#COVID19 | Page 698 | Vital Football

#COVID19

As an addendum, I really hope we don't just shoot for a return to 'normal'. Normal is what got us into this situation to begin with. This is an opportunity for us to think about priorities. The young, equality, quality of life, the way we treat others and the planet. All of that needs some serious thought and action.
What is ' normal' in terms of Forest results chap?
 
I'm kind of in both positions (I'm still partying age but i'm also on the extremely vulnerable list) so i'm torn.
I can see where you're coming from with being angry about it. I just don't know what you mean when you talk about ORF's responsibilities. Like there's something the elderly could do to help the situation.

I would say 'yes its unfair'.
But there is no way to distribute the damage of this virus in a 'fair' way. No restrictions means more people die, the NHS is put at breaking point, and the knock on effects of that would be even more deadly than the virus.

What do you think the best way to manage this is?

I didn’t seek out ORF to take responsibility. My angry response was his dismissive reply to mine about how I’m feeling about my life and the audacity to suggest I’m selfish as he backs a regime that protects him.

I have no problem with people having a different opinion, but I have a huge problem with people dismissing mine and my feelings on it, particularly somebody who i’ve gone through this for for the last year and will in 2021... all whilst getting ready for a big recession at the end as a result.

What needs to be remembered is that there has been no balance to this - it’s been protect the vulnerable at all costs and no other demographic, mental health or way of living has been considered whatsoever.

My view is that we are in a worse position than we were 8 months ago despite going through, and continuing to go through, 3 lockdowns. That suggests to me that there are no winners and the approach needs to change.

My suggestion isn’t going gung ho - but why not a more focused approach. Transmission within hospitality or out doors for example are exceptionally low, so why can’t people experience going to a restaurant if you’re under the age 40? Why can’t a certain amount of young people attend a football match?

Why can’t considerable investment or at least talk of a plan be put forward to ensure a lockdown of people who meet a certain criteria ie. Underlying health issues and over 60? Make it against the law for people to visit ad hoc unless they have a valid negative Covid test. Would we be worse off with that approach?

It’s not nice for those people in that threshold, but it ultimately would be for their protection and the world generally would be a fairer place and would somewhat help recovering a normal life more many millions who’re unaffected.
 
Last edited:
People see me, and they see the suit, and they go: "you're not fooling anyone", they know I'm rock and roll through and through. But you know that old thing, live fast, die young? Not my way. Live fast, sure, live too bloody fast sometimes, but die young? Die old. That's the way- not orthodox, I don't live by "the rules" you know. And if there's one other person who's influenced me in that way I think, someone who is a maverick, someone who does that to the system, then, it's Ian Botham. Because Beefy will happily say "that's what I think of your selection policy, yes I've hit the odd copper, yes I've enjoyed the old dooby, but will you piss off and leave me alone, I'm walking to John O'Groats for some spastics
 
People see me, and they see the suit, and they go: "you're not fooling anyone", they know I'm rock and roll through and through. But you know that old thing, live fast, die young? Not my way. Live fast, sure, live too bloody fast sometimes, but die young? Die old. That's the way- not orthodox, I don't live by "the rules" you know. And if there's one other person who's influenced me in that way I think, someone who is a maverick, someone who does that to the system, then, it's Ian Botham. Because Beefy will happily say "that's what I think of your selection policy, yes I've hit the odd copper, yes I've enjoyed the old dooby, but will you piss off and leave me alone, I'm walking to John O'Groats for some spastics


I never thought I’d say this but can we hear more from Apollyon?
 
I didn’t seek out ORF to take responsibility. My angry response was his dismissive reply to mine about how I’m feeling about my life and the audacity to claim I’m selfish as he backs a regime that protects him.

I have no problem with people having a different opinion, but I have a huge problem with people dismissing mine and my feelings on it, particularly somebody who i’ve gone through this for for the last year and will in 2021... all whilst getting ready for a big recession at the end as a result.

What needs to be remembered is that there has been no balance to this - it’s been protect the vulnerable at all costs and no other demographic, mental health or way of living has been considered whatsoever.

My view is that we are in a worse position than we were 8 months ago despite going through, and continuing to go through, 3 lockdowns. That suggests to me that there are no winners and the approach needs to change.

My suggestion isn’t going gung ho - but why not a more focused approach. Transmission within hospitality or out doors for example are exceptionally low, so why can’t people experience going to a restaurant if you’re under the age 40? Why can’t a certain amount of young people attend a football match?

Why can’t considerable investment or at least talk of a plan be put forward to ensure a lockdown of people who meet a certain criteria ie. Underlying health issues and over 60? Make it against the law for people to visit ad hoc unless they have a valid negative Covid test. Would we be worse off with that approach?

It’s not nice for those people in that threshold, but it ultimately would be for their protection and the world generally would be a fairer place and would somewhat help recovering a normal life more many millions who’re unaffected.
While I have every sympathy for your point of view, and can fully understand your position but the idea of protecting the elderly & vulnerable isn't necessarily just to ensure that they are OK, but as much to protect the capacity of the NHS to provide health care to others.
The problem with allowing access to the hospitality sector with people mixing indoors is bound to drive the infection to some extent (I'm not clever enough to know figures I'm afraid) and those people who do become infected then go to their homes, work, schools, colleges etc and the transmission gradually works it's way up the age groups until it starts to infect those who will need hospitalisation thus eventually swamping The NHS, and we're all quick to jump on the powers that be for not reacting quickly enough to situations allowing the death toll to be up with highest
Allowing younger people to continue some sort of normal life while protecting the elderly & vulnerable would be a great idea, but as far as I can see completely impractical as the only sure fire way to keep them protected would be to round us all up and keep us away from the others who may be carrying infection and you have to remember it is not just the elderly we are talking about it is as also about younger people with underlying conditions who need to carry on working in education etc.
The idea of not allowing the NHS to be swamped is to try to protect everyone, imagine if you or one of your family or friends was struck down with heart attack, stroke, or some other serious illness that needed emergency treatment and there was no NHS capacity to deal with you. Let's just hope that the vaccinations can be rolled out quickly & efficiently enabling us all to get back to something like
 
My view is that we are in a worse position than we were 8 months ago despite going through, and continuing to go through, 3 lockdowns. That suggests to me that there are no winners and the approach needs to change.

My suggestion isn’t going gung ho - but why not a more focused approach. Transmission within hospitality or out doors for example are exceptionally low, so why can’t people experience going to a restaurant if you’re under the age 40? Why can’t a certain amount of young people attend a football match?

Why can’t considerable investment or at least talk of a plan be put forward to ensure a lockdown of people who meet a certain criteria ie. Underlying health issues and over 60? Make it against the law for people to visit ad hoc unless they have a valid negative Covid test. Would we be worse off with that approach?

It’s not nice for those people in that threshold, but it ultimately would be for their protection and the world generally would be a fairer place and would somewhat help recovering a normal life more many millions who’re unaffected.

Will, your ideas would be great in theory , but as discussed previously, they wouldn't work.
The World doesn't neatly split into under 40s and over 40s. At present we are ALL going through this. Can you imagine what it would be like if we said anyone with parents/household under 40 could go to school, but those with a household containing over 40s had to stay at home for a year ? Universities could carry on as normal for under 40s, but no one could go back home for a year? No over 40 teachers or lecturers either. Under 40s could live a normal life, except if you are a nurse, carer, retail worker etc who must stop in for a year or give up their jobs ? In my case, I guess I wouldn't have been allowed to see my kids for a year.
I guess, looking at the stats, there would even be logic in giving women more freedom than men.

The government has come up short in many ways, but as I've said before they are attempting to walk an impossible tightrope between covid deaths, the economy, and non-covid deaths.

The situation is terrible at the moment, but hopefully if we can hang in there for another three months things will start to return to normal, both through the vaccine and also the onset of Spring/Summer.
 
Last edited:
The situation is a bit more than terrible.

ICU capacity is at 137% in some Kent hospitals with a 1:4 ICU staffing ratio. A whole page of districts are showing 1,300+ cases per 100,000. Nottingham was put in Tier 3 in early December with around 230/ 100k.

It sounds like hospitals are close to collapse. They have been forbidden by the government to let the media in to show what is happening. I can see the benefit of frightening people into compliance but for the sake of mental health I'm actually quite pleased for a bit of censorship.

This comes down to Johnson ignoring "the science" and refusing a September circuit breaker because he was worried how it would play in the media and with voters. Yes, it would have played badly; yes, people would have said it was unnecessary. But it would have been the right thing to do and that is what we elect these people for
 
Just following on from the above, even a clear test doesn't mean that you haven't got or are carrying the illness. If you have been with an infected person and caught the illness, you will actually get a clear test for a few days afterwards. Could well be too late by the time the test shows a positive result.
 
The situation is a bit more than terrible.

ICU capacity is at 137% in some Kent hospitals with a 1:4 ICU staffing ratio. A whole page of districts are showing 1,300+ cases per 100,000. Nottingham was put in Tier 3 in early December with around 230/ 100k.

It sounds like hospitals are close to collapse. They have been forbidden by the government to let the media in to show what is happening. I can see the benefit of frightening people into compliance but for the sake of mental health I'm actually quite pleased for a bit of censorship.

This comes down to Johnson ignoring "the science" and refusing a September circuit breaker because he was worried how it would play in the media and with voters. Yes, it would have played badly; yes, people would have said it was unnecessary. But it would have been the right thing to do and that is what we elect these people for

I really don't know why you blame Johnson for everything. The problem wasn't September, it's now. Labour organised a lockdown in Wales, and things were back to high levels in a couple of weeks. France, Italy, Scotland and Wales are all having similar problems, though Scotland and Wales (and the others) have the advantage of not being very densely populated.

Short of a complete police state, I would guess that many people in December have been Christmas shopping, round to see family etc . I know that some of my own family have been on visits, and prior to Christmas I went in Sainsbury's for the first time in months, vegetable shopping etc (They always deliver you the rubbish veg online).
 
I really don't know why you blame Johnson for everything. The problem wasn't September, it's now. Labour organised a lockdown in Wales, and things were back to high levels in a couple of weeks. France, Italy, Scotland and Wales are all having similar problems, though Scotland and Wales (and the others) have the advantage of not being very densely populated.

Short of a complete police state, I would guess that many people in December have been Christmas shopping, round to see family etc . I know that some of my own family have been on visits, and prior to Christmas I went in Sainsbury's for the first time in months, vegetable shopping etc (They always deliver you the rubbish veg online).
The problem absolutely was September. Keeping the virus at lower levels was vital.

Even Mr Johnson's brain, Dominic Cummings, has said this.

This is the second time he has cost countless lives by dithering.

But the blame isn't the salient point
 
All London primaries are shutting after a government U-Turn.

The police Federation chief has argued that police should be prioritised for the vaccine along with vulnerables and the NHS, as they are on the frontline and sickness amongst police could cause all sorts of problems.

I think he is absolutely right and both police and fire service should be prioritised
 
This is the second time he has cost countless lives by dithering.

But the blame isn't the salient point

The UK vaccination response is "pathetic" according to Mao. The last figures to the 27th ? we had vaccinated nearly 800, 000. According to the Guardian by Wednesday (30th ?) France had vaccinated 332 people.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-to-anti-vaxxers-with-slow-vaccine-rollout

Covid: France 'pandering to anti-vaxxers' with slow vaccine rollout
Ministers criticised after fewer than 100 people receive jab in first three days of vaccination programme
 
The situation is a bit more than terrible.

ICU capacity is at 137% in some Kent hospitals with a 1:4 ICU staffing ratio. A whole page of districts are showing 1,300+ cases per 100,000. Nottingham was put in Tier 3 in early December with around 230/ 100k.

It sounds like hospitals are close to collapse. They have been forbidden by the government to let the media in to show what is happening. I can see the benefit of frightening people into compliance but for the sake of mental health I'm actually quite pleased for a bit of censorship.

This comes down to Johnson ignoring "the science" and refusing a September circuit breaker because he was worried how it would play in the media and with voters. Yes, it would have played badly; yes, people would have said it was unnecessary. But it would have been the right thing to do and that is what we elect these people for
Right...nothing to do with people ignoring simple instructions And carrying on as if nothing had happened? That’s nothing to do with the rise is it....
 
The UK vaccination response is "pathetic" according to Mao. The last figures to the 27th ? we had vaccinated nearly 800, 000. According to the Guardian by Wednesday (30th ?) France had vaccinated 332 people.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-to-anti-vaxxers-with-slow-vaccine-rollout

Covid: France 'pandering to anti-vaxxers' with slow vaccine rollout
Ministers criticised after fewer than 100 people receive jab in first three days of vaccination programme
Probably all the red wine and fag breaks
 
The UK vaccination response is "pathetic" according to Mao. The last figures to the 27th ? we had vaccinated nearly 800, 000. According to the Guardian by Wednesday (30th ?) France had vaccinated 332 people.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-to-anti-vaxxers-with-slow-vaccine-rollout

Covid: France 'pandering to anti-vaxxers' with slow vaccine rollout
Ministers criticised after fewer than 100 people receive jab in first three days of vaccination programme
Firstly, i'm not sure why you are quoting me to disagree with Mao, since I have not labeled our vaccine programme pathetic.

Secondly, quoting a second country as more pathetic wouldn't make the first country less pathetic. That's a very poor argument.

I am personally skeptical of the figures being given; we are hearing 524,000, we are hearing 700,000, I have read 950,000 and now you are saying 800,000.

If your figure is right then our vaccine programme is well behind schedule; it doesn't help me one bit that France is even further behind.

What's more, several of the papers that are more supportive of the government have been scratching their heads as to why there is a significant vaccine shortfall, given that Mr Hancock promised we would have 30m doses of Oxford by September
 
Front line vital services need the vaccine. Even before the vulnerable. You might save a few lives treating the vulnerable first. But many more will die if the vital services collapse.

Schools need to be open to those known to social services and key workers. Like before. Until at least we get the hospitals back under control.