Hancock's Half Hour

[Andy Kev.]

If I were Boris, I would have dealt with this by saying something like, "He acted entirely sensibly and responsibly in making arrangements for the welfare of his child and at no point did he place anybody else in danger. However, he skated a bit close to the limits of the spirit of the rules. Therefore he and I have agreed that he will donate 10k to charities of his choice.

I will ensure that it is made clear to all who work in Whitehall (politicians, civil servants, advisors etc.) that we will be returning to old-fashioned standards of integrity for them i.e. higher standards than we expect of the rest of the public. Anybody who thinks he/she has a case for exemption from rules must apply for dispensations. FWIW I would have granted Cummings a dispensation due to the vital nature of his role.

And that is the end of the matter."

But that's just the way I would have done it.

The media would turn that into "rich think they can buy their way out of lockdown"

It would depend on how it was handled. For instance, if it became known that one of the Downing St typists or a cleaning lady at the MOD had also been granted a dispensation - entirely possibly because difficult personal circumstances are encountered in all walks of life - and that there had been cases of self-entitled MPs and peers having been refused dispensations ("Do you know who I am?" constituting insufficient grounds) then the public would be likely to show its usual reasonableness.

Incidentally, I see that the BBC has coughed to bias on the part of Emily Maitliss on Newsnight, a possibly unprecedented event. They must be really worried about the licence fee going. The odd thing is that they can't see that all they need to do to survive is to start acting professionally i.e. political neutral and as objective as possible.

 

[Rorschach]

Another great video, why are all these scientists not being listened to on the MSM? Could it be because they go against the fear narrative and they show the MSM messed up big time in calling for lockdown?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk

You know what, just watch most of the videos on that channel, they are all really good and the interviewer is excellent.

 

[Rorschach]

Wonder why this didn't make the news.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/184 ... ?ref=fbshr

 

[Chris152]

ONS stats show about 6-7% of UK population have so far been exposed to Covid 19. (Channel 4 news this evening.)
DoH figures show 37,837 deaths so far.

 

[Rorschach]

ONS stats show about 6-7% of UK population have so far been exposed to Covid 19. (Channel 4 news this evening.)
DoH figures show 37,837 deaths so far.

That puts the case fatality rate at around 0.8%, getting better, still not as low as many of the experts are predicting on the videos I linked but improving.

 

[Chris152]

Yea, looking great. Looks like we're doing a spanking job in the UK as we come out of lock down
https://amp.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c25 ... IkXTPtAJ2Q

 

[Rorschach]

The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.

 

[Droogs]

So we now have the highest death rate per capita according to excess deaths figures (50K) released this evening according to the FT

 

[Droogs]

Rorsarch you are so full of effluent on this it almost literally brings tears to my eyes. Ask any person on this planet about this and they would all rather be poor and alive than rich and dead!

 

[Trainee neophyte]

So we now have the highest death rate per capita according to excess deaths figures (50K) released this evening according to the FT

UK is first among equals: https://www.healthexpress.co.uk/obesity/uk-statistics

62% of the UK population is overweight.
This equates to 58% of women and 68% of men.
Nearly 25% of adults are classed as obese.
525,000 NHS admissions were obesity related in 2015/2016.
The UK has the largest rates of obesity in Europe.
Obesity is responsible for 30,000 deaths a year.

I wonder how many of that 30,000 (if true) have been lumped in with the Covid19 numbers?

 

[rafezetter]

Just an aside. A friend of SWMBO's works in the bullion trade in Wellington. She says there has been a marked increase in US customers buying and depositing bullion in NZ. There is also a reported upswing in applications from the US for NZ residency.
Well, it makes a change from the Asian invasion, I suppose.
Pete

If I had the cash or the skills I'd have mived to NZ years ago - always been my country of choice - your PM's handling of the Covid just reinforced that beleif for many I would think.

Ofc having a small population made it easier for her but even so, she done good (and that ban on guns as well).

 

[woodhutt]

The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.

You astound me. If you'll forgive the observation of an outsider looking in which admittedly is based on reports from MSM and chats with friends and relatives in the UK, the lock down regime in the UK has been farcical. Whether this is the result of confusing guidelines, selfish actions or sheer bloody-mindedness from parts of the community (probably a combination of all three) the UK lock down has been an unmitigated disaster. The fact is, you can save people from C19 as has been ably demonstrated by other countries.
To claim that 'the worse it is now, the faster it gets better' is, IMO, fallacious. Currently, the UK is hovering at or just below an R rating of 1.0 which can result in 14,000 additional cases. If the lock down is eased and the R number rises to 1.1 this would result in an additional 25,000 cases and it increases exponentially as the R rate rises further. Given the high mortality rate in the UK, (second highest in the world at 57 per 100K population despite the excellent efforts of the NHS), this would result in a significant number of deaths.
Perhaps some find this an acceptable risk in order to open up again.
I know that I don't.
Pete

 

[rafezetter]

Rorsarch you are so full of effluent on this it almost literally brings tears to my eyes. Ask any person on this planet about this and they would all rather be poor and alive than rich and dead!

Pretty sure I was saying this and calling him on out on having this viewpoint a month ago - I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but if you are still alive, you've got the chance to reverse it.

Dead, you don't.

I'm glad someone else now sees it - although I'll be honest I never actually expect rorschach to say it openly in such a callous manner - "we can't save them, so let's get back to making (me) money".

As far as I know he still hasn't openly declared what his business is, that we may better understand his postition - a little telling to be honest. Dr Bob's situation is wholly different, he's gone back to work, but taking full precautions and iirc has stated if a second wave hits and needs to shut down again, so be it.

OFC he won't see this as he's blocked me, totally fine his choice, but I feel completely vindicated on my previous comments.

 

[rafezetter]

The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.

Rorschach, you were WRONG the first time and you're WRONG now - I don't think you even understand the phrase "lives being destroyed" - why don't you come and have a very frank open and honest talk to ME about "life being destroyed".

I'll tell you everything, after which I think you'll have a very different perspective on the phrase "life being destroyed", that's assuming you have any sort of empathy for another human being, which I'm starting to doubt.

Once again you have placed monetary loss above human life, and I've openly said here (and to family) if it came to it and there was a choice between myself being given a ventilator and a person with a child, I would insist that person have it, because I have no spouse, no children and no dependants emotional or financial of any kind.

I'm pretty sure I can guess what you would do. I get a lot of stick on here for being "unstable", quite a lot of it directed from you and yeah sure I have my moments, but I think you've just proven which of us is the better human being. I'm poor and of little consequence to humanity, but I can hold my head high for reasons you currently cannot and probably never will.

Rightly or wrongly I DO NOT TRUST the general population to be sensible if the lockdown was eased any faster or more openly than it already is - what's happening in other countries is no guarentee the same moderation will happen here - since the lockdown was eased we've seen a spike in covid cases compared to the previous weeks, thankfully not as bad as a full "second wave" but a spike nonetheless.

I'm also absolutely certain THE LOCKDOWN HAS SAVED LIVES from covid - or are you disputing that as well?

If you dispute the lockdown has saved lives - your above comment makes sense according to your beliefs, callous as it might be.
If you DON'T - your above comment is CONTRARY to that belief, and makes me wonder why you would post it at all considering how it makes you look.

which is it buddy?

I know what my money is on.

Edit - I came back to possibly edit this post now that the initial reaction has lowered - but I've re-read it and you know what? I'm going to stick with it.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

It would seem that the view is binary - full lockdown forever to save the world, or back to normal, and acres of dead bodies. There is actually a middle ground, which no one is recommending. We know that 95% of deaths occur in patients with "co-morbidities" ( I love the way the propaganda has created all this new jargon that everyone glibly throws around), and we know that no more than 2% of the population are at risk. Currently, 100% of the population are suffering the consequences of "saving" the 2%. Why? Every life is valuable beyond calculation, and no suffering is too much suffering, provided we save just one life. Except you don't get to be protected if you are a "key worker" - you get the entire street coming out to clap you as you go to work, to use social pressure to ensure that you don't stay at home and hide. A while ago I read that "The aristocracy shelter in their private estates and islands, the middle classes work safely from home, but the working class get out there and fight and die, for the benefit of those who have the wealth to rely on their status to hide and be safe". The world is not equal, and some don't have the luxury of isolating themselves.

It seems to me that there is a third way - for the vast majority of people, the disease has little effect. For a third, no effect whatsoever. Why not allow full economic activity - back to normal in other words, but those who are at risk can, if they so choose, isolate themselves to whatever degree they deem necessary. In other words leave it to the individual. You are all individuals. (See my Monty Python clip above for more details).

There will be consequences to the lockdown strategy, with it's pre-planned repeated closures of the economy over the next two years (think about that). Small and medium sized businesses will mostly be unable to pay their debts, so will either be subsumed by the giants (who benefit from largess from government much more than smaller businesses do), or those hard-working entrepreneurs will have their assets given to the banking industry through bankruptcy, in amounts that has never happened before, worldwide. The largest worldwide transfer of wealth from the general population to a tiny minority. This doesn't have to happen, but it will, because the 2% are more important than the other 98%, and the "1%" elite are going to make hay while the sun shines. It's an ill wind that blows no one any good.

I wonder how much those with no skin in the game want everything shut down for their own safety, at the expense of everyone else, with no consideration of the consequences.

Pretty sure I was saying this and calling him on out on having this viewpoint a month ago - I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but if you are still alive, you've got the chance to reverse it.

Dead, you don't.

All I say is "Careful what you wish for". An individual bankruptcy is a traumatic thing, but you can get over it, certainly. When entire nations are bankrupted? Food riots in Chile, because lockdown is total. Thousands (millions?) of peasant workers abandoned to walk home or starve in India. That sort of thing doesn't have to be just far away - it could happen in Europe, too. Why should supply chains remain intact, if everyone is cowering under their beds? You get to hide, why shouldn't farmers, too?

Actions have consequences. So does inaction.

And before everyone accuses me of being a genocidal nazi, all of the above is food for thought - I'm not advocating freeing up the economy, I am interested in views. I can probably weather the storm for the next couple of years, with virtually no economic activity - I'm all right, Jack. It's everyone else I worry about. I am semi self-sufficient now, and could be completely if necessary (I may have to eat grasshoppers, but it's good protein, so why not).
Our current course of action will see everyone in the world becoming dependent on the largess of the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and friends, because they will own everything. Do we trust them?

 

[rafezetter]

It would seem that the view is binary - full lockdown forever to save the world, or back to normal, and acres of dead bodies. There is actually a middle ground, which no one is recommending. We know that 95% of deaths occur in patients with "co-morbidities" ( I love the way the propaganda has created all this new jargon that everyone glibly throws around), and we know that no more than 2% of the population are at risk. Currently, 100% of the population are suffering the consequences of "saving" the 2%. Why? Every life is valuable beyond calculation, and no suffering is too much suffering, provided we save just one life. Except you don't get to be protected if you are a "key worker" - you get the entire street coming out to clap you as you go to work, to use social pressure to ensure that you don't stay at home and hide. A while ago I read that "The aristocracy shelter in their private estates and islands, the middle classes work safely from home, but the working class get out there and fight and die, for the benefit of those who have the wealth to rely on their status to hide and be safe". The world is not equal, and some don't have the luxury of isolating themselves.

It seems to me that there is a third way - for the vast majority of people, the disease has little effect. For a third, no effect whatsoever. Why not allow full economic activity - back to normal in other words, but those who are at risk can, if they so choose, isolate themselves to whatever degree they deem necessary. In other words leave it to the individual. You are all individuals. (See my Monty Python clip above for more details).

There will be consequences to the lockdown strategy, with it's pre-planned repeated closures of the economy over the next two years (think about that). Small and medium sized businesses will mostly be unable to pay their debts, so will either be subsumed by the giants (who benefit from largess from government much more than smaller businesses do), or those hard-working entrepreneurs will have their assets given to the banking industry through bankruptcy, in amounts that has never happened before, worldwide. The largest worldwide transfer of wealth from the general population to a tiny minority. This doesn't have to happen, but it will, because the 2% are more important than the other 98%, and the "1%" elite are going to make hay while the sun shines. It's an ill wind that blows no one any good.

I wonder how much those with no skin in the game want everything shut down for their own safety, at the expense of everyone else, with no consideration of the consequences.

Pretty sure I was saying this and calling him on out on having this viewpoint a month ago - I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but if you are still alive, you've got the chance to reverse it.

Dead, you don't.

All I say is "Careful what you wish for". An individual bankruptcy is a traumatic thing, but you can get over it, certainly. When entire nations are bankrupted? Food riots in Chile, because lockdown is total. Thousands (millions?) of peasant workers abandoned to walk home or starve in India. That sort of thing doesn't have to be just far away - it could happen in Europe, too. Why should supply chains remain intact, if everyone is cowering under their beds? You get to hide, why shouldn't farmers, too?

Actions have consequences. So does inaction.

And before everyone accuses me of being a genocidal nazi, all of the above is food for thought - I'm not advocating freeing up the economy, I am interested in views. I can probably weather the storm for the next couple of years, with virtually no economic activity - I'm all right, Jack. It's everyone else I worry about. I am semi self-sufficient now, and could be completely if necessary (I may have to eat grasshoppers, but it's good protein, so why not).
Our current course of action will see everyone in the world becoming dependent on the largess of the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and friends, because they will own everything. Do we trust them?

In the ideal scenario I'm all for this - the problem as I stated above is I DON'T TRUST PEOPLE - people WITH the virus have been caught NOT self isolating because they felt thier need for whatever it was, was more important than the risk of spreading the virus.

Also in the UK at least when the schools all closed and the social distancing "stay at home" message began - a whole bunch of idiots all went on a jolly to the countryside, I wonder how many caught the virus those days or how many deaths resulted? So the PM said - "right you fu**wits - seeing as you clearly can't be trusted to use your judgement, I'm going to make it a mandatory lockdown".

Do you REALLY think it'll be any different second time around? I don't.

Unless those people who may otherwise show little symptoms, self test every day and can then provide PROOF they have self tested negative to any challenge in a public place - OR - every place where crowds gather have some sort of controlled entry point and are checked, such as is happening - but everywhere, and social distancing is fully maintained (which I've noticed many people not observing since the lockdown easing) then there's little alternative but to have what we have currently.

it sucks - I get it, and some people are really hurting financially, and some businesses and livelihoods have been and will be lost, but what other option is there?

Just open the floodgates like rorschach wants and "take your chances?" rorschach has proven that even among this small group of forum members, there are people in society for whom the fear of loss of personal wealth is greater than the care for the loss of a strangers life (as if we needed any more proof), because he's been maintaining the lockdown was unnecessary since the beginning, and STILL IS despite all evidence to the contrary, and I absolutely wouldn't trust rorschach and those of his ilk to have the social conscience to self isolate EVEN if he was ill - for all we know he could be a narcissistic sociopath who really doesn't GAF - plenty of those around. Now multiply up this forums membership to the size of the nations population and you have literally hundreds of thousands of people who are saying "nope really don't give a toss if they live or die as long as I'm OK".

So every person is then at risk, all over again. The question you have to ask yourself is "is he talking out of his rear end or is all that a possibility, even partially, based on previous recent evidence?"

I wish all this wasn't true because it would mean humanity is better than, and able to overcome, our naturally hostile nature when the chips are down, and mostly we seem to be, although it's sad it took a worldwide pandemic to get humanity to wake up to what was truly important in our lives and society after having forgotton all the lessons learned by our forebears only 75 years previously, and it's been quite heartening to see and hear the acts of kindness and community and things happening all over the world; such that maybe there's hope for us yet and mutual annihilation from war isn't our forgone fate; unfortunately it looks to me like there's still enough that are not playing the same game to give the rest of us a problem.

NATO was set up as a "never again" system after WW II - I hope the WHO gets a massive upgrade to become the deterrant for any viral threat, with significantly increased powers such that they can hold any country accountable if there is another cover up like wuhan.

 

[Rorschach]

The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.

You astound me. If you'll forgive the observation of an outsider looking in which admittedly is based on reports from MSM and chats with friends and relatives in the UK, the lock down regime in the UK has been farcical. Whether this is the result of confusing guidelines, selfish actions or sheer bloody-mindedness from parts of the community (probably a combination of all three) the UK lock down has been an unmitigated disaster. The fact is, you can save people from C19 as has been ably demonstrated by other countries.
To claim that 'the worse it is now, the faster it gets better' is, IMO, fallacious. Currently, the UK is hovering at or just below an R rating of 1.0 which can result in 14,000 additional cases. If the lock down is eased and the R number rises to 1.1 this would result in an additional 25,000 cases and it increases exponentially as the R rate rises further. Given the high mortality rate in the UK, (second highest in the world at 57 per 100K population despite the excellent efforts of the NHS), this would result in a significant number of deaths.
Perhaps some find this an acceptable risk in order to open up again.
I know that I don't.
Pete

Sorry but you are wrong there, you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
Any country that has managed to keep the numbers of deaths low, NZ and AUS for instance has only delayed the inevitable and is now stuck in limbo, you can't open up the borders either in or out. NZ's economy is 25% tourism, what on earth do you do to replace that?

Of course the UK is going to suffer high deaths, we have an elderly, unhealthy, fat population. All those are risk factors for C19, they are also risk factors for death in general.

For those saying it is better to be poor and alive than rich and dead, you have obviously never been truly poor or lived in a poor country. If this goes on much longer you will see, though I suspect those saying that are elderly and relatively wealthy so don't need to worry, but your children and grandchildren will suffer.

Mark my words, in the end all countries will end up suffering similar % of fatalities (adjusted for demographics), they might happen now or they might happen in the coming months/years but they will happen. Those that stay in quarantine will suffer decades of economic hardship long after those they locked to save have died of other causes and then young will be left asking "what was it all for?" Then you will see the real trouble!

 

[Rorschach]

I wonder how much those with no skin in the game want everything shut down for their own safety, at the expense of everyone else, with no consideration of the consequences

This sums it up rather well. Those calling for lockdown won't suffer from it or are (possibly) protected by it. Their jobs will either continue after this is over, while they complain about how awful the country is now after lockdown, or they will have died of natural causes won't suffer the hardships to come.

This article is worth a read, for those that don't subscribe to the MSM brainwashing narrative anyway

https://thecritic.co.uk/were-all-in-the ... mbers-now/

 

[doctor Bob]

I'll meet peopleon middle ground on the arguement.
In my opinion the country needs to start opening up, as safely and quickly as possible.

However, there will be a lot of families (banging the drum for more furlough, more remain at home and no schools this year, keep business closed, there are plenty of them, go on facebook) who in 2 years time have lost their employment, heavily morgaged homes, lease car and living on universal credit, I'm sure that 3 month summer furlough won't look quite so appealing then.
Redundancy is starting to kick in now due to companies smelling the coffee and realising the rules of redundancy and time lines, June and july will be massive for unemployment.

This arguement about employers greed, is mental, it's not about greed it's about survival and keeping employment of employees. The biggest recession in history is coming. The young fit healthy kids are being screwed over.
People have mentioned "making money" on here as though it's a dirty illness, well lets also be frankly honest and say if you are obese (which seems to be a major issue with covid 19)) then glutteny has cost us all dearly (controversial and non PC, I accept, however I'm open minded and will listen to all arguements put forward by those upset, on the benefits of being grossly overweight). The sad thing is, the past 3 months have been such an opportunity to get healthier, IMHO the fit have got fitter and somehow the fat have got fatter.

 

[Chris152]

you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.

Isn't the point to try protect as many people as possible in the hope that a vaccine and / or therapeutic treatments can be developed? That's what I understood.