#COVID19 | Page 767 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Pope John XXIII said:
So they are looking at paying £500 to anyone who tests positive for COVID.

I understand the idea behind it.

But by God, are they that stupid?

Do they really believe that, with a death rate so low, there aren't very young couples who'll be tempted to get infected for a free grand?

It's desperate times and that is a deposit on a tenancy, or a couple of months not worrying about the credit cards.

And some of those who did so would end up in hospital.

And it wouldn't just be couples in their early 20s weighing up the risks either.

This government has spent a large part of this crisis trying to put finances ahead of health. Do they think people won't do the same?
Click to expand...

thought exactly the same.
 
Forest-England said:
I'm playing up for CP by bringing Starmer in to it.

You've been blowing with the wind Pope.

For CP
Just Like Starmer.
Click to expand...

Its called not being dogmatic forest, ie. The ability to change tack when new evidence presents itself. We have laughed at the no. Of tory u-turns but better that then blind persistence. Starmer isnt infallible but as CP points out he is hardly being invited to participate and generally finds stuff out like the rest of us.

Ideology matters but the idea it can be applied absolutely in the real world is idealistic at best and naive at worst.
 
Strett said:
Shows the desperate state and dearth of talent in politics, that an incompetent buffoon can hold many of the great offices of state.
Click to expand...

Its not entirely their fault. Much of this is driven by the party donation system but no chance of change since you and me dont feel like funding political parties through taxation. In peacetime, most people have cottoned on to the fact there is not a lot of difference which muppet is in charge. In a crisis tho it matters.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
So they are looking at paying £500 to anyone who tests positive for COVID.

I understand the idea behind it.

But by God, are they that stupid?

Do they really believe that, with a death rate so low, there aren't very young couples who'll be tempted to get infected for a free grand?

It's desperate times and that is a deposit on a tenancy, or a couple of months not worrying about the credit cards.

And some of those who did so would end up in hospital.

And it wouldn't just be couples in their early 20s weighing up the risks either.

This government has spent a large part of this crisis trying to put finances ahead of health. Do they think people won't do the same?
Click to expand...
Paying for herd immunity? There will be a lot of think tanks all over this problem, perhaps one of them has come up with an idea that has got some backing.
 
Strett said:
Shows the desperate state and dearth of talent in politics, that an incompetent buffoon can hold many of the great offices of state.
Click to expand...

It doesn't help when a world leader like the USA is so divided.

That doesn't apply to the UK though ...................
 
Something has to be done to support people to stay away from work.

You then have to hope the numbers abusing that system are low. Even if they do, if they get it and isolate properly, that might be the end of its line (or passed to a friend or two for the cash) but that could well be better than going to work and passing it on that way. It is awful that the people tempted into deliberately catching a fatal disease will be the most vulnerable but I think this will be a relatively small number and good people need help to do the right thing. That should probably be the focus.
 
paz1967 said:
Someof the early people to have received doses have not had the follow up dose almost 2 months later. Therefore the efficiency of a 2nd dose in totally debateable and should all be re dosed twice in a 3 week period as proven to be most effective...
Most effective in the virus not killing you of course, not necassarily slowing down the virus itself
Click to expand...
We don't know what the most effective period is. Very likely not to be three weeks. Could easily turn out to be more effective with longer interval.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Something has to be done to support people to stay away from work.

You then have to hope the numbers abusing that system are low. Even if they do, if they get it and isolate properly, that might be the end of its line (or passed to a friend or two for the cash) but that could well be better than going to work and passing it on that way. It is awful that the people tempted into deliberately catching a fatal disease will be the most vulnerable but I think this will be a relatively small number and good people need help to do the right thing. That should probably be the focus.
Click to expand...

The issue is one of equality and fors and against are exactly the same as for welfare payments. Targeting 'good people' is more tricky than it sounds.

There is of course the elephant in the room of extended lockdowns. You can expect most of the people to obey the rules most of the time. It is unlikely and perhaps unreasonable to expect people to obey all of the rules all of the time, especially for extended periods. Humans just dont operate like that in big groups. Obviously thats a problem cos the virus has an opportunity every time we dont wash our hands etc etc.

All of this predictable and none of it planned for.
 
Compliance with the rules in the UK has been really good.
The government want to blame it on us, and find it easy to pick out pictures of a few house parties and celebs. Priti Patel was at it yesterday - they all are. Another thing that is totally predictable. We mustn't let them get away with that because the British people, on the whole, should be proud of themselves for doing the right thing. We do need to find a way to enable a very large number of people who find it difficult or impossible to comply to stay at home if they have covid, even if that means a few people dangerously game the system.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Compliance with the rules in the UK has been really good.
The government want to blame it on us, and find it easy to pick out pictures of a few house parties and celebs. Priti Patel was at it yesterday - they all are. Another thing that is totally predictable. We mustn't let them get away with that because the British people, on the whole, should be proud of themselves for doing the right thing. We do need to find a way to enable a very large number of people who find it difficult or impossible to comply to stay at home if they have covid, even if that means a few people dangerously game the system.
Click to expand...
Yes i would agree with you that overall compliance has been good. I dont agree that the government is playing the blame game at all. Fear is still the most effective way of population control and it is being used quite sparingly at the moment. People breaking lock down rules are being shown being punished. That is a good thing.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
I'll make it simple for you.

We should have gone into lockdown late September-Early October to prevent the mess that came afterwards

For personal reasons I didn't want us to.

It is perfectly possible to know something is the right thing and still not want it to happen.

Mr Johnson has a lot to answer for, but you seem to want the opposition leader to answer for it while doing the PMs work for him by blaming the public
Click to expand...
We've a footballer showing more balls than Starmer.

I've only just started mentioning Starmer because CP thinks I've been more critical of Starmer than the Tories. Which is bullshit!

I've also stated that I'm still hoping to re-join Labour and vote for them to get the Tories out.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
So they are looking at paying £500 to anyone who tests positive for COVID.

I understand the idea behind it.

But by God, are they that stupid?

Do they really believe that, with a death rate so low, there aren't very young couples who'll be tempted to get infected for a free grand?

It's desperate times and that is a deposit on a tenancy, or a couple of months not worrying about the credit cards.

And some of those who did so would end up in hospital.

And it wouldn't just be couples in their early 20s weighing up the risks either.

This government has spent a large part of this crisis trying to put finances ahead of health. Do they think people won't do the same?
Click to expand...
Is this a Joke?

Even thinking this is a good idea, should be the end of this Tory govt.
 
Forest-England said:
We've a footballer showing more balls than Starmer.

I've only just started mentioning Starmer because CP thinks I've been more critical of Starmer than the Tories. Which is bullshit!

I've also stated that I'm still hoping to re-join Labour and vote for them to get the Tories out.
Click to expand...
So just how popular do you think Marcus Rashford is now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.