welshbairn Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Nutz_the_Squirrel said: I’ve been saying this from the start. There seems to be more discourse about the ‘idiots spoiling it for everyone’ and the BBC have been at the forefront at driving this message. Not to say it isn’t true, but it detracts from the fundamental failures of this govt to respond to the crisis as it has unfolded. I would argue that we’d see more sensible behaviour from the public if the government where able to more confidently present a longer term plan on how to get us through this mess. It’s difficult to get buy-in from the masses when the directions are so muddled and contradictory. Someone will counter with ‘what part of stay home, protect the NHS and save lives don’t you understand?’. However it’s more nuanced than that. How long have we to stay home for? Dunno- 3 weeks then we’ll see. Is this enough to save the NHS? Dunno, we’ve got our best vacuum selling brexiteer trying to make ventilators and staff with no PPE. Will this save lives? Dunno, we hope so, but we also need key workers to keep the place going, including window cleaners. This situation needed a preestablished contingency and leaders with the balls to outline a plan which goes beyond directives changing every two minutes. The Tories have fucked it. TBF it's a brand new virus and the plans have to change as knowledge about it grows, and modelling on the best data available doesn't give you a crystal ball. Although they really fucked up early on, not sure about the source here.. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/03/the-coronavirus-crisis-herd-immunity-has-infected-uk-policy-but-who-was-patient-zero-for-this-toxic-transatlantic-idea/ Edited April 5, 2020 by welshbairn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Other than the faff about what is/isn't an essential occupation, the guidance on what is an acceptable reason to leave the house has been perfectly clear. The problem, as ever, is that some parts of the public either look for loopholes to get some sort of 'victory' over the government or are too selfish to care. No one wants these restrictions - they are fucking shit, but they are necessary. Tightening them will for the most part not he well received. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: They could remove the exercise thing and enforce the essential ness of travel nore rigorously. It probably takes the number down marginally. However, having not yet seen the effects of the current lockdown, and knowing that doing this would result in serious backlash, I would imagine the risk/reward ratio is pretty tight. No one wants further restrictions. Including those in charge. I cant se either happening until it can be demonstrated that what we have now isnt cutting it What is the point in this post? Complete filler based on no inside knowledge, sits on the fence to a painful extent and offers no wit, insight or points to debate. It doesn't even give an opinion. Waste of bandwidth. 4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Going to the promenade or to the park because it is a nice day does make you an arsehole, sorry. The guidelines may be blurry, but it's quite clear neither of those two examples are allowed. It's ok to blame both the government and these idiots I agree completely and there have been plenty examples of bad behaviour from individuals. A lot of folk, particularly the media, seem keen to make this about chavs rather than their Etonian masters. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, Michael W said: Other than the faff about what is/isn't an essential occupation, the guidance on what is an acceptable reason to leave the house has been perfectly clear. The problem, as ever, is that some parts of the public either look for loopholes to get some sort of 'victory' over the government or are too selfish to care. No one wants these restrictions - they are fucking shit, but they are necessary. Tightening them will for the most part not he well received. Exactly. That's why the restrictions may well have to be tightened. You give some people an inch, they take a mile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 22 minutes ago, welshbairn said: It's frightening what's happening in India where millions of people in the cities have lost their jobs and have been forced to head out across the country to their villages, taking the virus as they go most likely. I’m sure Modi’s strong leadership hatred of Muslims will ensure reported numbers are kept reasonable. 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: TBF it's a brand new virus and the plans have to change as knowledge about it grows, and modelling on the best data available doesn't give you a crystal ball. Better off asking BetFred imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Just now, Michael W said: Other than the faff about what is/isn't an essential occupation, the guidance on what is an acceptable reason to leave the house has been perfectly clear. Can I go to the shop every day? How long am I allowed out for exercise per day? What is defined as a "vulnerable" person and how far am I allowed to travel to help look after one? What is the permissible distance for me to travel for exercise? Please help me out on these example questions because it is not "perfectly clear" to me. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 16 minutes ago, Marshmallo said: That's because their guidance has been deliberately blurry so that they can blame the public for their own incompetence. You see it on here, people talking about "scum" or "arseholes". UK government response has been a shambles and has led to more deaths than we needed. The two things are not mutually exclusive. The government response has and still is substandard but that doesn’t excuse the arseholes who would flout even the clearest of guidance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Just now, Granny Danger said: The two things are not mutually exclusive. The government response has and still is substandard but that doesn’t excuse the arseholes who would flout even the clearest of guidance. I agree, but the media narrative has been completely one sided and blames the public. My prediction is auld Liz will make a load of vague statements about all sticking together tonight and we will go into proper lockdown a couple of days from now. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said: What is the point in this post? Complete filler based on no inside knowledge, sits on the fence to a painful extent and offers no wit, insight or points to debate. It doesn't even give an opinion. Waste of bandwidth. It's a valid enough opinion Marshy, it will take some time until we can see how this current lockdown is working. The vast majority of us lack an insider's knowledge of this but we're obviously going to speculate, not seeing the point of your post tbf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 If this is a world where you can be lambasted for going for a walk while avoiding others then I’m not really sure I want to be in it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Going to the promenade or to the park because it is a nice day does make you an arsehole, sorry. Not if you live round the corner it doesn't, it's folk travelling from all over who are the problem. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maicoman Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said: Can I go to the shop every day? How long am I allowed out for exercise per day? What is defined as a "vulnerable" person and how far am I allowed to travel to help look after one? What is the permissible distance for me to travel for exercise? Please help me out on these example questions because it is not "perfectly clear" to me. you are spot on It changes as they go along The latest advert on the radio is "if you are unable to work from home" it was vital work to start with 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 1 minute ago, Marshmallo said: Can I go to the shop every day? How long am I allowed out for exercise per day? What is defined as a "vulnerable" person and how far am I allowed to travel to help look after one? What is the permissible distance for me to travel for exercise? Please help me out on these example questions because it is not "perfectly clear" to me. You are being obtuse here. Go to the shop if you need to get something. If you're going every day, you're probably at it and making unnecessary journeys. You were (rightly) haranguing someone for playing golf the other day, so don't pretend you don't understand the guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable form of exercise or time out of the house for exercise. As for a vulnerable person, it's not really hard, is it? Someone who is either at increased risk should they contract the virus or who requires additional assistance due to medical needs. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 It's a valid enough opinion Marshy, it will take some time until we can see how this current lockdown is working. The vast majority of us lack an insider's knowledge of this but we're obviously going to speculate, not seeing the point of your post tbf.It's a shame you had to quote some I have on ignore, but it's a perfect example of the utter shitposting that got that particular poster ignored. To try and make a "what's the point" arguement whilst shitting out such utter drivel is peak Marshy. One of the forums biggest gimps. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 The UK government response differed to almost every other country in Europe who were reacting at around the same time. The advice they were giving out was ambiguous at times and against advice that was being given out elsewhere. The approach changed several times, was rarely stated in definites and was reported alongside contradicting stories from all over the world. The government have a huge amount of blame to take for how things are turning out. British people being arseholes isn’t new. It hasn’t helped but it’s far from the top of the list of contributing factors to what is happening. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 1 minute ago, Michael W said: You are being obtuse here. Go to the shop if you need to get something. If you're going every day, you're probably at it and making unnecessary journeys. You were (rightly) haranguing someone for playing golf the other day, so don't pretend you don't understand the guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable form of exercise or time out of the house for exercise. As for a vulnerable person, it's not really hard, is it? Someone who is either at increased risk should they contract the virus or who requires additional assistance due to medical needs. So you don't know the answers either, is what I take from that. The boy playing golf was not undertaking essential exercise, he was making a choice based on a personal preference. If I want to go out for essential exercise today, can I go on a 20 mile walk over a period of 8 hours starting and finishing at my house? Can you give me the government definition of a "vulnerable person" please? If the "vulnerable person" I know lives in Plymouth, can I travel from Glasgow to check on them? -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 16 minutes ago, bennett said: Tbh if Boris and co had been firmer from the start and went with a stronger lockdown straight away we might have been in a better place. A stricter lockdown wouldnt have been obeyed earlier on, unless the Govt had warned the public from early March. A stricter lockdown has about teh same chance as the current one of being enforced properly - not a cat's chance in hell. Also worth pointing out, the models the Govt are working from assume a certain amount of non compliance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Sturgeon should bin that c**t Calderwood, she has zero credibility after this second home fiasco. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said: So you don't know the answers either, is what I take from that. The boy playing golf was not undertaking essential exercise, he was making a choice based on a personal preference. If I want to go out for essential exercise today, can I go on a 20 mile walk over a period of 8 hours starting and finishing at my house? Can you give me the government definition of a "vulnerable person" please? If the "vulnerable person" I know lives in Plymouth, can I travel from Glasgow to check on them? If the government said you can walk, jog and/or run 2 miles who would police that? The government is expecting people to show some common sense. That is not to detract from the government’s culpability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 Just now, sparky88 said: A stricter lockdown wouldnt have been obeyed earlier on, unless the Govt had warned the public from early March. A stricter lockdown has about teh same chance as the current one of being enforced properly - not a cat's chance in hell. Also worth pointing out, the models the Govt are working from assume a certain amount of non compliance. To start with we had the herd immunity routine, catching the virus would help. Then Boris suggested that people stay in and avoid pubs/cafes/large gatherings etc, rather than ordering it. That lack of clarity was always going to suggest to some that it wasn't that big a deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.