wonder if the 10pm curfew will apply to theatrical productions? A lot of comedy nights take place in rooms above pubs, one I'm going to on Saturday has been affected. |
|
643 posts
|
Post by christya on Sept 22, 2020 11:22:58 GMT
I wonder if the 10pm curfew will apply to theatrical productions? Probably. They stuck us with a similar curfew in the North East and my cinema showing was cancelled because it would have finished at 10:15. |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 22, 2020 11:25:47 GMT
Fortunately all the ones I booked over the next few weeks are scheduled to finish before 10:00.
At the moment Theatre seems out of scope, hopefully this will remain as I have booked a number more over the next few weeks.
Have been to a few Theatre visits over the last few weeks and the controls in place have been exemplary and the travel there primarily out of peak times felt safe with people naturally distancing and face masks being worn by the majority.
|
|
299 posts
|
Post by bengal73 on Sept 22, 2020 11:53:53 GMT
Fortunately all the ones I booked over the next few weeks are scheduled to finish before 10:00. At the moment Theatre seems out of scope, hopefully this will remain as I have booked a number more over the next few weeks. Have been to a few Theatre visits over the last few weeks and the controls in place have been exemplary and the travel there primarily out of peak times felt safe with people naturally distancing and face masks being worn by the majority. Depends what exactly events due to start up in October on hold means. Have to say it doesn't seem particularly clear and may just relate to sporting events |
|
515 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Sept 22, 2020 13:12:36 GMT
Did they mention BST, specifically? The BBC website reported it like that, which might suggest a 9pm curfew when we move back to GMT at the end of October.
Although cutting an hour (or two) off might not make a radical difference, restricting pubs to table service only should reduce the numbers of people in the pubs overall, shouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 14:31:26 GMT
Exactly! I would love all the people who seem to think we should all be hermits until the virus no longer exists to explain exactly how they plan to pay for everyone to do that, given it might be forever. Nobody is saying that. I don't think anyone has ever said that. Well how do you expect increased restrictions to work economically then? There is a reason the government haven't asked hospitality businesses and retailers to close again. |
|
2,505 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 22, 2020 14:35:59 GMT
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 22, 2020 15:46:57 GMT
Nobody is saying that. I don't think anyone has ever said that. Well how do you expect increased restrictions to work economically then? There is a reason the government haven't asked hospitality businesses and retailers to close again. Almost did, Sunak's last minute appeal gave them reprieve. For now. But luckily we have the strand of covid that comes out to play at 10pm |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 16:31:14 GMT
Nobody is saying that. I don't think anyone has ever said that. Well how do you expect increased restrictions to work economically then? There is a reason the government haven't asked hospitality businesses and retailers to close again. Are you talking about increased restrictions or "we should all be hermits"? What most people here are discussing, and what most governments are doing, is a staged opening of the economy until we find the balance point where we're just at the verge of exponential growth. You keep on presenting it as a choice between just getting on with things no matter how many people die or a complete shutdown, but neither of those extremes is viable. I hope we can agree on that or otherwise any further discussion is pointless.
Overly harsh restrictions come with increased problems for the economy but so do overly lax restrictions. It's no good telling public-facing businesses such as the hospitality sector that they can open whenever they want if people are too worried about catching the coronavirus or passing it on to their loved ones to go out. When a disease has a fatality rate of around 0.5% to 0.9% people are justifiably worried. It's easy to set aside that risk and go out when there hasn't been a new case in your county for a week — which is where we were a month or two ago — because the chance you'll encounter someone infected is minuscule, but if we let this disease spread then it can only make people more reluctant to go out. People were hesitant to start going out in June and July when cases were far lower than they are now. There's not going to be a time when they stop caring about their own safety or that of their friends and relatives, so if we want people to get out and spend money we need to keep the disease in check.
A lockdown forces people to stay home whether they want to or not. A dangerous disease running rampant, or even just the perception of it, makes them want to stay home whether they're forced to or not. The economy is damaged either way, and one of those ways comes with a high death toll attached.
I've said over and over again that it's important to reopen things and I don't know why you keep reading it as "everything must stay shut forever". I know several people in the hospitality industry and I'll be absolutely livid if they're forced to close their businesses completely again. It's vitally important to get the money flowing and get as many people as possible earning at least some money so the government no longer has to support them. But what you don't seem to appreciate is that the curve reverses if we open things up too far: the economic damage starts rising again. We have to try to find the point on the curve where the economic benefit is at a maximum. There will be a cost to that, yes, but the cost will be as low as it can be and we'll just have to make it work. It's going to take some effort but it's not impossible. It's not as if society and the economy has never had to adapt to sudden change before.
What do you think the effect of allowing this disease to spread will be? Mathematically speaking there's no upper bound to exponential growth but biologically it's bounded by the population size, so if we don't control this it will reach almost the entire population. How many of those people will die? How many will end up in hospital? What will that do to the NHS? What will it do to the economy? I've not noticed you address any of those issues even when asked, and I can't figure out why that is.
|
|
5,074 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 22, 2020 17:21:05 GMT
With a surge of infection, comes great fear.
The Prime Minister could have said 'you have to learn to live with Covid' which he didn't do, so you can have all you theatre you want back tomorrow, however here is the rub, try and get people in these times of heighten tensions to sit centimetres from each other, they won't. So shows would not sell enough tickets to run viable and therefore close, with producers' lacking confidence to invest in opening new shows.
The Government said theatre can re-open, but with restrictions and not really a meaningful way, despite the Governments good will measure, one of these being facemasks and some of the public have chosen to ignore this, same as on public transport. The Prime Minister said he is going to be more rigorous with enforcement and get the army in to assist, which I support.
What you can't do is turn the clock back to March and pretend nothing has happened and carry on.
Saying that I do feel the pain where people cannot go out and pursue their passions, I am no different. It's equally as hard or even tougher if you have been hit financially, which is terrible. In all it has been a terrible year for everyone, but we all have to accept the Prime Minister makes correct decisions on evidence available to him from his experts.
|
|
2,505 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 22, 2020 17:50:23 GMT
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 22, 2020 18:21:16 GMT
We are going to have to put up with some restrictions for a while - shielding all the vulnerable and telling everyone else they can carry on as normal as long as they are careful hasn’t worked anywhere that has tried it.
It’s simply impossible to completely isolate the vulnerable from exposure to the virus if it is widespread in the rest of the community, because the vulnerable almost by definition need lots of close contact and support from other people to survive.
That doesn’t mean we have to go back into a total lockdown, but given that we are stuck with a proportion of the population who simply refuse to do follow sensible guidelines to mitigate risks that does mean that some firm rules have to be set to keep transmission low.
|
|
|
|
Post by clair on Sept 23, 2020 7:36:44 GMT
Perhaps I’m missing something but with all the new pub restrictions shouldn’t shops, especially supermarkets, also be banned from the cheap alcohol deals?! No cheap alcohol would surely lead to fewer house parties. I’d love to think that the supermarkets would put this in place themselves but somehow doubt it, profit before lives in this world sadly
|
|
2,413 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 23, 2020 9:31:19 GMT
I was wondering how coffee shops will deal with the table service from tomorrow as most don't have this in place, especially the chains such as Costa etc. It will be a shame if they go back to takeaway only .
Found this on bbc:
The measures announced by Boris Johnson yesterday mean all hospitality businesses will have to offer table service. That's prompted concern from fast food restaurants such as McDonald's - where customers usually get up to order from touchscreens - and coffee shops with counter service.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: “My understanding is that you need to be able to order from the tables.”
He said the aim was to avoid "the milling around and the social interaction" but said the government guidance would make it clear for businesses.
Responding on Twitter, coffee shop industry group United Baristas said well-organised queueing involves less contact than table service, but welcomed the promise of clarification.
|
|
2,413 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 23, 2020 9:35:33 GMT
On a separate issue I had an e mail from Crisis, the homeless charity, and there is an option to write to your MP regarding the benefits cap and how it impacts on homelessness: The economic storm brought on by the pandemic has left millions of people out of work or struggling to get by on vastly reduced hours, all the while trying to cover high rents. While the UK Government announced investment in housing benefit to help people in these difficult times, many families and individuals aren’t receiving this extra support because they are hit by the benefit cap. “The benefit cap is a HUGE barrier to many people we support at Crisis - especially single people. It can trap people in homelessness because the cost of rent plus basic living expenses is more than people can receive in benefits with the cap in place. One guy I was working with split up with his wife. He wanted to find somewhere to live close to his children, but he was priced out of everything locally as the benefit cap meant he just couldn't meet the rent.” – Tahmina, Crisis Housing Coach We need to ensure that the welfare system supports people to keep a roof over their heads when they lose work due to the end of the furlough scheme, local lockdowns or because businesses shut down altogether. The UK Government can give people a lifeline at the upcoming Spending Review by amending the benefit cap to prevent homelessness comms.crisis.org.uk/c/1fRlmwGWtnkSCe4ikBN929kkThese letters do have an impact and one small act can maybe help many others through this difficult period. We can but try at least! |
|
