Forum menu
since as we all know, 90% of communication is non verbal.
Actually we don't, the Mehrabian study that this stat comes from was very specific and is largely discredited. You cannot suggest that 90% of an information based exchange is conveyed by body language and tone. Indeed, if i was to say "Only 7% of communication comes from the actual words used" how will you get 93% of the understanding from my body language and tone?
Even Mehrabian himself said
“Please note,” Dr. Mehrabian wrote, “that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable.”
https://www.pgi.com/blog/2020/03/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal/
I do understand the point though. I work with a profoundly deaf colleague, he has a neat app that converts speech to text for him on his phone to overcome when he cannot lipread. I'd assume your friend is aware but if not I can find out.
Anyway..... now you're here any chance you could answer my questions about the graph you posted as evidence that lockdowns don't work?
now you’re really straying into the realms of psycho-babble. There’s no sensible evidence that folk are being traumatised because they have to wear a mask, (it’s pretty common in SE Asia after all)
Psycho babble? You might want to read this report from our Government that actively sought to manipulate and ramp up the fear factor in the population. This is a government document but no doubt you will also label this a lizard people stuff since that's what generally happens isn't it when there is something you can't provide a strong come back against?
Instead of nit-picking on the minutia of my mask argument in an attempt to score cheap points, why don't you perhaps address the main thrust instead, i.e do you think that $166 billion spent in masks in 202 is a good or proportional thing, based on the lack of evidence that they work and compared to what we could have used that money for?
Blood thinners probably
Actually its IVIG intravenous immunoglobulin to act as an immunosuppressant, other subsequent management treatments may follow including thinners but NOT heparin. The immediate challenge is an immunological one, so damping down the immune system by flooding with benign antibodies to counter some of the presumed cross-reactive ones that may be causing thrombotic events. The similarity to heparin-induced clotting is interesting. Eventually more understanding will come. My guess would be that the vaccine has induced some cross-reactive antibodies that start a cascade.
When we test new therapeutic antibodies, we look at tissue cross-reactivity against a panel of human tissues. I don't think that is done with vaccine sera from antibodies made in response to human vaccination. It's always assumed that they are highly specific magic bullets. But they bind to small regions of protein (epitopes) and such regions may also be present on other proteins. I've only ever seen it once in my own therapeutic antibody development (20 plus mAbs). It killed a project immediately.
The guidance is being continuously updated:
IANAMD
Anyway….. now you’re here any chance you could answer my questions about the graph you posted as evidence that lockdowns don’t work?
I'm just off out on the bike now but I will get back to you at some point. It is very hard to keep up on here when I've been doing jobs around the house this morning and I find myself discussing as one person against many people who are working against my argument and trying to prove me wrong. Some out of good faith, but some clearly out of malice and of a trolling nature. Often difficult to distinguish the two and respond accordingly.
OK, enjoy the ride. I'll wait.
It is very hard to keep up on here when I’ve been doing jobs around the house this morning and I find myself discussing as one person against many people
It's just I've asked many times now, including in posts where you have selectively answered parts but never this bit, that it seems to me a bit like you're avoiding it. Which is odd to me as it seems to be a key piece of the evidence to support your assertion that lockdowns don't work.
You might want to read this report from our Government that actively sought to manipulate and ramp up the fear factor in the population.
This is true, but the question is whether this is bad which I guess also comes down to whether you believe the threat is real or not. We've run hard hitting campaigns on smoking/cancer, seatbelts, drink driving..... which have all worked.
YMMV, clearly.
So perfumes will generally travel further, but you’re not comparing like with like.
Additionally, smelling someone's perfume requires a tiny number of particles to activate your scent receptors - evidence suggests you need a concentrated exposure to airborne viral droplets over time for a significant risk of covid transmission, hence outdoor contact now considered a lot safer than indoor.
Either way, he shouldn't be too concerned when he smells someone's Lynx Africa on the way past. Doesn't stop me flinching slightly when I cycle through someone's cigarette fug than has come straight from the depths of their airways, though. 🙂
Government that actively sought to manipulate and ramp up the fear factor in the population.
I also remember the AIDS "tombstone" campaign, I think that jolted many folk out of their complacency, wouldn't you agree? I'll be honest. I'd rather take the advice of the epidemiologists, virologists, and other disease experts than you. thanks all the same.
What’s the master plan then Curly?
If lockdowns don’t work and you have all the pertinent questions surely you have all the answers and a solution manifesto?
You even have the benefit of hindsight to aid your plan for dealing with covid that doesn’t overwhelm the NHS, kill lots of people, impact the economy and the education of the country’s youth.
I can’t be the only one who wants to know?
Some out of good faith, but some clearly out of malice and of a trolling nature. Often difficult to distinguish the two and respond accordingly.
To be clear, my comments are out of “malice”. I’ve had a year of having to reassure relatives that have come across the bullshit you are enjoying spreading/repeating here, and I consider what you are doing as despicable. As you created a new account just to post this nonsense, I think you should be called out for it rather than engaged with seriously. Just my opinion.
Curlywurly is the best troll on this thread to date. He's a free thinking disruptor
Thanks for the info on the CVSTs. Whilst obviously I won’t be explaining the treatment in detail, it’s good to know that I can say “If you report it and get access to treatment, these events are treatable “ and know there is some basis to that statement.
I’m not surprised A&E is being overloaded with this. A lot of people are very afraid. If we want vaccine uptake to remain high we must ensure their concerns are taken seriously.
Interesting to see that J&J jab now having similar issues. Isn’t it’s technology very similar to AZ?
Isn’t it’s technology very similar to AZ?
The very same. AZ and J&J use an adenovirus as a vector to insert viral DNA that codes for the spike protein into the cells. Moderna and Pfizer just coat the raw mRNA in a lipid package with a hard shell (Polyethylene glycol) for direct reading in the cell itself. The NYT has done some excellent articles on the modes of action
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine.html
Still, I await the accusations of being a conspiracy theorist!
You're a conspiracy theorist.
There you can stop waiting now
To be clear, my comments are out of “malice”.
Mine are as well, I'll happily put you in the "sadly delusional" side of the accounts. I don't wish you ill, and I hope your actions don't negatively effect those around you, but I consider your posts on here as deliberate and malicious misinformation.
Is that actually an option? You get to pick and choose?
Yup, on my phone app I could reserve Moderna or Pfizer for some future date in a vaccination centre and when the doc phoned he made it clear I could accept AZ and get my shoes on or wait for the others.
The strategy here seems to be giving the job of convincing people to accept AZ to GPs, who also select the patients they think will be OK with AZ. To be honest it's reassuring to know there's someone you know is reactive there to respond in the case of getting any of the warning symptoms. So far so good, I'm putting feeling tired down to 4h of MTB this morning.
I consider your posts on here as deliberate and malicious misinformation.
That's overly harsh. It strikes me as a genuinely held opinion with which you happen to disagree.
It's a shame that mutual respect isn't part of the rules for this particular forum.
It’s a shame that mutual respect isn’t part of the rules for this particular forum.
I've deliberately said I don't wish him harm but I don't have any respect for his point of view.
Most of our centres haven’t got a clue what vaccine they are getting next week! Many do multiple vaccines so personal choice isn’t an option.
Personally if someone refused the vaccine offered I think they should go to the back of the queue (obvs unless gp suggests they need a change,)
That’s overly harsh. It strikes me as a genuinely held opinion with which you happen to disagree
The issue is not having a different opinion, but you need to debate it and be able to defend it, not just keep restating it, or avoiding the questions by keep asking your own.
I'm prepared to give the chance to do that but they have avoided my very specific question for a day and a half now, despite multiple requests and multiple posts from them in the meantime.
Which is becoming reminiscent of the MO of multiple other 'new' members on here which is what has caused some hackles to rise.
Claims like 'all the data shows' or 'everyone knows' that are demonstrably contentious need to be backed up. It's not just for the disagree-ers to show why they think it's wrong; you have to show why you think it's right and answer the critics.
I'd like people to be more civil but the obvious trolls have spoiled it for the genuine alternate view proponents.
I think any kind of punitive system is counterproductive and choice is good. The objective is to get as many people vaccinated as possible as quickly as possible with as few vaccination deaths/serious complications as possible. At present there's still a shortage of all vaccines despite age range limitations on AZ and reticence. As the numbers keep coming in then hopefully confidence in AZ can be rebuilt.
The Germans are up to 41 clotting incidents from their initial AZ batches, if they can show that the age range limits have brought incidents into line with other vaccines they have more chance of finding people willing to use AZ than if they'd tried to continue regardless of the evidence.
So less than half of your clickbait attempt of 750,000. You do know when you make assumptions and post questionable evidential data it only serves to lessen your already pretty weak stance, right?
You should probably read what you quote. That's excess deaths not total deaths. We had 80k excess deaths last year.
I'm personally against lockdowns but won't deny they work as a blunt instrument to limit social contact and therefore the spread of covid. My personal preference would be to let people make their own choices.
My personal preference would be to let people make their own choices.
I'm inclined to agree..... but then I remember how bad the public has been when we have been left to our own devices, and then I disagree. And then I think of my more libertarian attitudes and the impact of these lockdowns on the nation long term.....and then I.......
Which is why I welcome the different views. I look at the evidence and overall I'm still supportive of lockdowns as the lesser of (all shit) evils, but I'm also very happy for others to bring new evidence and convince me otherwise. Still waiting though......
It’s a shame that mutual respect
Thing about respect is it is proffered until one is no longer worthy of it. Failing to answer civil queries whilst spouting opinion that is not backed with solid evidence loses respect faster than a housebrick dropped from the Shard.
Guess where you currently are?
’m inclined to agree….. but then I remember how bad the public has been when we have been left to our own devices, and then I disagree
This sums it up for me. Sweden chose such a path of personal responsibility with some additional intervention such as school closures. The UK singularly seems to fail in this regard. My personal feeling is that "this is just not the pandemic people were looking for". It is a serious disease, but it is not 10% mortality SARS-CoV-1 serious. People would voluntarily be hiding indoors with those odds.
Lockdown is the least bad option (there are no good options). The effects of contact restriction are really now self-evident. The consequences to the economy and public health will become more evident as time passes. I believe the economy will bounce back relatively quickly. Look at the pent-up demand for travel, for example.
And the amount of savings people have accumulated. Some people have been hit badly but the majority have continued to "earn" pretty much as usual while spending much less. I haven't see UK numbers, French and German ones are impressive. A lot of this money governments have been printing and borrowing is sat in consumers' bank accounts.
@Edukator - a recent piece on Newsnight explained that the top 80% of society saved a lot, I think it was £170/pp/pm
Sadly the bottom 20% of society had to go into debt to get to work, pay the bills etc. The amount ~£170/pp/pm
Even with Covid the rich get richer and the poor struggle even more. It was very depressing.
Having [s] thought about this I can conclude that sadly [/s] [b] been asked questions I cannot /will not answer[/b] I’m now out.
FTFY.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out and at least be honest about your identity when you next come on to peddle your nonsense.
Probably none if you look at the long term picture.
You are Chuck Palahniuk and I claim my bar of soap
Bye.
Waiting for another long rant though as you seem to like the sound of your own opinion.
****....
Yeh, that just about sums up your argument
Obvious troll was obvious troll. Should have been kicked off earlier.
Well that certainly made some different context.
He had me when he claimed he was the only sane one.
Ed, vaccine choice is laudable particularly where it can be difficult to convince people of their safety.
Hope you don't suffer any bad side effects. 👍
RIP curlywurly, he was such a Maverick
EDIT: despite the SCUM comment, please don’t remove any posts.
Is it safe to come back?
Is it safe to come back?
For sure, he's off on a package holiday to Brazil where they've handled this thing properly :-/
I've been waiting for nearly 48 hours now and the defence comes down to 'do your own research'
Thanks @curlywhirly I defended you and listened to you and I now feel very let down.
Is there another website / forum I should go to that is less echo-chambery and might engage and answer my extremely reasonable questions?
Obvious troll was obvious troll. Should have been kicked off earlier.
It's not a troll. It's opinions just disagree with the group think on here. The majority of who are comfortably middle class and middle aged and have done well out of this with working from home/furlough. Being confined to decent sized houses with gardens, mainly in areas of the country where they can have pleasant exercise locally. All the while saving money they would have spent on commuting and the general costs of not working at home. You generally didn't even have to worry about catching covid as the risk to you was low.
Other than working from home/furlough I fit into the above but can see how what we've collectively done to those in their 20's and 30's who don't have the advantages we do was massively wrong. Many will suffer for years to come from the loss of jobs, loneliness, mental health problems, and debt caused by the lockdowns. I accept I'm in a minority thinking this way but the cost isn't worth it to prolong the lives of Boomers who were mainly in a position to mitigate their risks anyway.
Gribs - perhaps you missed his parting shot? Posting a pornographic image on this forum is beneath contempt.
There may well be a strong argument for allowing half a million people to die, and millions more to suffer ill health, rather than take the measures that have been taken. Make it if you wish. Be ready to answer questions. Don’t create a new account to do so though, and then paste the normal anti-everything talking points while refusing to engage on the very points you are “raising”.
it’s opinions just disagree with the group think on here.
it's fine to disagree, but you have to do it properly.
It's hard, there's an undeniable dogpiling mentality on here, all the more reason why you need to play by the 'rules', and be ready to engage in a way that can counter it.
But appear, raise a few controversial opinions, refuse to defend them against those that do engage reasonably, and then when your opinions are challenged or debunked disappear again citing calls of troll..... honestly what does it look like to you?
Another way:
As a 'new' user I would assume they preread at least part of the thread and had an idea what sort of environment they were entering. What was the purpose; they'd have known they'd get some pushback. They'd know they'd need to have a better argument and reasoning logic than previous 'pull the pin, run away' attempts to convince the bulk of opinions on here. If they didn't they were incredibly naive.
or - they knew EXACTLY what sort of response they'd get, and yet came on and did it anyway. What does that sound like?
As to being a returning user / new name - same comments hold, except they'd be well aware of the response they were likely to get. IF - I was a dissident and had tried previously to convince people, I'd learn from my 'mistakes' and come ready to try another way. If I was just in for shits and giggles, I'd do it time and again. And why not admit you're returning and ask for a chance to try and explain again.
TL;DR - something about ducks and quacking, I think.
It’s not a troll. It’s opinions just disagree with the group think on here
Group-think is a lazy slur. The vast vast majority of climate-scientists understand and accept climate change, is that group think? I'm all for testing one's opinions, and it's certainly good to have some grit in any conversation, but there's a point at which it becomes pointless. Curly didn't have opinions, he had an agenda.
If you poke a wasps nest, even one full of mild mannered middle-aged, middle-class WFH IT workers, you will get stung.
Also anyone using Boomer as a perjorative term is a bit of a dick.
Always happy to debate with one and all. I'm also probably the least contentious when it comes to argument and, perhaps surprisingly skeptical, like @gribs. However the debate has moved on and https://lockdownsceptics.org has become a reasonable source of news, (with its own right-wing slant of course). Restricting contacts reduces transmission. It's now self-evident. The economic and social costs are likely to be high, but then so is an epidemic of Long Covid in young people. I've said all along that morbidity is what matters; deaths are the tip of the iceberg. Healthcare burden, especially long-term, is the bulk and this has yet to be well studied.
Anyway, some interesting science. A study in Israel reports some evidence of vaccine breakthrough for Pfizer and the SA variant - it's a limited case control study, with few actual infections with the SA variant, so caution, but an 8-fold odds ration is likely to be real (smaller). Symptomatic infection not hospitalisations Published here
It would appear the image posting is working again. Not the images I'm used to at breakfast, for certain. Maybe I'll add a graph-porn 😉
I’ve been waiting for nearly 48 hours now and the defence comes down to ‘do your own research’
'Twas ever thus.
Predictably, latest attempt follows exact pattern of previous one. Feigning being reasonable, quasi scientific language, asks lots of questions, doesn't answer any posed to him. Then gets narky, throws around some insults and flounces.
I wonder what his next username will be?
His posting style is very easy to recognise, perhaps better not to engage with him next time.
Posting a pornographic image on this forum is beneath contempt.
Really? He's upping his game with that.
This wasnt a failure to fit in, it was a failure to debate.
Personally, I think it’s a valid topic for discussion. But you actually need to discuss it, with evidence that actually backs it up, or at the very least rational well thought out ideas. Resorting to insults and behaviour that matches up with many of the criteria for trolling isn’t that.
I had one of two options for what was going on.
A) Troll
B) Someone genuinely struggling who is now lashing out at what they perceive to be the cause of harm.
For both these options the last thing you want is arguing on the net but to engage with friends and family to help you through whatever it is causing the problems driving this behaviour.
I see the IMF and others are more optimistic about the UKs economy
I also missed this if it was posted before, the date the agreement was reached regarding Novovax/GSK suggests moves to secure U.K. production.
Originally, the serum would then have been sent to the EU to be filled into vials ready for use. But on March 29, drug company GlaxoSmithKline announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with Novavax and the UK Government Vaccines Taskforce. They will support manufacturing of up to 60 million doses of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine candidate by using a site in County Durham to “fill and finish” instead of the EU. Deliveries are expected from June.
This will ensure that the Novavax production for the UK market is entirely UK-based.
Im assuming that in practice it’s still reliant on some elements being imported for some part of the process. And it’s just the end vaccine manufacturing they’re talking about?
Isn't the fill and finish a very fancy bottling plant?
It is "fill and finish" (bottling), but the drug substance is made up the road. It's entirely UK-based manufacture.
I wonder what his next username will be?
Another type of chocolate bar? Fruit and Nut maybe.
off-Topic ?
They like to be an unnecessary distraction
raw materials/vaccine ingredients?
That one I do not know. But this is (relatively) conventional technology - it's spike protein clumped into virus-like particles. Made from baculovirus, so insect virus-based biotechnology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novavax_COVID-19_vaccine . I imagine its made in disposable plastic bioreactor bags rather than the 20,000L bioreactors used for antibodies. There is likely a shortage of these bags. But ultimately, this is a long game for global manufacture of a global vaccine effort.
Gribs – perhaps you missed his parting shot? Posting a pornographic image on this forum is beneath contempt.
Thankfully I missed that.
Also anyone using Boomer as a perjorative term is a bit of a dick.
Would you rather I said the 65+ retired age group? Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people who could have perfectly well looked after themselves and didn't require government intervention to protect them.
There may well be a strong argument for allowing half a million people to die, and millions more to suffer ill health, rather than take the measures that have been taken. Make it if you wish. Be ready to answer questions.
I don't think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough. Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms. My opinion might be biased as thankfully I don't know anyone who has died or even been seriously ill with covid.
As for long covid, I'll not deny it exists, but think the impact is massively overstated. It appears to be being used as a catch all term for *any* symptoms present after 3 months rather than being limited to significant ones, much like has been done elsewhere to anxiety, depression and Autism.
As for long covid, I’ll not deny it exists, but think the impact is massively overstated.
It takes time and expertise to turn anecdote into firm evidence, but there is certainly a stack of pretty powerful anecdote, including from the poster directly above you.
I don’t think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough. Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms.
Again, this is a Great Barrington talking point. The problem with attempting to delineate the 'at risk' from the 'risk free' is that the two are inescapably mingling in society, rather than the vulnerable being safely tucked up in care homes. An example is myself, asked to shield in lockdown one, but with two 18 year old children who were expected to get themselves into school shortly afterwards. Without hunting the stat, I think it was calculated that a large proportion of the 'clinically extremely vulnerable' lived in households with those who would be expected to study and work on. When you add to this the fact that the elderly, inside and outside care homes, often require care from younger, less vulnerable staff and relatives, the reality of trying to protect this group is something completely different.
TL;DR - you can't just lock up the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. The virus will reach the majority of them.
Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people
Only in your head
Well I got a full card on my "Trolling Zoo-Fighter" bingo from that last post by the gladly departed.
EDIT, I'm one of the last of the Boomer generation at 58, I suspect a lot of the audience here are younger than this. Anyone born after 1965 won't fit the term.
I worry that my millennial children and those born a little earlier will suffer unduly paying back the debt the country has incurred protecting the NHS from collapse. As part of the post COVID-19 world we need to ensure that government fund-raising is directed at those most able to pay. That will be the Bamfords and Ashleys of this world and law needs to change to make sure that this happens.
Would you rather I said the 65+ retired age group? Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people who could have perfectly well looked after themselves and didn’t require government intervention to protect them
Obesity is a big factor for severe disease (in wave 2, particularly - I guess some of the older folk were out of the running by then, either due to dying or isolating but the obesity thing is very notable). Getting on for 30% of adults in England are obese and about 3% morbidly obese - prevalence higher in areas of financial deprivation and younger age groups have quite high numbers. I'm guessing that many would've been in exactly the demographic that wouldn't be furloughed or able to isolate. How would you protect them ?
I don’t think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough.
That hasn't happened in the US. Excess mortality is frankly appalling, one of the highest in the world...
ElShalimo
Full Member
Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of peopleOnly in your head
You took it as being perjorative so that implies to you it's fairly negative term. My parents are Boomers, they're both on decent pensions, have a decent house with a garden, and are in reasonable health. They absolutely had the choice to minimise their risks of getting covid. They took some precautions but mainly carried on with living their lives as much as they were able to.
I don’t think the excess death rate would have climbed that high in a rich western country as people would naturally avoid social contact once the perceived risk was high enough. Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms.
Libertarian me agrees, but I've been astounded at times by the behaviour of people (not just this) and I think 'once the perceived risk was high enough' in an exponentially expanding pandemic would equate to 'too late to get back under control'. I don't think the public has much idea how to 'perceive risk' - either high or low - and one of the moans was that when it's done for them it's either scaremongering or cover up, never appropriate.
Whether we get the balance right - I don't think we'll ever know because it's not an experiment; there's no control population. That's why I was genuinely interested by @curlywhirly's graph. I *suspect* it is wrong, if we could unpick properly what 'average lockdown severity' really meant* but it's the closest we will get to a control population.
* I did 'do my own research' in preparation for a response, and lockdown severity index is already an average of 9 measures (eg: are schools, or shops open) then a time average of that as well is really a blunt measure where average totally misses the real information. Indeed, like the average risk of death from CV19 would......
You took it as being perjorative so that implies to you it’s fairly negative term. My parents are Boomers, they’re both on decent pensions, have a decent house with a garden, and are in reasonable health. They absolutely had the choice to minimise their risks of getting covid. They took some precautions but mainly carried on with living their lives as much as they were able to.
You do know that not all older people are like your parents right? That poverty is a thing at all ages. You come across as staggeringly naive.
That hasn’t happened in the US. Excess mortality is frankly appalling, one of the highest in the world…
Is that largely down to their culture and lack of choice due to their lack of support systems? I'd hope the same wouldn't have happened in the UK as we have universal healthcare and a basic welfare state.
How would you protect them ?
I wouldn't try to directly. I wasn't furloughed and have worked throughout the pandemic in Bradford. My wife is a police officer in Leeds. Neither of us have knowingly had covid. Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work if it's adequately enforced, supplemented with a track and trace system that encourages engagement by paying those testing positive, and their close contacts, their full normal wages to isolate. There'd obviously be abuses but it'd be cheaper and more productive than furlough.
Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work if it’s adequately enforced
As a previous H&S consultant you're coming across as very unworldly. There has been a steady de-funding of enforcement since 2008 leading to some gaping holes in safe working.
Those willing to take the risks or unlikely to be effected should have been allowed to do so, rather than the blanket restrictions on peoples freedoms.
If they could separate "take the risks" from "spread the risks", then maybe.
You do know that not all older people are like your parents right? That poverty is a thing at all ages. You come across as staggeringly naive.
Obviously I do. The term Boomer however isn't usually used for those pensioners in poverty, and pensioners have a distinct advantage in being able to avoid social contact by not having to go to work. Lockdowns will have made very little difference to their available choices, but had a huge impact on the young.
Well maybe we are opening up a more instructive line of discussion. I'm absolutely one of those who's been insulated from the health or financial effects of the pandemic but through work I see close-up the dreadful effects on younger generations. The question as to whether the longer term social, economic and health impacts of interventions like lockdowns are a price worth paying is definitely one to debate. Of course, we can never resolve the debate because it is an uncontrolled experiment but a sensible understanding of costs and benefits would be useful for future waves, and indeed future pandemics. The other question is who pays and, tempting as it might be to send the bill to Mike Ashley, Rishi's going to have look more widely than that, quite possibly at the well insulated like me. For the avoidance of doubt, I think he should.
Lockdowns will have made very little difference to their available choices, but had a huge impact on the young.
Yep, not being able to go to shops, restaurants, cinemas, abroad etc just like the young, not being able to see family, having landmark birthdays seperate from one’s family (and with not long left - wife’s granny had 100th in lockdown in a home), problems with surgeries etc being held up, being stuck in yournhome with no company and all your previous avenues for social interaction closed, not being fit enough to go walking around parks or our buying new lifestyle dogs. Yes the pensioners have had a piece of piss lockdown. All ages are having it tough.
Gribs - I don’t think you’ll get shouted down here - you are engaging in debate & putting over your point of view.
I don’t know how much you’ve read of this thread - it’s effing huge after all - but we are lucky to have several actual experts in these things posting.
All sorts of hypotheses have been chatted about, tested and analysed throughout the pandemic. If there is a groupthink here amongst the long termers, it’s because we’ve been around the houses a few times and been educated.
Very few people here want constant lockdowns. Lockdown is the last resort to curb infection when other policies have failed.
The one thing we have learnt in this pandemic is act early to avoid an out of control situation.
Last March prior to lockdown 1, cases were doubling every 2-3 days. Considering hospitalisation and deaths are higher in this years waves you can predict cases on mar23 2020 were in the region of 40,000/day. Another week of delay in locking down would have produced 160,000+ cases per day. Deaths topped out at @1000/day. That further week would have put it up to 4000/day as cases are linked to deaths.
I am reasonably young/fit/healthy. I’ve kept my job but am on half the pay of pre-Covid and my industry (aviation) is in dire straits. Loads of my mates lost their jobs and have training loans of over £100k they are liable for.
My mum is 74. Should she have been sacrificed so that my kids have more freedoms? My kids don’t think so.
What I don’t understand is that all these elderly people who aren’t worth saving (according to some - not putting words in your mouth) are your mum/dad/gran/aunt/next door neighbour etc. Don’t we look after our vulnerable?
Now I certainly think we should be doing more to protect the worst off in society. Not just in Covid times either. Sadly people vote for our govt because they think Boris is a likeable rogue rather than a dangerous charlatan.
Very few people here want constant lockdowns.
I don’t think anyone wants any lockdowns. There are times when they are the least bad option. And, expensive as they are in so many ways, the assumption that “leave people to it” would be cheaper is a fallacy. Yes, furlough is expensive for ‘the country’ (the government) but leaving people to it not only would have left more people choosing between spreading or earning, but could (I would argue would) have caused more economic damage in both the short and medium term.
Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work if it’s adequately enforced, supplemented with a (functional - my addition) track and trace system that encourages engagement by paying those testing positive, and their close contacts, their full normal wages to isolate. There’d obviously be abuses but it’d be cheaper and more productive than furlough.
I'd endorse this but I don't see it happening any time soon
Current health and safety law should provide adequate protection for those who need to go to work
Does that apply on the tube or on buses? A fair few people I know regard the journey to work as the significant risk rather than their work environment, m wife’s company was offering people cars into work rather than the tube.
Yes the pensioners have had a piece of piss lockdown. All ages are having it tough.
Ah, but the pensioners were all going to die soon anyway.
Boomer is useful shorthand as it implies a lot about the sort of people who could have perfectly well looked after themselves and didn’t require government intervention to protect them.
The term Boomer however isn’t usually used for those pensioners in poverty
Really? I thought it was merely a contraction of "Baby Boomer" which applies to two or three post war generations. All of them.
It was, but it has, to a degree been hijacked to be an insult.