FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > We are going to have to learn
We are going to have to learn
Jump to: Newest in thread
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease"
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *etsome OP Man
over a year ago
birmingham |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?"
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society. "
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society. "
Okay. So are you volunteering yourself to die? Or is it your mum that you're offering up? Perhaps your dad, or your son, daughter? Maybe just your grandparents. Or your grandchildren.
All the people that you suggest might be expendable are somebodys mother, or father, or daughter or son. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?"
So what do you suggest? How long do you seriously suggest we stay in lockdown? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?"
Can't argue with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society. "
Individuals make up society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
So what do you suggest? How long do you seriously suggest we stay in lockdown?"
I have no idea. But hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths will ruin society too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?"
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared. "
There isnt a food or housing shortage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If too many ordinary workers die society can't function as it does now with the majority working to keep the minority wealthy and in power. I suspect a balance will be found that is the best way to maintain that dynamic. The fewer working class people there are the more power they hold. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage."
Im not taking about shortage. I'm talking about the fact that mortgage holidays and furlough can't and won't last forever. Self employed can't be sustained by the government forever and many will have no businesses to return to.
I notice you conveniently skimmed over the cancer treatment part of the post though. Possibly because that doesn't suit your agenda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared. "
Compromises need to be made. I can't imagine those with cancer are terribly safe out there given their compromised immune system and our lack of understanding of how to treat this virus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
Im not taking about shortage. I'm talking about the fact that mortgage holidays and furlough can't and won't last forever. Self employed can't be sustained by the government forever and many will have no businesses to return to.
I notice you conveniently skimmed over the cancer treatment part of the post though. Possibly because that doesn't suit your agenda? "
I dont have an agenda.
I dont think the lockdown will last too long..I think they will start easing it in a few weeks (hopefully they will have some sort of plan)
I think it had to be done.
As for the cancer stuff..I'm guessing they had to focus on this?I dont really know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
Compromises need to be made. I can't imagine those with cancer are terribly safe out there given their compromised immune system and our lack of understanding of how to treat this virus."
I fully appreciate that. The issue is we are saying to people we aren't currently treating you for the cancer we KNOW you have as a result of a virus you MAY catch and MAY kill you.... Although you may have absolutely no symptoms at all.
That must be incredibly tough to take and those people seem to be entirely forgotten in the race to turn this political and berate people who don't feel we should be locked down for the next 50 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?"
Did you not read the part where he said he thinks "more people will die from the cure rather than the disease"
So let's say hes right, lets say more people was to end up dieing from being in lock down for months (not just talking UK, but the world over) those poorer countrys were poverty is already a huge problem.
So lets just say for example that 500,000 die from coronavirus but the next 6-12 months a couple million was to die from the after effects with increased poverty.
In his opinion his view would be saving lifes where as your view of remaining in lock down further would be killing more people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
So what do you suggest? How long do you seriously suggest we stay in lockdown?
I have no idea. But hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths will ruin society too."
Will it? Why? The population of the world has more than doubled since the First World War.
The larger the population, the more it relies on combined cooperation or society. You could argue that society is more important than the individual. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse"
Maybe once they start providing the NHS with adequate ppe they can make a start on that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Did you not read the part where he said he thinks "more people will die from the cure rather than the disease"
So let's say hes right, lets say more people was to end up dieing from being in lock down for months (not just talking UK, but the world over) those poorer countrys were poverty is already a huge problem.
So lets just say for example that 500,000 die from coronavirus but the next 6-12 months a couple million was to die from the after effects with increased poverty.
In his opinion his view would be saving lifes where as your view of remaining in lock down further would be killing more people.
"
I dont think a couple of million would die from poverty . In reality there is the same amount of money existing it's just a cash flow problem putting companies out of business etc. The result would not be mass deaths ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage."
And the point of the lockdown is to relieve burden on the nhs, if we manage the flatten the number being admitted with corona and keep it flat, the better chance of there being the capacity for other medical treatment to start up again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse"
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Did you not read the part where he said he thinks "more people will die from the cure rather than the disease"
So let's say hes right, lets say more people was to end up dieing from being in lock down for months (not just talking UK, but the world over) those poorer countrys were poverty is already a huge problem.
So lets just say for example that 500,000 die from coronavirus but the next 6-12 months a couple million was to die from the after effects with increased poverty.
In his opinion his view would be saving lifes where as your view of remaining in lock down further would be killing more people.
I dont think a couple of million would die from poverty . In reality there is the same amount of money existing it's just a cash flow problem putting companies out of business etc. The result would not be mass deaths !"
I agree. All this talk of economic catastrophe seems a little far fetched tbh.
But the gmnt have got a huge job when we start again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
Compromises need to be made. I can't imagine those with cancer are terribly safe out there given their compromised immune system and our lack of understanding of how to treat this virus.
I fully appreciate that. The issue is we are saying to people we aren't currently treating you for the cancer we KNOW you have as a result of a virus you MAY catch and MAY kill you.... Although you may have absolutely no symptoms at all.
That must be incredibly tough to take and those people seem to be entirely forgotten in the race to turn this political and berate people who don't feel we should be locked down for the next 50 years. "
Cancer patients have treatment postponed for relatively mild illness all the time
I know someone that had chemo cancelled because they had a tooth absess
The fact is , chemo destroys your body both the good and the bad and there is no point putting your body through that for something else to get you anyway while you immune system is trashed
Its s hard pill to swallow when its someone you care about but it really is for their own safety |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Saw on the news that 80 percent of population need to be immune to the virus before we can ignore it,currently less than 1 percent have been infected,so best cause of action is to develop a vaccine,just how long it will take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse"
That isnt even close to quantifiable and would be a wasted effort on nothing but projection
If you had a fire in your house now and someone told you throwing water on it might make the ground unstable and the house to sink ... to you just let burn or do you put out the fire then work on a plan for subsidance? The government have to deal with the immediate risk we are facing and if that has consequences out a plan in place to mitigate after |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
That isnt even close to quantifiable and would be a wasted effort on nothing but projection
If you had a fire in your house now and someone told you throwing water on it might make the ground unstable and the house to sink ... to you just let burn or do you put out the fire then work on a plan for subsidance? The government have to deal with the immediate risk we are facing and if that has consequences out a plan in place to mitigate after "
That is a great analogy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
That isnt even close to quantifiable and would be a wasted effort on nothing but projection
If you had a fire in your house now and someone told you throwing water on it might make the ground unstable and the house to sink ... to you just let burn or do you put out the fire then work on a plan for subsidance? The government have to deal with the immediate risk we are facing and if that has consequences out a plan in place to mitigate after
That is a great analogy "
I think a lot of the naysayers, further, think that other people have fires, it'll never happen to them, and don't seem to care about the fact that other people's houses might burn down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
That isnt even close to quantifiable and would be a wasted effort on nothing but projection
If you had a fire in your house now and someone told you throwing water on it might make the ground unstable and the house to sink ... to you just let burn or do you put out the fire then work on a plan for subsidance? The government have to deal with the immediate risk we are facing and if that has consequences out a plan in place to mitigate after "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage."
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"Saw on the news that 80 percent of population need to be immune to the virus before we can ignore it,currently less than 1 percent have been infected,so best cause of action is to develop a vaccine,just how long it will take."
Except there's no guarantee a vaccine will be found.
I don't think there's ever been many for Corona viruses.
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus"
I think that's where the hard work for the gmnt will really come in..they are gonna have to look at ways to kick start or even revamp the economy.
Like the poster said above the money is still there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
That isnt even close to quantifiable and would be a wasted effort on nothing but projection
If you had a fire in your house now and someone told you throwing water on it might make the ground unstable and the house to sink ... to you just let burn or do you put out the fire then work on a plan for subsidance? The government have to deal with the immediate risk we are facing and if that has consequences out a plan in place to mitigate after
That is a great analogy
I think a lot of the naysayers, further, think that other people have fires, it'll never happen to them, and don't seem to care about the fact that other people's houses might burn down."
Especially if you're in a row of terraced houses as opposed to be a detached cottage in the middle of nowhere.........
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
So what do you suggest? How long do you seriously suggest we stay in lockdown?"
Three weeks. Of actual proper lockdown, with no fucking days out to the seaside, barbeques, garden parties. Then maintaining sensible hygiene rules and personal distancing to avoid major flare ups and letting it get out of control again. That lets a hell of a lot of the economy get going again.
And for the things that cannot sensibly go back to how they were, it's for the government to spend money and rearrange circumstances so that nobody starves or goes homeless, until there is a vaccine or an effective treatment. When a lot more things can become safely possible.
Everybody complaining about the original lockdown - complain to the government about acting far too late, if they had taken it seriously a month earlier (when yes, all the warnings and information from other countries were known, but it would have cost a few quid to do something and would have looked bad the instant after winning an election on the basis of cutting down everything) there could have been testing and tracing and quarantining of a comparitive few people and areas, a full lockdown would never have been needed.
Everybody complaining about extending the current lockdown - complain about the pillocks that have a party and invite all their mates around. Complain about the ones who think it's okay to have a big family get together.
When can the lockdown end? When people stop needlessly spreading covid-19 around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus"
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
So what do you suggest? How long do you seriously suggest we stay in lockdown?
Three weeks. Of actual proper lockdown, with no fucking days out to the seaside, barbeques, garden parties. Then maintaining sensible hygiene rules and personal distancing to avoid major flare ups and letting it get out of control again. That lets a hell of a lot of the economy get going again.
And for the things that cannot sensibly go back to how they were, it's for the government to spend money and rearrange circumstances so that nobody starves or goes homeless, until there is a vaccine or an effective treatment. When a lot more things can become safely possible.
Everybody complaining about the original lockdown - complain to the government about acting far too late, if they had taken it seriously a month earlier (when yes, all the warnings and information from other countries were known, but it would have cost a few quid to do something and would have looked bad the instant after winning an election on the basis of cutting down everything) there could have been testing and tracing and quarantining of a comparitive few people and areas, a full lockdown would never have been needed.
Everybody complaining about extending the current lockdown - complain about the pillocks that have a party and invite all their mates around. Complain about the ones who think it's okay to have a big family get together.
When can the lockdown end? When people stop needlessly spreading covid-19 around."
I think that opportunity is already gone,
If the world closed down entirely all at the same time at the beginning for 3 weeks with health workers 50% at home during the lockdown and the working half quarantined after then maybe the disease would be gone, but now full lockdown is not possible without sacrificing everyone in hospital already, even the tightest option we now have still involves letting key workers come and go so its not going to be possible to remove all carriers of the infection and once we get back out it just flares again
I think the only realistic end to lock down now is working on the testing, vaccine and immunity theories |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus"
We import an alarming amount of medicines that literally keep people alive, that are manufactured in india and china. There's an entire supply chain that needs to be kept moving. All these fucking lockdown lovers won't be so high and mighty when people are dying because of medicine shortages. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives."
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Did you not read the part where he said he thinks "more people will die from the cure rather than the disease"
So let's say hes right, lets say more people was to end up dieing from being in lock down for months (not just talking UK, but the world over) those poorer countrys were poverty is already a huge problem.
So lets just say for example that 500,000 die from coronavirus but the next 6-12 months a couple million was to die from the after effects with increased poverty.
In his opinion his view would be saving lifes where as your view of remaining in lock down further would be killing more people.
I dont think a couple of million would die from poverty . In reality there is the same amount of money existing it's just a cash flow problem putting companies out of business etc. The result would not be mass deaths !
I agree. All this talk of economic catastrophe seems a little far fetched tbh.
But the gmnt have got a huge job when we start again."
Hold on. How come the talk of economic catastrophe (which if it comes to pass is the next crisis) is far fetched when you at every opportunity make the point that the government ignored the last crisis till it was to late.
Many experts told the government that a pandemic was likely. Now many experts are saying there will be a huge economic dip.
You either listen to the experts or you don’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Did you not read the part where he said he thinks "more people will die from the cure rather than the disease"
So let's say hes right, lets say more people was to end up dieing from being in lock down for months (not just talking UK, but the world over) those poorer countrys were poverty is already a huge problem.
So lets just say for example that 500,000 die from coronavirus but the next 6-12 months a couple million was to die from the after effects with increased poverty.
In his opinion his view would be saving lifes where as your view of remaining in lock down further would be killing more people.
I dont think a couple of million would die from poverty . In reality there is the same amount of money existing it's just a cash flow problem putting companies out of business etc. The result would not be mass deaths !
I agree. All this talk of economic catastrophe seems a little far fetched tbh.
But the gmnt have got a huge job when we start again.
Hold on. How come the talk of economic catastrophe (which if it comes to pass is the next crisis) is far fetched when you at every opportunity make the point that the government ignored the last crisis till it was to late.
Many experts told the government that a pandemic was likely. Now many experts are saying there will be a huge economic dip.
You either listen to the experts or you don’t. "
Because I dont think that a country that can spend £250m on a rocket is going to descend into 3rd world status overnight.
But like I said its a big job They have got on their hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
"
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
"
Totally agree. I have spent my whole working life putting myself in harms way. This crisis not so much as it’s not my skill set.
The weeks and months away, the periods of sheer terror and loss and the inevitable injuries I’ve gone through just so as I can provide for my family.
However, the industry I am in now is on the verge of collapse. I am sitting in my house right now wondering if I will still have it this time next year.
And some have the audacity to gloat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt."
What exactly are you expecting? - them to produce a survey response to the question "are you scamming the government?" Some stats don't exist for obvious reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt.
What exactly are you expecting? - them to produce a survey response to the question "are you scamming the government?" Some stats don't exist for obvious reasons. "
Unemployment figures exist
I'd suggest there are not "loads'of people sitting around choosing not to work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt.
What exactly are you expecting? - them to produce a survey response to the question "are you scamming the government?" Some stats don't exist for obvious reasons.
Unemployment figures exist
I'd suggest there are not "loads'of people sitting around choosing not to work."
Depends what you know by lots. The average person knows 150 people. I know 2 lazy cunts who could work but have very minor medical conditions that give them an excuse not to. So 1.3% of my personal network. If 1.3% was representative of 65m then there would be 845,000 lazy cunts out there. The ONS says there are 8,431,000 economically inactive people age 16-64 in this country which is the category the 2 I know would fall into. They aren't unemployed because they don't seek work. So you tell me if ~10% of them could easily work if they wanted to... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt.
What exactly are you expecting? - them to produce a survey response to the question "are you scamming the government?" Some stats don't exist for obvious reasons.
Unemployment figures exist
I'd suggest there are not "loads'of people sitting around choosing not to work.
Depends what you know by lots. The average person knows 150 people. I know 2 lazy cunts who could work but have very minor medical conditions that give them an excuse not to. So 1.3% of my personal network. If 1.3% was representative of 65m then there would be 845,000 lazy cunts out there. The ONS says there are 8,431,000 economically inactive people age 16-64 in this country which is the category the 2 I know would fall into. They aren't unemployed because they don't seek work. So you tell me if ~10% of them could easily work if they wanted to... "
Well they cant be that minor If they managed to blag that atos system?
There was a fella here who was that emancipated he weighed just 6 stone.The dwp declared him fit to work.He died a few weeks later. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt.
What exactly are you expecting? - them to produce a survey response to the question "are you scamming the government?" Some stats don't exist for obvious reasons.
Unemployment figures exist
I'd suggest there are not "loads'of people sitting around choosing not to work.
Depends what you know by lots. The average person knows 150 people. I know 2 lazy cunts who could work but have very minor medical conditions that give them an excuse not to. So 1.3% of my personal network. If 1.3% was representative of 65m then there would be 845,000 lazy cunts out there. The ONS says there are 8,431,000 economically inactive people age 16-64 in this country which is the category the 2 I know would fall into. They aren't unemployed because they don't seek work. So you tell me if ~10% of them could easily work if they wanted to...
Well they cant be that minor If they managed to blag that atos system?
There was a fella here who was that emancipated he weighed just 6 stone.The dwp declared him fit to work.He died a few weeks later."
You're more likely to be granted parole if your case is reviewed after lunch than before. Life is arbitrary like that sometimes, welcome to the human race. The people deciding things have quotas, get your case reviewed before the quota is full and happy days, more playstation and pringles for you. Get your case reviewed when the quota is full and you get your example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
Have you heard of this thing called social security? Unemployment benefit? Universal credit? It's like, this thing where the government is supposed to take money from those that can afford it, and give it to those that would starve and be on the streets without it.
What's that? How can anybody live on universal credit? Well i think that a shit load of people who were quite happy to let others try to live on universal credit, are now going to find out how the other half lives.
A shit load of people who have worked there absolute nuts off to avoid having to rely on universal credit and have spent that entire time contributing to the pot universal credit etc comes out of.
There are lots of people who can't work and never have been able to through no fault of their own and they absolutely should be supported.
Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who have chosen to never work because they can't be arsed. I think it's a bit rich when they bleat on about how little they get and now everyone who has lost a business or job can see how they have to 'struggle'.
Those people have worked hard to build businesses and careers. We are fortunate that we have worked as key workers throughout this and haven't been impacted financially but plenty of our friends and family will be in real trouble as a result of this.
How many people choose not to work?
I can imagine it being difficult under this gmnt.
What exactly are you expecting? - them to produce a survey response to the question "are you scamming the government?" Some stats don't exist for obvious reasons.
Unemployment figures exist
I'd suggest there are not "loads'of people sitting around choosing not to work.
Depends what you know by lots. The average person knows 150 people. I know 2 lazy cunts who could work but have very minor medical conditions that give them an excuse not to. So 1.3% of my personal network. If 1.3% was representative of 65m then there would be 845,000 lazy cunts out there. The ONS says there are 8,431,000 economically inactive people age 16-64 in this country which is the category the 2 I know would fall into. They aren't unemployed because they don't seek work. So you tell me if ~10% of them could easily work if they wanted to...
Well they cant be that minor If they managed to blag that atos system?
There was a fella here who was that emancipated he weighed just 6 stone.The dwp declared him fit to work.He died a few weeks later.
You're more likely to be granted parole if your case is reviewed after lunch than before. Life is arbitrary like that sometimes, welcome to the human race. The people deciding things have quotas, get your case reviewed before the quota is full and happy days, more playstation and pringles for you. Get your case reviewed when the quota is full and you get your example. "
Agreed , just because some people fall through cracks in the system does not mean others don’t know how to work it , unfortunately probably the most honest of the bunch losing out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etsome OP Man
over a year ago
birmingham |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?"
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyone"
Isn’t that where we started? And then people discovered that fit and healthy people, even children were dying too and were outraged that we acted too slow and misled that only the vulnerable were at risk
What do you classify as vulnerable to a virus that can attack anyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus"
No way, if things get that bad the economics ofvgbingsxwoujd adjust . If there are so many that cannot afford rents that will be resolved and probably by tents moving to more affordable levels!
Yes there may be food banks but starvation not likely
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
We import an alarming amount of medicines that literally keep people alive, that are manufactured in india and china. There's an entire supply chain that needs to be kept moving. All these fucking lockdown lovers won't be so high and mighty when people are dying because of medicine shortages. "
The supply chains are interrupted but not to that extent , I think that's panic for the sake of panicking  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
No way, if things get that bad the economics ofvgbingsxwoujd adjust . If there are so many that cannot afford rents that will be resolved and probably by tents moving to more affordable levels!
Yes there may be food banks but starvation not likely
"
RENTS not rents ( although may be sone some ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?
Its not really as simple as that. How many are you prepared to let die from preventing essential treatment for pre-existing illnesses such as cancer? I know of two people who have had their treatment frozen for the foreseeable.
The current lockdown needed to happen to prepare the NHS to cope as well as they can. Unfortunately shutting the world/country down to focus solely on one virus for a pronged period of time isn't feasible.
People need to eat, people need shelter and all the other diseases and illnesses haven't suddenly disappeared.
There isnt a food or housing shortage.
But when people start losing their jobs because of this they won’t be able to afford to eat or house themselves, sadly I think the death toll from the damage to the economy will far outnumber those that die from the virus
We import an alarming amount of medicines that literally keep people alive, that are manufactured in india and china. There's an entire supply chain that needs to be kept moving. All these fucking lockdown lovers won't be so high and mighty when people are dying because of medicine shortages.
The supply chains are interrupted but not to that extent , I think that's panic for the sake of panicking "
It's an example of the kind of problems we'll have as the economy stays shut down too long. "Stay home, save lives" is only true for a short while before staying home and fucking the economy end up killing people. The economy isn't just for making the lizard people rich. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyone"
m
We aren’t isolating everyone. It’s only the most vulnerable who are being told to lock themselves away for the next 12 weeks.
Everyone else still has a degree of freedom left.
However it’s not just the vulnerable who are at risk... plenty of otherwise healthy people dying.
Thankfully however, there’s a significant number of people who get very sick who are able to recover with adequate medical intervention.
The entire point is not to overwhelm the NHS - otherwise people who would otherwise fully recover will die because there aren’t enough ICU spaces and the very Drs and Nurses who care for them will end up sick and dying too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *etsome OP Man
over a year ago
birmingham |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyonem
We aren’t isolating everyone. It’s only the most vulnerable who are being told to lock themselves away for the next 12 weeks.
Everyone else still has a degree of freedom left.
However it’s not just the vulnerable who are at risk... plenty of otherwise healthy people dying.
Thankfully however, there’s a significant number of people who get very sick who are able to recover with adequate medical intervention.
The entire point is not to overwhelm the NHS - otherwise people who would otherwise fully recover will die because there aren’t enough ICU spaces and the very Drs and Nurses who care for them will end up sick and dying too."
The chances of dying of this virus if you are under 60 and have no known health problems are vanishingly small. You would have more chance of dying in a road accident |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyonem
We aren’t isolating everyone. It’s only the most vulnerable who are being told to lock themselves away for the next 12 weeks.
Everyone else still has a degree of freedom left.
However it’s not just the vulnerable who are at risk... plenty of otherwise healthy people dying.
Thankfully however, there’s a significant number of people who get very sick who are able to recover with adequate medical intervention.
The entire point is not to overwhelm the NHS - otherwise people who would otherwise fully recover will die because there aren’t enough ICU spaces and the very Drs and Nurses who care for them will end up sick and dying too.
The chances of dying of this virus if you are under 60 and have no known health problems are vanishingly small. You would have more chance of dying in a road accident"
I assume you have no family or friends that you actually give a cr*p about or haven’t been watching the news at all with that attitude ... this is not a hoax and people of all ages who are mothers father sons daughter are dying |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyonem
We aren’t isolating everyone. It’s only the most vulnerable who are being told to lock themselves away for the next 12 weeks.
Everyone else still has a degree of freedom left.
However it’s not just the vulnerable who are at risk... plenty of otherwise healthy people dying.
Thankfully however, there’s a significant number of people who get very sick who are able to recover with adequate medical intervention.
The entire point is not to overwhelm the NHS - otherwise people who would otherwise fully recover will die because there aren’t enough ICU spaces and the very Drs and Nurses who care for them will end up sick and dying too.
The chances of dying of this virus if you are under 60 and have no known health problems are vanishingly small. You would have more chance of dying in a road accident"
Clearly all the news reports of healthy young people with no pre existing health conditions who have died have just passed you by.
I support flattening the curve. I stand with the NHS.
Clearly you don’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"If we don't learn to live with it until unemployment hits 10% that will be to late. More will end up dying from the cure rather than the disease
How many of your friends are you prepared to let die, exactly?
That's a silly argument. We cannot put individuals above a functioning society.
Of course we can. Society has no purpose without the people it serves.
How many?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a numbers game now. The government should be constantly explaining how this will save more lives than those that will be lost due to economic collapse
So what do you think should happen going forwards? How do you think the most lives will be saved?
Isolating the vulnerable - not everyonem
We aren’t isolating everyone. It’s only the most vulnerable who are being told to lock themselves away for the next 12 weeks.
Everyone else still has a degree of freedom left.
However it’s not just the vulnerable who are at risk... plenty of otherwise healthy people dying.
Thankfully however, there’s a significant number of people who get very sick who are able to recover with adequate medical intervention.
The entire point is not to overwhelm the NHS - otherwise people who would otherwise fully recover will die because there aren’t enough ICU spaces and the very Drs and Nurses who care for them will end up sick and dying too.
The chances of dying of this virus if you are under 60 and have no known health problems are vanishingly small. You would have more chance of dying in a road accident"
Said to myself that I wouldn't comment on these (%&@&ing) threads but some armchair critics deserve a response.
It's all well and good debating what should occur, but that would not be only kill more people, including those you may love and know, (alluding to the point earlier that was missed) but also those on the FRONT LINE who everyone is supposedly behind. Those that at this moment are putting themselves in harms way and some are dying for us. Still clapping on a Thursday are we?
Listen to those who know viruses and those that are out there now ffs. Stay on lockdown until they can manage, and right now, they are struggling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Obviously the measures have to stay in place because they are working. I think the government have said what needs to happen before we relax measures. It makes perfect sense to me. "
There are other measures that could achieve the same thing without tanking our economy. The government said measures could be relaxed when 5 criteria were met. The 5th of which was written to be a vague, meaningless, catch-all condition. "Being confident any adjustments would not risk a second peak". That sentence could mean anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
