So how many of you who bought season tickets will donate the full cost to the club, despite (almost certainly) not getting to watch a single match from the ground this season? And how many of you will ask for full refunds?
@DevC@Glenactico I have a healthy disregard for governments in general...but are you really suggesting a British government (and a stupidly libertarian one at that) is really using a Global Pandemic to try to restrict our freedoms? Suppression? I fear you both want to keep off the Dark Web, C5 and talk radio and take a little less Icke in yer tea...
I will not ask for any refund on mine. I was fully aware when I bought the ticket in June (?) that there was every chance I wouldn't physically see any matches, but did it because I recognised the difficult financial situation the club was in. Of course promotion has eased that somewhat, but I'm still receiving the online passes for the home games and the midweek aways, and the additional premium per match seems a reasonable price to pay to help Gareth build a squad that has even the slimmest chance of keeping us up.
Of course, none of this is a judgement on other fans who may not choose to do the same. I realise that everyone's circumstances are different, and I'm relatively fortunate to have kept my job (so far).
There have only been five so far I believe (counting the playoff games) so a little early Mr Middle. Its nice to have the opportunity to watch but like you I do find the TV experience frustrating and unfulfilling. In truth, if only for the benefit of others, I would go back in a heartbeat to having the option of watching live games (if only in my case a handful) and the odd game on "Iplayer" on Tuesdays.
I am enjoying getting a live experience from my local non league team which I hope will continue for now. Next game is tomorrow night. I think sadly it might be a while before you get to a live WWFC game - maybe an alternative option for you in the meantime?
Whilst I accept it is a draconian measure, I think the time has now come to immediately close ALL pubs and restaurants. How the Government think that simply closing at 10pm is the answer is beyond me. People will just get to the pub earlier or drink quicker, so some establishments will actually get more crowded, albeit in a shorter period, so the risk of contagion will be higher.
A significant proportion of the population cannot be trusted to comply with social distancing, and the police appear unwilling (or unable) to enforce any regulations which leads to raves, demonstrations like yesterday, and other breaches with the offenders knowing there is little likelihood of prosecution.
Jobs will be lost, but what is most important jobs or lives? Eating or drinking out is a luxury and at times like this we should be foregoing these to restrict the spread of the virus.
@Wendoverman said: @DevC@Glenactico I have a healthy disregard for governments in general...but are you really suggesting a British government (and a stupidly libertarian one at that) is really using a Global Pandemic to try to restrict our freedoms? Suppression? I fear you both want to keep off the Dark Web, C5 and talk radio and take a little less Icke in yer tea...
Happens all the time unfortunately, terror laws have been used to suppress legitimate protest, Covid money has being channelled to pet projects and friendly companies away from usual scrutiny.
Not as part of a rabid campaign, or in some kind of controlling global conspiracy but just because some people take a mile when given an inch.
@Wendoverman said: @DevC@Glenactico I have a healthy disregard for governments in general...but are you really suggesting a British government (and a stupidly libertarian one at that) is really using a Global Pandemic to try to restrict our freedoms? Suppression? I fear you both want to keep off the Dark Web, C5 and talk radio and take a little less Icke in yer tea...
Potentially yes @Wendoverman as @StrongestTeam has suggested. Governments will always exploit crises to get things through that they would otherwise struggle with and "temporary restrictions" have a habit of becoming permanent. Income tax is purely a temporary phenomenon for example - introduced to address a temporary crisis in 1799. I await its cancellation patiently....
Personally I have no problem with compulsory mask wearing for example but I would keep a watchful eye on what they do and not assume that they are not taking a little advantage here and there. Human nature I'm afraid.
@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
Biggest problem with mask wearing was misted specs until another old git in the Co-op told me that a speck of washing up liquid did the trick. It sure does. A couple of days earlier I’d left a message on the answerphone of a local non-chain opticians. I had a call from the receptionist saying that they had (I think) a spray. Feeling smug, I asked how much. £15 says the receptionist without a hint of embarrassment. My smugness was unbridled.
@StrongestTeam Exactly Corruption? Backhanders? tick tick. Using legislation to make opposition difficult. I hear you. It's the Van Morrison making you wear a mask and not hug your mate in the boozer (Yes...I heard that on Jeremy Vine) is a vast government public control operation that tends to get my goat a bit. And we all knew when they gave desperate pub goers an inch what was going to happen... @mooneyman You're right...last orders makes no sense to me either but they are desperate to keep the economy stumbling on because they knew the impact of the easy, oven ready Brexit was going to be bad before all this kicked off! Poor old coppers have enough to do whether or not they are willing or unwilling to impose stupid headline grabbing (but impractical) fines. Jobs should not be lost because the government should move heaven and earth to protect them but I've heard (admittedly quite) right wing commentators suggest that capitalism inevitably means failing businesses and unemployment and we just have to suck it up...
@Wendoverman said: @DevC@Glenactico I have a healthy disregard for governments in general...but are you really suggesting a British government (and a stupidly libertarian one at that) is really using a Global Pandemic to try to restrict our freedoms? Suppression? I fear you both want to keep off the Dark Web, C5 and talk radio and take a little less Icke...
No I’m not suggesting that at all. I used the term suppression to mean the UK’s strategy is to aim to suppress the virus until such time as there is a vaccine.
I don’t think that is a good policy.
But I also don’t believe it is part of a conspiracy to ‘oppress’ the population.
@aloysius said:
So how many of you who bought season tickets will donate the full cost to the club, despite (almost certainly) not getting to watch a single match from the ground this season? And how many of you will ask for full refunds?
I paid up in the knowledge I was unlikely to see any footy...though I lived in hope. If the season carries on on ifollow I won't be asking for any refund...but anything else is just conjecture isn't it?
@micra said:
Biggest problem with mask wearing was misted specs until another old git in the Co-op told me that a speck of washing up liquid did the trick. It sure does. A couple of days earlier I’d left a message on the answerphone of a local non-chain opticians. I had a call from the receptionist saying that they had (I think) a spray. Feeling smug, I asked how much. £15 says the receptionist without a hint of embarrassment. My smugness was unbridled.
Similar with the car back in the day on the colder evenings, I smeared and buffed up washing up liquid on the windows to stop them steaming up, worked a treat. The downside of course was when taking the young lady home and saying goodnight as you did! that was the occasion when you wanted them to steam up!!!
@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
"The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives."
As can having close friends and family members die of avoidable illnesses.
People looking for easy answers probably won't find them.
Catching Covid can also be disastrous for people's lives even if it does not kill them @Glenactico long-term health problems are almost guaranteed.
Also we need to make sure the NHS can cope with cases.
We should all be aware by now the government is doing nothing it has not been forced into by events...so if they have finally had to accept this is necessary you can bet it all is.
@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
That was flippant I admit, but a lot of the complaints are about inconveniences rather than the serious things.
Yes those mental health is a serious concern, but the suicide rate would have to multiply by 10 to match the covid deaths, and surprisingly recessions have lead to an increase in life expectancy in the past so it's not as cut and dry as "economic downturn will lead to more suicides".
People can earn money back, they can rebuild businesses but they can't bring people back from the dead or heal damaged lungs, or regain sight or heart functionality, just a few of the effects of Covid I've heard of from our area
The Government reaction is a mixture of science and politics @Wendoverman . That is inevitable.
There is no guarantee that there will ever be a worthwhile vaccine - we hope there will be but we don't know. Without vaccine it is unlikely the virus will ever go away - it might mutate but not go away.
Dealing with the virus is finding the right balance between adverse health impacts of the virus and adverse lifestyle impacts including on health of restrictions.
While I will comply with the rules, I do wonder if we are pushing them too far. I fear that the public will not comply with the rules in largish numbers.
@aloysius said:
So how many of you who bought season tickets will donate the full cost to the club, despite (almost certainly) not getting to watch a single match from the ground this season? And how many of you will ask for full refunds?
I’m happy to not ask for any money back unless my financial circumstances change for the worse. As someone who normally only plans to go to half the home games anyway I do realise that I am I unusual.
(And don’t get too smug about your doom-laden predictions about the return of crowds coming to fruition
On the more general issue of the risks, etc from Covid-19 I am finding it difficult to reach conclusions at the moment.
Post Cummings I made a conscious decision to not listen to any guidance that our government dreamt up and to try and make decisions about my behaviour as far as practicable on the knowledge I can gain from other, saner, sources in the interests of myself, my family and my community.
As time goes by though the actions of some of the more libertarian lunatics has pushed me slightly back to the ‘experts’.
I do think we will need to adapt and learn to live relatively normally with the virus, but to do that I think we do need to understand a lot more about it than we currently do (for example why do some people suffer ‘long Covid, how easy does it spread amongst schoolchildren, will a low exposure to the virus equate to mild symptoms, etc).
Until we have that I think we do have to have a balance of restrictions and controls in place (albeit I have little faith that the government will choose the right ones)
@aloysius said:
One man's doom-laden is another man's realism based on a rudimentary understanding of science, @bookertease...
Exactly this. Could copy paste it for the Brexit situation too.
"No one could have known that out would cause...." Apart from the people who were saying exactly what would happen having looked into and understood consequences beyond what Big Dave on Facebook said with his degree from the university of lyf and diploma from the skool of hard knocks.
Agree @bookertease to some extent we need to adapt and accept Covid-19 and whatever bat-**** virus comes out of humans eating crazy stuff next (we know this is going to be commonplace as time moves on don't we?) but, moving forwards, that will need a competent government response.
@Wendoverman said:
Agree @bookertease to some extent we need to adapt and accept Covid-19 and whatever bat-**** virus comes out of humans eating crazy stuff next (we know this is going to be commonplace as time moves on don't we?) but, moving forwards, that will need a competent government response.
Not sure it is meant to be more common place, pandemic events happen on average around every 100 years and this fitted that model.
Surely even our govt would see fit to learn some things from their disastrous response this time to improve any future response.
@Wendoverman said:
Agree @bookertease to some extent we need to adapt and accept Covid-19 and whatever bat-**** virus comes out of humans eating crazy stuff next (we know this is going to be commonplace as time moves on don't we?) but, moving forwards, that will need a competent government response.
@Wendoverman said: @DevC@Glenactico I have a healthy disregard for governments in general...but are you really suggesting a British government (and a stupidly libertarian one at that) is really using a Global Pandemic to try to restrict our freedoms? Suppression? I fear you both want to keep off the Dark Web, C5 and talk radio and take a little less Icke in yer tea...
Nobody will be able to get on the dark web soon. Or indeed half the normal web.
@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
That was flippant I admit, but a lot of the complaints are about inconveniences rather than the serious things.
Yes those mental health is a serious concern, but the suicide rate would have to multiply by 10 to match the covid deaths, and surprisingly recessions have lead to an increase in life expectancy in the past so it's not as cut and dry as "economic downturn will lead to more suicides".
People can earn money back, they can rebuild businesses but they can't bring people back from the dead or heal damaged lungs, or regain sight or heart functionality, just a few of the effects of Covid I've heard of from our area
Fair points. You're quite right to point out that the financial impact is recoverable, although I'm also inclined to counter that evidence shows many people, especially those at the start of their career, will experience a scarring impact on their future prosperity. I'd also say that quality of life must come into the equation too, not only the net impact on mortality?
Anyway, I think those are subjective issues could be argued back and forth with neither side being right or wrong.
My main concern is that our strategy appears to be to fix the R rate at or below 1 until such time as there is a vaccine. We attempted to resume some form of normality and rely on a test, trace and isolate strategy to keep transmission down. As we can now see, either this isn't possible or the UK isn't able to do so. Whatever the reason, we are now pivoting back toward partial or full lockdown in order to reduce transmission. As far as I can tell from that position the only exit strategy is then either a radical improvement in testing (the so-called 'moonshot'); the discovery of a vaccine and rollout of successful innoculation programme; or some mutation or change in the virus which makes it less potent. Each of those are either a) fanciful or b) may or may not happen at an undetermined point in time. On that basis I'm not in favour of increasing restrictions on social activity.
I may feel differently if it were clearer to what degree we could be confident of an exit strategy within and within what timeframe. i.e if there is 90% confidence of a vaccine within 12 mths that is a big difference from 90% confidence within 10 years.
All this aside, it pisses me off that social restrictions are being distributed unequally. In the case of recreational activities, for example, we have cinemas open but stadium shut. Surely it would be more reasonable to have them both partially open? The same goes for work. Some people are now, in effect, going to asked to work from their kitchen table for 1yr+ while others continue to go to work as normal.
Comments
So how many of you who bought season tickets will donate the full cost to the club, despite (almost certainly) not getting to watch a single match from the ground this season? And how many of you will ask for full refunds?
@DevC @Glenactico I have a healthy disregard for governments in general...but are you really suggesting a British government (and a stupidly libertarian one at that) is really using a Global Pandemic to try to restrict our freedoms? Suppression? I fear you both want to keep off the Dark Web, C5 and talk radio and take a little less Icke in yer tea...
@aloysius
I will not ask for any refund on mine. I was fully aware when I bought the ticket in June (?) that there was every chance I wouldn't physically see any matches, but did it because I recognised the difficult financial situation the club was in. Of course promotion has eased that somewhat, but I'm still receiving the online passes for the home games and the midweek aways, and the additional premium per match seems a reasonable price to pay to help Gareth build a squad that has even the slimmest chance of keeping us up.
Of course, none of this is a judgement on other fans who may not choose to do the same. I realise that everyone's circumstances are different, and I'm relatively fortunate to have kept my job (so far).
There have only been five so far I believe (counting the playoff games) so a little early Mr Middle. Its nice to have the opportunity to watch but like you I do find the TV experience frustrating and unfulfilling. In truth, if only for the benefit of others, I would go back in a heartbeat to having the option of watching live games (if only in my case a handful) and the odd game on "Iplayer" on Tuesdays.
I am enjoying getting a live experience from my local non league team which I hope will continue for now. Next game is tomorrow night. I think sadly it might be a while before you get to a live WWFC game - maybe an alternative option for you in the meantime?
Whilst I accept it is a draconian measure, I think the time has now come to immediately close ALL pubs and restaurants. How the Government think that simply closing at 10pm is the answer is beyond me. People will just get to the pub earlier or drink quicker, so some establishments will actually get more crowded, albeit in a shorter period, so the risk of contagion will be higher.
A significant proportion of the population cannot be trusted to comply with social distancing, and the police appear unwilling (or unable) to enforce any regulations which leads to raves, demonstrations like yesterday, and other breaches with the offenders knowing there is little likelihood of prosecution.
Jobs will be lost, but what is most important jobs or lives? Eating or drinking out is a luxury and at times like this we should be foregoing these to restrict the spread of the virus.
Happens all the time unfortunately, terror laws have been used to suppress legitimate protest, Covid money has being channelled to pet projects and friendly companies away from usual scrutiny.
Not as part of a rabid campaign, or in some kind of controlling global conspiracy but just because some people take a mile when given an inch.
Potentially yes @Wendoverman as @StrongestTeam has suggested. Governments will always exploit crises to get things through that they would otherwise struggle with and "temporary restrictions" have a habit of becoming permanent. Income tax is purely a temporary phenomenon for example - introduced to address a temporary crisis in 1799. I await its cancellation patiently....
Personally I have no problem with compulsory mask wearing for example but I would keep a watchful eye on what they do and not assume that they are not taking a little advantage here and there. Human nature I'm afraid.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
Biggest problem with mask wearing was misted specs until another old git in the Co-op told me that a speck of washing up liquid did the trick. It sure does. A couple of days earlier I’d left a message on the answerphone of a local non-chain opticians. I had a call from the receptionist saying that they had (I think) a spray. Feeling smug, I asked how much. £15 says the receptionist without a hint of embarrassment. My smugness was unbridled.
@StrongestTeam Exactly Corruption? Backhanders? tick tick. Using legislation to make opposition difficult. I hear you. It's the Van Morrison making you wear a mask and not hug your mate in the boozer (Yes...I heard that on Jeremy Vine) is a vast government public control operation that tends to get my goat a bit. And we all knew when they gave desperate pub goers an inch what was going to happen... @mooneyman You're right...last orders makes no sense to me either but they are desperate to keep the economy stumbling on because they knew the impact of the easy, oven ready Brexit was going to be bad before all this kicked off! Poor old coppers have enough to do whether or not they are willing or unwilling to impose stupid headline grabbing (but impractical) fines. Jobs should not be lost because the government should move heaven and earth to protect them but I've heard (admittedly quite) right wing commentators suggest that capitalism inevitably means failing businesses and unemployment and we just have to suck it up...
No I’m not suggesting that at all. I used the term suppression to mean the UK’s strategy is to aim to suppress the virus until such time as there is a vaccine.
I don’t think that is a good policy.
But I also don’t believe it is part of a conspiracy to ‘oppress’ the population.
I paid up in the knowledge I was unlikely to see any footy...though I lived in hope. If the season carries on on ifollow I won't be asking for any refund...but anything else is just conjecture isn't it?
Similar with the car back in the day on the colder evenings, I smeared and buffed up washing up liquid on the windows to stop them steaming up, worked a treat. The downside of course was when taking the young lady home and saying goodnight as you did! that was the occasion when you wanted them to steam up!!!
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
"The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives."
As can having close friends and family members die of avoidable illnesses.
People looking for easy answers probably won't find them.
Catching Covid can also be disastrous for people's lives even if it does not kill them @Glenactico long-term health problems are almost guaranteed.
Also we need to make sure the NHS can cope with cases.
We should all be aware by now the government is doing nothing it has not been forced into by events...so if they have finally had to accept this is necessary you can bet it all is.
That was flippant I admit, but a lot of the complaints are about inconveniences rather than the serious things.
Yes those mental health is a serious concern, but the suicide rate would have to multiply by 10 to match the covid deaths, and surprisingly recessions have lead to an increase in life expectancy in the past so it's not as cut and dry as "economic downturn will lead to more suicides".
People can earn money back, they can rebuild businesses but they can't bring people back from the dead or heal damaged lungs, or regain sight or heart functionality, just a few of the effects of Covid I've heard of from our area
The Government reaction is a mixture of science and politics @Wendoverman . That is inevitable.
There is no guarantee that there will ever be a worthwhile vaccine - we hope there will be but we don't know. Without vaccine it is unlikely the virus will ever go away - it might mutate but not go away.
Dealing with the virus is finding the right balance between adverse health impacts of the virus and adverse lifestyle impacts including on health of restrictions.
While I will comply with the rules, I do wonder if we are pushing them too far. I fear that the public will not comply with the rules in largish numbers.
I do wonder if we are pushing them too far. I fear that the public will not comply with the rules in largish numbers.
rest assured we are not and they will.
Not exactly the word I’d choose but I’d certainly say that is an extremely fortuitous time to be in the Championship
I’m happy to not ask for any money back unless my financial circumstances change for the worse. As someone who normally only plans to go to half the home games anyway I do realise that I am I unusual.
(And don’t get too smug about your doom-laden predictions about the return of crowds coming to fruition
One man's doom-laden is another man's realism based on a rudimentary understanding of science, @bookertease...
On the more general issue of the risks, etc from Covid-19 I am finding it difficult to reach conclusions at the moment.
Post Cummings I made a conscious decision to not listen to any guidance that our government dreamt up and to try and make decisions about my behaviour as far as practicable on the knowledge I can gain from other, saner, sources in the interests of myself, my family and my community.
As time goes by though the actions of some of the more libertarian lunatics has pushed me slightly back to the ‘experts’.
I do think we will need to adapt and learn to live relatively normally with the virus, but to do that I think we do need to understand a lot more about it than we currently do (for example why do some people suffer ‘long Covid, how easy does it spread amongst schoolchildren, will a low exposure to the virus equate to mild symptoms, etc).
Until we have that I think we do have to have a balance of restrictions and controls in place (albeit I have little faith that the government will choose the right ones)
Bollocks. I hate arguments with people who actually know stuff...
Exactly this. Could copy paste it for the Brexit situation too.
"No one could have known that out would cause...." Apart from the people who were saying exactly what would happen having looked into and understood consequences beyond what Big Dave on Facebook said with his degree from the university of lyf and diploma from the skool of hard knocks.
Agree @bookertease to some extent we need to adapt and accept Covid-19 and whatever bat-**** virus comes out of humans eating crazy stuff next (we know this is going to be commonplace as time moves on don't we?) but, moving forwards, that will need a competent government response.
Not sure it is meant to be more common place, pandemic events happen on average around every 100 years and this fitted that model.
Surely even our govt would see fit to learn some things from their disastrous response this time to improve any future response.
that will need a competent government
Nobody will be able to get on the dark web soon. Or indeed half the normal web.
https://freespeechunion.org/why-the-governments-plans-to-regulate-the-internet-are-a-threat-to-free-speech/
Fair points. You're quite right to point out that the financial impact is recoverable, although I'm also inclined to counter that evidence shows many people, especially those at the start of their career, will experience a scarring impact on their future prosperity. I'd also say that quality of life must come into the equation too, not only the net impact on mortality?
Anyway, I think those are subjective issues could be argued back and forth with neither side being right or wrong.
My main concern is that our strategy appears to be to fix the R rate at or below 1 until such time as there is a vaccine. We attempted to resume some form of normality and rely on a test, trace and isolate strategy to keep transmission down. As we can now see, either this isn't possible or the UK isn't able to do so. Whatever the reason, we are now pivoting back toward partial or full lockdown in order to reduce transmission. As far as I can tell from that position the only exit strategy is then either a radical improvement in testing (the so-called 'moonshot'); the discovery of a vaccine and rollout of successful innoculation programme; or some mutation or change in the virus which makes it less potent. Each of those are either a) fanciful or b) may or may not happen at an undetermined point in time. On that basis I'm not in favour of increasing restrictions on social activity.
I may feel differently if it were clearer to what degree we could be confident of an exit strategy within and within what timeframe. i.e if there is 90% confidence of a vaccine within 12 mths that is a big difference from 90% confidence within 10 years.
All this aside, it pisses me off that social restrictions are being distributed unequally. In the case of recreational activities, for example, we have cinemas open but stadium shut. Surely it would be more reasonable to have them both partially open? The same goes for work. Some people are now, in effect, going to asked to work from their kitchen table for 1yr+ while others continue to go to work as normal.