|
Post by Martin on Apr 20, 2020 16:18:40 GMT
You can practice social distancing on board a plane, just need to be in the right seats.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Apr 20, 2020 16:34:19 GMT
You can practice social distancing on board a plane, just need to be in the right seats. Even if you don't you're more socially distant in cattle class on a BA flight than you are on any SE England railway carriage or tube train.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 20, 2020 17:01:29 GMT
I read that they'll be flying with the middle seats empty...
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Apr 20, 2020 17:10:08 GMT
You can practice social distancing on board a plane, just need to be in the right seats. Even if you don't you're more socially distant in cattle class on a BA flight than you are on any SE England railway carriage or tube train. Very true. Another great reason to avoid public transport!
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Apr 20, 2020 19:40:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Apr 20, 2020 19:46:57 GMT
I assume the Furlough has been extended to the end of June to permit the required overlap.
If lockdown eases from 11th May (and there is nothing I have read that says there would be any reason not to), then ending Furlough in May would just result in mass redundancies. 6-7 week’s worth of overlap at least permits an element of recovery and more time to work out what the first steps after Furlough look like.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Apr 20, 2020 19:58:12 GMT
The furlough is a joke. I've just applied. You can only apply for a maximum of 14 days in advance, so presumably I have to keep applying each month for as long as the lock down is in place.
I do think after this three weeks is up they need to relax things as they should have the infrastructure in place to cope.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 20, 2020 20:14:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Apr 20, 2020 20:20:40 GMT
I'm on a WhatsApp group and one of the members on there thinks it's a holiday and yay - free money.
While I do think the second 3 weeks was prudent, it can go on forever and like anything, the potential deaths need to be considered against ruining the country to the point it can't recover.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 21, 2020 13:15:28 GMT
Of course he has. I used to vaguely find him funny but then realised that he's actually just a complete knob and a professional objector against anything that infringes on his right to do exactly as he alone deems appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 21, 2020 15:17:59 GMT
Of course he has. I used to vaguely find him funny but then realised that he's actually just a complete knob and a professional objector against anything that infringes on his right to do exactly as he alone deems appropriate. I believe he's also a Brexiteer.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 21, 2020 15:43:09 GMT
Of course he has. I used to vaguely find him funny but then realised that he's actually just a complete knob and a professional objector against anything that infringes on his right to do exactly as he alone deems appropriate. I believe he's also a Brexiteer. That just goes with the territory though. He's not as deliberately, teeth-grindingly, awful as James Delinquentpolecat.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 21, 2020 16:27:09 GMT
I chatted to him at an event recently. He was lamenting the demise of his Golf VR6, quite the enthusiast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 10:02:53 GMT
.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 22, 2020 10:09:46 GMT
I chatted to him at an event recently. He was lamenting the demise of his Golf VR6, quite the enthusiast. TY or JD?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 22, 2020 10:21:23 GMT
Both were present, as it happens, but JD.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 22, 2020 10:33:47 GMT
Both were present, as it happens, but JD. I have a couple of friends/acquaintances who are quite frankly the most dreadful fascists but who are petrolheads and amusing provided we steer well clear of anything remotely political. Don't think I could cope with JD though - every time I've read one of his pieces in the Spectator it's made me want to smash things out of sheer annoyance. Risky if you are reading on an aircraft at 36,000 ft, as has happened...
|
|
|
Post by garry on Apr 23, 2020 6:32:50 GMT
I think that site is pretty good. The media is acting like cheerleaders for the government strategy and not doing the job of probing and testing. They are fuelling the hype and building a sense of fear that’s out of sync with the facts and we need sites like this to give more perspective. As an example, one of my nieces is a nurse. My mum called me in tears, incredibly worried that said niece was going to die (because we’re fed this narrative that working in a hospital presents a similar risk of death as being a ww2 fighter pilot). If you step back and look at the evidence it’s clear that nhs staff deaths are broadly in line with the general population on coronavirus I.e if you think of it in terms of odds then it’s a 5000:1 shot generally, with much lower risk if you’re fit and under 50.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Apr 23, 2020 8:18:17 GMT
Me too - I don't understand the sneering..
Seems to be a logical and rational presentation of data that does not support the current narrative that is being rammed down our throats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 8:49:27 GMT
I have to ask the question, why are the media majoring on every single possible down side and "How did it feel"? How did it feel to think you were going to die"? I would think the positive message would be the better to put forward and just do as suggested/told without panic or excessive fear. This is how the media have been going for a long time now. A while back a reporter confronted some members of a unit returning from the middle east having lost mates. "How does it feel to lose mates from your unit"? Does anyone need to ask that type of question? Hardly likely to say they had a bender and got wrecked are they? Is this another Murcanism?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 23, 2020 9:04:47 GMT
Me too - I don't understand the sneering.. Seems to be a logical and rational presentation of data that does not support the current narrative that is being rammed down our throats. That narrative feeds fear and drives clicks and readers. Most media outlets are struggling to survive so they will use whatever tools they can to stay afloat. That does not necessarily mean presenting the news in a factual and accurate way. e.g There has been a media led narrative that the Government is ignoring British suppliers of PPE equipment, despite them getting in touch to offer it. It turns out most of these "helpful" companies don't have any PPE and are simply middlemen offering to procure PPE and make a fat profit on doing so.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 23, 2020 9:14:18 GMT
e.g There has been a media led narrative that the Government is ignoring British suppliers of PPE equipment, despite them getting in touch to offer it. It turns out most of these "helpful" companies don't have any PPE and are simply middlemen offering to procure PPE and make a fat profit on doing so. Labour have provided a list of suppliers many of whom have been embarrassingly discredited:
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 23, 2020 9:57:31 GMT
Me too - I don't understand the sneering.. Seems to be a logical and rational presentation of data that does not support the current narrative that is being rammed down our throats. Because it's so drearily predictable? I'm not supporting either side, nor the media. As ever, there is overreaction on both sides of the debate. But I do find these right-wing pundit attacks on the media deeply hypocritical because they are fine with media scare-mongering when it suits their objectives (eg Brexit) but not when it doesn't. We get a different perspective in this house because we have Italian TV and my wife likes to watch various Italian equivalents of Newsnight. Watch Italian TV for any length of time, which is heavy on interviews with senior medics and virologists, and you'll be hard pushed to disagree with the conclusion that this is very serious. Whether that merits murdering the economy and possibly increasing death rates from other diseases such as cancer is not something any of us here probably has a certain answer to. That's why we elect governments to be best informed and take these decisions for us.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Apr 23, 2020 10:30:01 GMT
I think that site is pretty good. The media is acting like cheerleaders for the government strategy and not doing the job of probing and testing. They are fuelling the hype and building a sense of fear that’s out of sync with the facts and we need sites like this to give more perspective. As an example, one of my nieces is a nurse. My mum called me in tears, incredibly worried that said niece was going to die (because we’re fed this narrative that working in a hospital presents a similar risk of death as being a ww2 fighter pilot). If you step back and look at the evidence it’s clear that nhs staff deaths are broadly in line with the general population on coronavirus I.e if you think of it in terms of odds then it’s a 5000:1 shot generally, with much lower risk if you’re fit and under 50. I've just read the site's lead article of today and he does make some valid and salient points. I think there is always a danger that under pressure (of any kind) any government and its advisers tend to end up talking with themselves too much. Like any debate, only by engaging with people with different views can you see what they are saying and also argue your point better if you need to. The lead government scientist may well think that social distancing has to stay in place until there is a vaccine. But that is the wrong debate. The debate needs to be that if you can social distance at the supermarket, you probably can in many other situations we are currently barred from. And that risk has to be balanced. We cannot eliminate risk.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 23, 2020 11:59:56 GMT
e.g There has been a media led narrative that the Government is ignoring British suppliers of PPE equipment, despite them getting in touch to offer it. It turns out most of these "helpful" companies don't have any PPE and are simply middlemen offering to procure PPE and make a fat profit on doing so. Labour have provided a list of suppliers many of whom have been embarrassingly discredited:
These stories of the NHS rejecting suppliers trying to give them PPE completely ignore the fact that the NHS procurement process needs items to meet a certain standard, made of specific materials and have a certain level of filtration or in the case of hand gel have a certain alcohol content. Just because Bob in Worksop has a factory that makes jogging bottoms that he can turn over to producing gowns, doesn't mean he can produce medical grade items. Likewise Brewdog made a load of hand sanitizer that had to be rejected as it was only 60% alcohol. Imagine the uproar if the press got hold of a story about NHS staff being given substandard PPE!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 13:16:45 GMT
I thought 60% was the minimum standard.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 23, 2020 15:18:36 GMT
I thought 60% was the minimum standard. I thought that too.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 23, 2020 15:42:41 GMT
Presumably Brewdog did as well...
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Apr 23, 2020 15:47:49 GMT
They need this:
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Apr 23, 2020 17:09:16 GMT
From what I have read, the focus is more on the collection and presentation of contrary data from reputable sources.
Agreed, but you don't need to be certain, a reasonable probability on either side will do and I would argue that reasonable probability of poleaxing the economy with all the resulting human crises that will follow is not a palatable outcome given the statistics that are being surfaced (efficacy of lockdown and the actually likelihood of hospitalisation or death if you are healthy and of working age).
In theory yes - but you cannot presented elected Government in the same terms as functional experts who have been subjected to and triumphed in an arduous, skills specific, tender process. It was a limited choice very much in the vein of " pick the least worst ".
I would like to think the Governments of the world are carefully sifting through all the evidence, discussing where appropriate and then coming to a rational plan based on balanced, apolitical appraisal of the scenario. However - I don't think this is the case (or at the very least, they are making damn sure nobody actually dares to think they are working like this).
|
|