Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
will they reduce attendance capacity, or no racegoers will be allowed in .? will it be racing under closed doors for the year etc?
Show More
hello :-) 23 Apr 20 10:02
was listening to business owners last nite in hospitality
-----------
What - "hospitality" - and Where?
Thought hospitality was all Shut Down - No gatherings of more than 2 people etc
Have you just scored an Own Goal - hello :-)
was listening to business owners last nite in hospitality
-----------
What - "hospitality" - and Where?
Thought hospitality was all Shut Down - No gatherings of more than 2 people etc
Have you just scored an Own Goal - hello :-)
People live to their means San Quentin. I work in the NHS in the home counties and I know nurses with families cannot survive on their income alone. Many single nurses get help with social housing etc but many are married with kids and like the majority of the population relying on 2 salaries to survive.
That's simply not correct G63.
Enhanced night shift payment.
Public holiday enhancement.
8 weeks annual leave.
6months (rolling) full pay sick leave(abused by many, not all)
Quite clearly raise your30k quite substantially.
Enhanced night shift payment.
Public holiday enhancement.
8 weeks annual leave.
6months (rolling) full pay sick leave(abused by many, not all)
Quite clearly raise your30k quite substantially.
We have a drastic nursing shortage in this country and have to rely on people coming from abroad to staff the NHS which has been the case for many years now. That is the reality despite people on here trying to argue about their wonderful salaries.
Well said Sparrow. And let's not forget most of the carers of the elderly and infirm are employees of county councils and don't earn anything like the numbers put forward.
Why do you think that is sparrow? In spite of their "wonderful salaries"
I should stick to defending people like Brian Wright, san quentin.
Iam not being critical of you or your colleagues true but hand on heart have come across staff who abuse the system?
Very amusing sparrow.
Can you answer the question or perhaps you don't have an answer
When did I ever defend Brian.
Can you answer the question or perhaps you don't have an answer
When did I ever defend Brian.
irrespective of whatever level their 'wonderful salaries' are, most agree that even if you doubled them, the personnel would still be undervalued - hopefully we all have long memories and ensure that current/future governments are held to account on this
Absolutely of course. The NHS has an appalling sickness record and as you say some people get paid the same for doing a lot less than others (don't know anyone on 8 weeks leave though). But my point was that when these essential workers are faced with not being able to pay the bills due to economic circumstances what do you think their attitude will be then? Stress/sickness leave will go through the roof and an already short staffed service will be decimated.
Can you answer the question or perhaps you don't have an answer
It is you who needs to answer the question san quentin as to why we cannot recruit enough nurses in this country despite you saying they earn good salaries.
It is you who needs to answer the question san quentin as to why we cannot recruit enough nurses in this country despite you saying they earn good salaries.
I can tell you what some people think about recruitment. To become a nurse now you have to go to college for 3 years and pass a lot of academic exams. Many young people are put off by this and their is quite a large attrition rate from the colleges. If they employed nurses at a career grade (i.e start them changing beds and cleaning wards etc and working their way up they would recruit a lot more. Obviously you can still have the college entrant.
Sparrow a worry I have is that the nursing qualifications from some areas abroad are far easier to attain than nursing qualifications here. Added to that the cost of living here when compared with the salary in training.
truehoncho,
You are spot on
Its not only nursing suffering from the absolutely stupid, over-fussy standards applied before people are given a job.
I am convinced it is mostly because those who do the recruiting are so scared of making an error they try to find the 'perfect' candidate far too much. There is rarely a perfect candidate.
I was a mainframe computer programmer many moons ago but started as a trainee computer operator on poor money. I learned as much as I could over three years before taking a test to see if I could make the grade as a programmer. I did and so I started at the bottom of that strand of IT employment.
Today, though, you have to show university degree level education, pass all kinds of daft personality tests, or go to college for christ know how long etc etc.
We would do much better starting some people at the bottom and letting them learn through experience.
Almost everything in the UK is broken at the moment. Too much liberalisim, too much debt and too little of the thing that made us the leading country in the world 150 years ago - COMMON SENSE.
You are spot on
Its not only nursing suffering from the absolutely stupid, over-fussy standards applied before people are given a job.
I am convinced it is mostly because those who do the recruiting are so scared of making an error they try to find the 'perfect' candidate far too much. There is rarely a perfect candidate.
I was a mainframe computer programmer many moons ago but started as a trainee computer operator on poor money. I learned as much as I could over three years before taking a test to see if I could make the grade as a programmer. I did and so I started at the bottom of that strand of IT employment.
Today, though, you have to show university degree level education, pass all kinds of daft personality tests, or go to college for christ know how long etc etc.
We would do much better starting some people at the bottom and letting them learn through experience.
Almost everything in the UK is broken at the moment. Too much liberalisim, too much debt and too little of the thing that made us the leading country in the world 150 years ago - COMMON SENSE.
I think that may well be the case brigust but I worry when our government voted against an increase for nurses in 2017 and previously withdrew their bursaries.
true honcho, iam sure I don't have to tell you as you will already be aware.
After 10years, 33days plus 8 public holidays =41 days in excess of 8 weeks, pro rata.
If infact you have not being getting this entitlement I suggest you make enquires to retrieve what is rightfully yours.
My point exactly honcho as you appear to be agreeing with a total remodeling of the NHS is urgently needed. You appear open to constructive debate to help the NHS and all who use or work in.
sparrow, do you have an answer or are you just another online forum troll, with no powers off reasonable adult educated debate? basically free speech which is the basis of our modern day society. Or can you only resort to being abusive, hence counter productive to any positive debate.
After 10years, 33days plus 8 public holidays =41 days in excess of 8 weeks, pro rata.
If infact you have not being getting this entitlement I suggest you make enquires to retrieve what is rightfully yours.
My point exactly honcho as you appear to be agreeing with a total remodeling of the NHS is urgently needed. You appear open to constructive debate to help the NHS and all who use or work in.
sparrow, do you have an answer or are you just another online forum troll, with no powers off reasonable adult educated debate? basically free speech which is the basis of our modern day society. Or can you only resort to being abusive, hence counter productive to any positive debate.
Sorry your original post looked like bank holidays + 8 weeks.
sparrow, do you have an answer or are you just another online forum troll, with no powers off reasonable adult educated debate? basically free speech which is the basis of our modern day society. Or can you only resort to being abusive, hence counter productive to any positive debate.
san quentin, you demand an answer from me yet flatly refuse to answer my question about nursing shortages. And where did I become abusive? You yourself are just another know all right wing extremist and I will waste no more time with you.
san quentin, you demand an answer from me yet flatly refuse to answer my question about nursing shortages. And where did I become abusive? You yourself are just another know all right wing extremist and I will waste no more time with you.
When it comes to the public being allowed on course again, I wonder if tracks will face an interesting problem?
Say we adopt the Irish rule of no more than 5000 at a track at any one time.
Many smaller tracks in the UK never seen 5000 in attendance at midweek fixtures but these same tracks also have a hard core of annual members.
Hence, they could follow the 5000 rule and just allow their annual members in, which would be fine.
BUT, that isn't as profitable as cooperate entertainment. Hence, they might first prefer the cooperate to their annual members. However, they cannot because annual members have already paid!
If they preferred cooperate and refunded annual members I'd bet they would lose most of the latter.
So, it might end up as a test of their loyalty to those of us who go racing all the time!
Say we adopt the Irish rule of no more than 5000 at a track at any one time.
Many smaller tracks in the UK never seen 5000 in attendance at midweek fixtures but these same tracks also have a hard core of annual members.
Hence, they could follow the 5000 rule and just allow their annual members in, which would be fine.
BUT, that isn't as profitable as cooperate entertainment. Hence, they might first prefer the cooperate to their annual members. However, they cannot because annual members have already paid!
If they preferred cooperate and refunded annual members I'd bet they would lose most of the latter.
So, it might end up as a test of their loyalty to those of us who go racing all the time!
I agree with that Sparrow but we were then in an open market, open-door policy and race to the bottom. Now I think we should concentrate more on quality. This has been a real awakening and it should be listened to.
Can't disagree with that brigust and hopefully we can see the NHS once again become something this country can be proud of as it always used to be.
sparrow. April 23 2020 12:13PM BST
"I should stick to defending people like Brian Wright, san quentin"
ABUSIVE and purely, clearly based on you'r prejudice and lack of knowledge and understanding the skill needed to enable one to have an adult educated debate.
"I should stick to defending people like Brian Wright, san quentin"
ABUSIVE and purely, clearly based on you'r prejudice and lack of knowledge and understanding the skill needed to enable one to have an adult educated debate.
sparrow i notice on many occasions you have a pop at the current conservative govt.out of interest do you think corbyn mc donnell and abbott would of made a better job of the current crisis .
23nights absolutely not.
That is why for the first time I did not vote Labour in the last election as those three and the people around them have ensured Johnson and the Tories have another 5 years.
That is why for the first time I did not vote Labour in the last election as those three and the people around them have ensured Johnson and the Tories have another 5 years.
one swallow doesnt make a summer but kier starmer came across well at pmqs yesterday it alwatys helps to have a decent opposition party to hold the govt to account.
Apr 23, 2020 -- 12:59PM, The Knight wrote:
When it comes to the public being allowed on course again, I wonder if tracks will face an interesting problem?Say we adopt the Irish rule of no more than 5000 at a track at any one time.Many smaller tracks in the UK never seen 5000 in attendance at midweek fixtures but these same tracks also have a hard core of annual members.Hence, they could follow the 5000 rule and just allow their annual members in, which would be fine.BUT, that isn't as profitable as cooperate entertainment. Hence, they might first prefer the cooperate to their annual members. However, they cannot because annual members have already paid!If they preferred cooperate and refunded annual members I'd bet they would lose most of the latter.So, it might end up as a test of their loyalty to those of us who go racing all the time!
I think the best system could be...
Annual members have to declare up to 2 weeks before whether they will be attending.
Get an exact number how many spare tickets there shall be.
Flog the rest to corporate?
If no takers Joe Public.
Suits the members in the long term, they will want the course to make the maximum possible amount surely?
Agreed 23nights. There was no effective opposition from Corbyn and it was left to people such as Yvette Cooper or the SNP leader in the commons to put any pressure on the government.
I think that a long period of social distancing has looked likely for some time , the only alternative is we go back to some kind of normality . With this we accept the risk to ourselves and in particular to our vulnerable and elderly friends, relatives and others.
The government very cowardly are allowing this concept to trickle out and become accepted rather than having the courage to state this in one of their 'Groundhog Day' tedious 5 pm bulletins with their tame journalists asking the same pathetic questions.
If racing is not going to go ahead perhaps for all of 2020 , owners will very soon decide not pay thousands of pounds a months for horses who are not allowed to race. This will of course lead to stables shutting.
We could have a scenario next year with the lead up to the classics with a generation who never ran as 2 year olds.
I don't think the government have any intention of allowing major sports to take place with or without fans for a very long time.
If they go bust ,so what , sport is not a priority to the 600 + MPs .
The government very cowardly are allowing this concept to trickle out and become accepted rather than having the courage to state this in one of their 'Groundhog Day' tedious 5 pm bulletins with their tame journalists asking the same pathetic questions.
If racing is not going to go ahead perhaps for all of 2020 , owners will very soon decide not pay thousands of pounds a months for horses who are not allowed to race. This will of course lead to stables shutting.
We could have a scenario next year with the lead up to the classics with a generation who never ran as 2 year olds.
I don't think the government have any intention of allowing major sports to take place with or without fans for a very long time.
If they go bust ,so what , sport is not a priority to the 600 + MPs .
Thats a bit doom and gloom sixtwosix. I don't think the politicians have much to do with it. I can't see the rich elite that own football clubs and racehorses tv channels etc to put up with it for too long.
I will be very surprised if anything like the current lockdown goes on much longer. Is it not the case that if you are white, under 55, not overweight and don't work in the NHS/care homes you are MOST UNLIKELY to die from this virus ? As said earlier the poll tax riots will be nothing to what could happen. Watch the US if some states reopen and others don't.
cheltenham will have to follow the same sort of draws as Wimbledon
if its an age problem and not catching it ,why would working in nhs/care home make a difference
once you've got it are you saying 2 35,yr olds one working in nhs and one in a call centre are at different risks from the virus,if so whats the evidence,
if not theres 3 million plus working in nhs,care sector,plus their family ,close friends ,that would be close on a quarter of the population
once you've got it are you saying 2 35,yr olds one working in nhs and one in a call centre are at different risks from the virus,if so whats the evidence,
if not theres 3 million plus working in nhs,care sector,plus their family ,close friends ,that would be close on a quarter of the population
Is it not the case that if you are white, under 55, not overweight and don't work in the NHS/care homes you are MOST UNLIKELY to die from this virus ?
But this type of individual can take this home or other social gatherings and infect their parents , grandparents and others with underlying issues.
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
But this type of individual can take this home or other social gatherings and infect their parents , grandparents and others with underlying issues.
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
Not sure where there is more scaremongering at present. The Betfair forum, or the daily bulletins from No 10. It’s a virus, a very nasty virus for a small percent of the population. Death rate is looking higher at present due to lack of testing, which would raise the number of infected substantially but also the numbers of those not dying, or even ending up in hospital from it. For some reason there has been other reasons than the deaths as to why the government want us all locked away. If they were genuinely as fearful of the doom and gloom scenarios painted by some so called “ experts” then we would have had a proper lockdown. No flights, no tubes, no trains. Staff that are absolutely essential put into temporary accommodation to avoid travel etc. Parks would have been closed, would have needed a reason to be in a car etc. That unlike in other countries has not happened, instead we are in the half in half out paralysis which is worse for everyone! The truth will out one day, just looks like it’s going to be a long way down the road.
I think there is no avoiding it sixtwosix. Unfortunately some people will have to decide on seeing family and friends and risking infection or not seeing them. Its tough thats for sure.
Agreed ,Honcho.
Risk potentially killing an elderly grandparent or them living in isolation other than through a window or computer screen.
A nauseating choice.
Risk potentially killing an elderly grandparent or them living in isolation other than through a window or computer screen.
A nauseating choice.
But this type of individual can take this home or other social gatherings and infect their parents , grandparents and others with underlying issues.
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
why not? at least this would be targetted, evidence based science, the arrogance and naivety of politicians thinking they can fine/jail millions of people MOST of whom will not catch the virus or have minor or manageable symptoms and can at least generate funds for the country which MUST be ploughed back into the health and social care system now and forever
we're surely all old enough to remember the rave culture, if this is a long hot summer, try stopping 1000s of folks congregating in city parks, beaches etc and having a few beers and a sing-dance along,,,not even maggie with her financially stimulated police numbers could quell the poll tax rebellion and the rebels were right then and probably now...when will a politician/professor come on one of these tedious briefings and be asked the straightforward question and give a straightforward answer to
how many lives are you prepared to put at risk from non-covid-19 factors to save those who may die from covid-19 factors and supplementary - is there a point when the economic cost of lockdown becomes too much to bear and if so what is that number - 50% GDP for 6 months, 10 million unemployed, 40% of forecast taxes raised etc etc
nicola has been fairly honest - although in my opinion misguided - so maybe stand a better chance of a response from her than raab/jenrick et al who are woefully out of their depths - and for prof ferguson to be most powerful person in UK at the moment is just plain wrong
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
why not? at least this would be targetted, evidence based science, the arrogance and naivety of politicians thinking they can fine/jail millions of people MOST of whom will not catch the virus or have minor or manageable symptoms and can at least generate funds for the country which MUST be ploughed back into the health and social care system now and forever
we're surely all old enough to remember the rave culture, if this is a long hot summer, try stopping 1000s of folks congregating in city parks, beaches etc and having a few beers and a sing-dance along,,,not even maggie with her financially stimulated police numbers could quell the poll tax rebellion and the rebels were right then and probably now...when will a politician/professor come on one of these tedious briefings and be asked the straightforward question and give a straightforward answer to
how many lives are you prepared to put at risk from non-covid-19 factors to save those who may die from covid-19 factors and supplementary - is there a point when the economic cost of lockdown becomes too much to bear and if so what is that number - 50% GDP for 6 months, 10 million unemployed, 40% of forecast taxes raised etc etc
nicola has been fairly honest - although in my opinion misguided - so maybe stand a better chance of a response from her than raab/jenrick et al who are woefully out of their depths - and for prof ferguson to be most powerful person in UK at the moment is just plain wrong
and for prof ferguson to be most powerful person in UK at the moment is just plain wrong --- you are so right. This guy thrives on media attention and couldn't give a hoot about facts. His initial assessment of 1/2 million dead was only exceeded in its stupidity by making it public and scaring the crap out of people. This guy has got a lot of form with bird flu etc and should be firmly behind th e scenes.
40,000 plus and counting under lockdown,doesnt suggest his 100,s of thousands by jogging on was a ridiculous estimate,imo
are you ferguson jr? latest john hopkins figures for UK 18,100 although we all know this is under-reported because despite ALL the evidence showing covid-19 is more dangerous for the elderly, the locations where lots of elderly are congregated in restricted spaces i.e. care homes, were criminally neglected by government - but I doubt it's 40k yet,
His estimate (which he revised real quick and nothing to do with lockdown) was premature and alarming. We are not even at 20k yet but who knows. Lockdown has had little or no proven effect on saving lives. The idea was it would flatten the curve (which it has) to allow the NHS to cope with demand. The numbers haven't got close to NHS capacity is there is no proof that they would have without lock. Still we will never know I suppose.
that's under a lockdown,how many deaths in London alone without a lockdown
I think but for lockdown the contraction rate will be higher meaning more will be admitted to hospital with Covid-19 symptoms with the likelihood of more will die as a result whether from underlying health conditions and/or exacerbated by Covid-19 symptoms. If I'm not wrong there's a already a link between densely populated areas with inhabitants living in close proximity and more cases of Covid-19 and higher death rates eg Croydon vs Surrey.
If they try to open up pubs whilst trying to adopt social distancing I do hope we get some video footage of it as watching this social experiment unfold while people are getting all the more pi55ed would provide some form of entertainment at least.
The Saturday night punch ups would be interesting under the new social distancing rules would be interesting.
The Saturday night punch ups would be interesting under the new social distancing rules would be interesting.
honcho I belive this policy of promoting from lower grades(domestics etc) in the 90's when there was a shortage then surprise suprise then we have to many nurses(money driven not vocation) on this band system which led sadly to a fair few incompetent nurses and now full circle as was clear would happen.
Now care homes where to we start with the snobbery off a certain amount of nursing staff that work for the NHS, but that's another story.
Stay safe true honcho and keep up the good work.
Now care homes where to we start with the snobbery off a certain amount of nursing staff that work for the NHS, but that's another story.
Stay safe true honcho and keep up the good work.
Impossible, it know it may sound contradictory but the lock won't stop anyone getting the virus unless you do it until a vaccine comes along. As soon as the lock down ends the virus will spread and those that didn't get it because of the lock down will get it then. This is a virus that went from 0 to pandemic in 3 months. Now the lock may have saved lives if the peak was above the NHS capacity so those that could have been saved didn't get treatment. If the vulnerable stay isolated they will protect themselves and the quicker this goes through the population the better (assuming after infection you are immune). So the lockdown could end up killing more people than it saves as it may keep the virus around for longer.
Agreed, vaccine aside, most are going to be exposed at some point, the lock down is to ensure the hospitals can cope which serves to save lives, the lock down isn't in place to lock people up and save lives by that singular act per se. We are all going in the same direction, we've just had a manageable funneling of people rather than a mad rush causing a bottle neck.
I do understand the lockdowm is merely a measure to contain the spread and assist the NHS, and once the lockdown is relaxed or suspended there would be an upsurge in cases and possibly higher death rates again. But, social distancing a must even after suspension of lockdown.
Two excellent posts by Gordon63 i agree fully with what you are saying. We are four weeks into this lockdown and if things are the same by end of June there will be civil unrest,especially if there is a spell of hot weather.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8250385/A-FIFTH-New-York-City-residents-tested-positive-coronavirus-antibodies-Cuomos-study.html
Worse than the flu? Ye fair enough, but locking the world down destroying the economies, for a virus with a mortality rate a fair bit below 1% (90% of that being people with underlying health conditions)
Worse than the flu? Ye fair enough, but locking the world down destroying the economies, for a virus with a mortality rate a fair bit below 1% (90% of that being people with underlying health conditions)
I agree, perhaps though those gathering for a sing and dance through the summer should sign a disclosure stating that should they get ill they'd have to accept being shoved to one side in favour of others who towed the line but were unfortunate to succomb, of course the song and dance merchants would be helping to spread and ironically prolonging it, so getting kicked to the back of the queue would only be fair I suppose.
I've always found those who were pushing early on about this virus being similar or even less dangerous as the flu as particularly strange. How long did the lock downs last to prevent the Flu hitting it's numbers.?
The point on the economy being shut down is a fair one on face value but even though the mortality rate is low there are still those that end up in hospitals and whatever the percentages are, they are still, as we've seen sufficient to knock over health systems and have us building emergency hospitals and lumping bodies into the backs of vans to be carted off....and that is why we are in lock down!!
I've always found those who were pushing early on about this virus being similar or even less dangerous as the flu as particularly strange. How long did the lock downs last to prevent the Flu hitting it's numbers.?
The point on the economy being shut down is a fair one on face value but even though the mortality rate is low there are still those that end up in hospitals and whatever the percentages are, they are still, as we've seen sufficient to knock over health systems and have us building emergency hospitals and lumping bodies into the backs of vans to be carted off....and that is why we are in lock down!!
duffy - i would have the same arguement about those who (recklessly) exceed the speed limit, drink too much alcohol, take too many drugs, rock climb, ski, abseil, trampoline, fall off ladders, etc etc - they are all a drain on the NHS
I get that action was required to 'flatten the curve' HOWEVER how long will it take the politicians/experts to see that the real evidence shows FAR more people (potentially millions globally) will perish from the measures to contain covid-19 than those whose SOLE reason for dying is the virus itself - as I wrote earlier what Nicola said yesterday (although she mentioned uncertainty a few times she seemed fairly certain in her policies unfortunately) will put the 2008 financial crisis in the shade and we all know austerity has led to many preventable deaths in past decade, but that's only the tip of the iceberg, how many cancer patients have seen their chemo or radiotherapy treatments curtailed or just plain stopped, how many potential stroke victims are not going to A&E, how many people are dying at home because they can't see a doctor or get to hospital in time and MANY of these cases are of working age i.e. capable of generating tax income for the government which will be desperately needed in the coming years and what about the 1000s of businesses which will NEVER re-open...
whilst true that each fatality is a challenge for the immediate family/friends, death is the one certainty in life and I feel the UK govt and others are playing russian roulette and history will show the chambers were all loaded!!!
and last word from me on this (promise) - does anyone really believe the numbers from China?? come on there is something far more sinister going on here than the 'elite' want us to know....another piece of tinder for the civil unrest coming unless the approach changes soon or at very least someone has the real leadership/courage to say exactly what it will take - in measurable terms - to move forward from this 'lockdown' where there are still international flights arriving in UK each day...bloody fools
I get that action was required to 'flatten the curve' HOWEVER how long will it take the politicians/experts to see that the real evidence shows FAR more people (potentially millions globally) will perish from the measures to contain covid-19 than those whose SOLE reason for dying is the virus itself - as I wrote earlier what Nicola said yesterday (although she mentioned uncertainty a few times she seemed fairly certain in her policies unfortunately) will put the 2008 financial crisis in the shade and we all know austerity has led to many preventable deaths in past decade, but that's only the tip of the iceberg, how many cancer patients have seen their chemo or radiotherapy treatments curtailed or just plain stopped, how many potential stroke victims are not going to A&E, how many people are dying at home because they can't see a doctor or get to hospital in time and MANY of these cases are of working age i.e. capable of generating tax income for the government which will be desperately needed in the coming years and what about the 1000s of businesses which will NEVER re-open...
whilst true that each fatality is a challenge for the immediate family/friends, death is the one certainty in life and I feel the UK govt and others are playing russian roulette and history will show the chambers were all loaded!!!
and last word from me on this (promise) - does anyone really believe the numbers from China?? come on there is something far more sinister going on here than the 'elite' want us to know....another piece of tinder for the civil unrest coming unless the approach changes soon or at very least someone has the real leadership/courage to say exactly what it will take - in measurable terms - to move forward from this 'lockdown' where there are still international flights arriving in UK each day...bloody fools
Air China Boeing 777-39L(ER) currently over the North Sea en route to Heathrow from Shanghai. Another flight due to land this afternoon from Beijing, another due to land at Heathrow at 4:08 from Shanghai, one from Beijing lands at 5:43, another tonight from Qingdao, Shandong Province.
Presume nobody is getting off these planes. Just cargo. Or have we learned absolutely nothing ?
Presume nobody is getting off these planes. Just cargo. Or have we learned absolutely nothing ?
I don't believe any government would go down this road unless the models they have tested show a complete disaster. There is enough information and there are top scientists and doctors working together looking at models showing what would happen if we went down Route A or Route B.
There is no doubt in my mind that damage done to our economy looks very bad, long-lasting and serious so, for that reason, I believe the results produced by the scientists and the doctors of allowing this virus to have it's head are absolutely catastrophic to the whole country and possibly the world. Shutting virtually the whole world down could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Just imagine what could happen if they hadn't taken this action?
I believe they have zero control over the spread of this deadly virus and if it is allowed to grow stronger and mutate who knows where that could lead?
We need to wait for a vaccine.
There is no doubt in my mind that damage done to our economy looks very bad, long-lasting and serious so, for that reason, I believe the results produced by the scientists and the doctors of allowing this virus to have it's head are absolutely catastrophic to the whole country and possibly the world. Shutting virtually the whole world down could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Just imagine what could happen if they hadn't taken this action?
I believe they have zero control over the spread of this deadly virus and if it is allowed to grow stronger and mutate who knows where that could lead?
We need to wait for a vaccine.
saw some stats the other day for every 1 "coronavirus death" [officially] there have been approx 100 deaths worldwide due to hunger
food for thought
food for thought
The vaccine solution is at best 6 months off (and probably longer if experts are believed).My hope is that treatment of the virus develops to such a degree that governments will feel comfortable with policy to allow everybody back to a semblance of normality and acceptable mortality rates.Its going to be a difficult moral dilemma-economy over mortality.
Isn't the problem though, not the mortality rate, most people publicly or privately would "accept" that, we are not in lock down because of the mortality rate. We are in lock down because the nature of the illness causes so many people to end up in hospital for a long period of time, we can't cope with that process and the only way to counter that it seems is a lock down.
We could have had another scenario that might have seen a higher mortality rate but such was the illness the effect of it had you dying or getting better in a short period of time which in turn kept the people flowing more freely through the hospitals, that would mean you didn't need to have a lock down as things were more fluid.
We can't even provide enough tests and basic PPE during a lock down, what chance do we have if everything was allowed free roam.
So as I said, IMO, it's not the death rate it's the system collapsing that causes the lock down and you just won't physically be able to carry on as normal and open up if that is happening.
We could have had another scenario that might have seen a higher mortality rate but such was the illness the effect of it had you dying or getting better in a short period of time which in turn kept the people flowing more freely through the hospitals, that would mean you didn't need to have a lock down as things were more fluid.
We can't even provide enough tests and basic PPE during a lock down, what chance do we have if everything was allowed free roam.
So as I said, IMO, it's not the death rate it's the system collapsing that causes the lock down and you just won't physically be able to carry on as normal and open up if that is happening.
There are certainly more people and vehicles on the road. But, I do hope as many as previously will be observing this present lockdown to help the NHS.
Is it not the case that if you are white, under 55, not overweight and don't work in the NHS/care homes you are MOST UNLIKELY to die from this virus ?
( reply to me ) But this type of individual can take this home or other social gatherings and infect their parents , grandparents and others with underlying issues.
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
Yes I suppose you could say it's the groups that are most likely to die are the ones that should isolate. Elderly /sick /diabetes and other serious health issues. But what they will be reluctant to mention is that overweight people should remain in isolation until they get their weight right down. Trouble is many people are probably putting on weight now !
( reply to me ) But this type of individual can take this home or other social gatherings and infect their parents , grandparents and others with underlying issues.
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
Yes I suppose you could say it's the groups that are most likely to die are the ones that should isolate. Elderly /sick /diabetes and other serious health issues. But what they will be reluctant to mention is that overweight people should remain in isolation until they get their weight right down. Trouble is many people are probably putting on weight now !
Interesting debate but the repeated mention of a vaccine is worth thinking about.
I was shocked to learn on Thursday what the vaccine trials in Oxford that had just began actually involved.
Half the volunteers are given a vaccine for something else and half for CV19. OK, so far.
But, and I really hope I've got this wrong, we then wait to see how many of each group actually develop CV19! The obvious problem seems to be that unless the amount of those being trialled is enormous, the chances are none of them will contract the virus anyway.
Hence, you keep on injecting groups of people a described until you have done enough people to say, statistically, a certain number should have contracted the virus and haven't, so therefore the vaccine works.
No wonder it takes so long and it raises the question of whether volunteers should be given the vaccine and then, a couple of weeks later, deliberately infected with the virus. If they don't get the disease then the virus could be said to have worked.
BUT, it is not thought ethical to give deliberately given someone the virus because there is no known cure for it.
Understandable, but surely a bit more practicality and a bit less moralising is called for.
I am pretty sure that people from all age groups could easily be found as volunteers to be given the vaccine and then the virus if the financial rewards were high enough - and if they were promised top class care and treatment if the vaccine didn't work and they became seriously ill.
After the government has just allocated nearly £50 million for vaccine research, so pay a few people £5 million each to be volunteers in the manner I describe and we would soon know whether we had a vaccine or not. And, chances are the volunteers would survive but with £5 million for their trouble.
This might sound awful to some but the modern world get so far up its own backside over so many things, we need some more practical ideas.
I was shocked to learn on Thursday what the vaccine trials in Oxford that had just began actually involved.
Half the volunteers are given a vaccine for something else and half for CV19. OK, so far.
But, and I really hope I've got this wrong, we then wait to see how many of each group actually develop CV19! The obvious problem seems to be that unless the amount of those being trialled is enormous, the chances are none of them will contract the virus anyway.
Hence, you keep on injecting groups of people a described until you have done enough people to say, statistically, a certain number should have contracted the virus and haven't, so therefore the vaccine works.
No wonder it takes so long and it raises the question of whether volunteers should be given the vaccine and then, a couple of weeks later, deliberately infected with the virus. If they don't get the disease then the virus could be said to have worked.
BUT, it is not thought ethical to give deliberately given someone the virus because there is no known cure for it.
Understandable, but surely a bit more practicality and a bit less moralising is called for.
I am pretty sure that people from all age groups could easily be found as volunteers to be given the vaccine and then the virus if the financial rewards were high enough - and if they were promised top class care and treatment if the vaccine didn't work and they became seriously ill.
After the government has just allocated nearly £50 million for vaccine research, so pay a few people £5 million each to be volunteers in the manner I describe and we would soon know whether we had a vaccine or not. And, chances are the volunteers would survive but with £5 million for their trouble.
This might sound awful to some but the modern world get so far up its own backside over so many things, we need some more practical ideas.
^^
I'd be the 1st to volunteer for that kind of money.
I'd be the 1st to volunteer for that kind of money.
Would it not be better, if what you say is true, to wait until someone tests positive as having the virus then offer it to their nearest and dearest. Then, if they accept the vaccine, watch to see if they catch the virus and recover from it etc.?
I will take a chance as well put me down as volunteer number two.
Maybe we need a bit of reverse auctioning,I ll do it for £2m.
Don’t be doing that barrowboy the government is throwing fortunes around we might as well get 5 for our troubles.
£5m for a problemo that's costing the world several £ trillions is a small price even for a betting person or than 1/1000th of one percent.
brigust,
The vaccine won't cure anyone of the virus who already has it.
And your idea about giving the vaccine to someone who is close to somebody who has already got it would prove nothing.
If the vaccinated person did not get the virus you would not know whether they had remained virus free because of the vaccine or if they would have done so anyway!
The only short cut to seeing if the vaccine works is to give it to someone, let their system react to it, and then deliberately infect them (if that is possible, I don't know).
I'm glad there are some volunteers out there for the £5 million already - and I'm glad one or two realise that a few hundred million in £5 million lumps would be a fraction of what this is costing world economies.
But the difficult part of my idea - aside from the moralising and hand-wringing - would be finding volunteers from the vulnerable groups. It is all very well half a dozen fit twenty-year olds volunteering but a vaccine has to work for everyone. Hence, we would need old people, asthmatics and others who have weakened immune systems.
Not to say it couldn't be done but someone would certainly die from taking part in this idea. The moaning and drama over that would be enormous and so that is what will stop my idea in its tracks in the modern, extremely soft, world.
The vaccine won't cure anyone of the virus who already has it.
And your idea about giving the vaccine to someone who is close to somebody who has already got it would prove nothing.
If the vaccinated person did not get the virus you would not know whether they had remained virus free because of the vaccine or if they would have done so anyway!
The only short cut to seeing if the vaccine works is to give it to someone, let their system react to it, and then deliberately infect them (if that is possible, I don't know).
I'm glad there are some volunteers out there for the £5 million already - and I'm glad one or two realise that a few hundred million in £5 million lumps would be a fraction of what this is costing world economies.
But the difficult part of my idea - aside from the moralising and hand-wringing - would be finding volunteers from the vulnerable groups. It is all very well half a dozen fit twenty-year olds volunteering but a vaccine has to work for everyone. Hence, we would need old people, asthmatics and others who have weakened immune systems.
Not to say it couldn't be done but someone would certainly die from taking part in this idea. The moaning and drama over that would be enormous and so that is what will stop my idea in its tracks in the modern, extremely soft, world.
I'm sure for that amount there will be takers from all walks of life and demographic. Money talks.
not going to give you £50 million when those romanian fruit pickers will do it for a fiver ....
Agree with most of that Knighty. but be assured that if this country is too delicate to deliberately infect people to test the vaccine, there will be 2 or 3 other countries in the far east that'll be happy to oblige, and probably are already doing so..
listening to atr derby ,oaks will be run after closed doors ascot,ascot happens in june or doesn't happen,derby,oaks in july
I disagree with that The Knight.
There will be figures that tell them what the risk of contamination is to those closest to the confirmed carrier. Treating everyone in that group would very quickly tell us if the vaccine prevents the spread. If no-one of the at-risk group registers as carrying Cov19 after a certain period of time then the certainty is that the vaccine is working. It would tell us whether or not the vaccine works in very quick time and at no extra cost.
There will be figures that tell them what the risk of contamination is to those closest to the confirmed carrier. Treating everyone in that group would very quickly tell us if the vaccine prevents the spread. If no-one of the at-risk group registers as carrying Cov19 after a certain period of time then the certainty is that the vaccine is working. It would tell us whether or not the vaccine works in very quick time and at no extra cost.
brigust1
Nope. In the end, you are still talking about 'the risk' to those closest to the carrier.
That would be too narrow a model unless you involved a very large number of groups close to a carrier. You would also have to ensure the group did not contain any family members of the carrier just in case the generic make up of a particular family is distorting the trial. So, an increased number of factors that could mask the results.
Monetary cost is no longer a factor now. No cost is going to be as great as that of continually wrecking the world's economies. Hence, you need the model which gives the most degree of certainity in what is an uncertain business anyway.
Nope. In the end, you are still talking about 'the risk' to those closest to the carrier.
That would be too narrow a model unless you involved a very large number of groups close to a carrier. You would also have to ensure the group did not contain any family members of the carrier just in case the generic make up of a particular family is distorting the trial. So, an increased number of factors that could mask the results.
Monetary cost is no longer a factor now. No cost is going to be as great as that of continually wrecking the world's economies. Hence, you need the model which gives the most degree of certainity in what is an uncertain business anyway.
fairweather,
Yes, I wonder about that all the time.
The irony will come if a country elsewhere hits upon a vaccine in the way I have described and then the more 'sophisticated' countries reject it because they didn't / don't approve of the testing methods.
It irritates me that so many are so pious over the more 'callous' ways a vaccine test could be carried out. That piety will not last if this virus doesn't soon come under control!
Social distancing has obviously worked according to the models but it remains a pretty crude way of doing things - even more so when it is considered we got men on the bl**dy moon over fifty years ago.
Yes, I wonder about that all the time.
The irony will come if a country elsewhere hits upon a vaccine in the way I have described and then the more 'sophisticated' countries reject it because they didn't / don't approve of the testing methods.
It irritates me that so many are so pious over the more 'callous' ways a vaccine test could be carried out. That piety will not last if this virus doesn't soon come under control!
Social distancing has obviously worked according to the models but it remains a pretty crude way of doing things - even more so when it is considered we got men on the bl**dy moon over fifty years ago.
any ideas when theyre hoping to run the 1000/2000 gns, the french running theirs mon 1st june
I think early part of June too and the Derby and Oaks about a month later. Royal Ascot will remain the same, but behind closed doors.
IS IT ME OR ARE MORE PEOPLE OUT AND ABOUT, CERTAINLY SEEMS SO TO ME.
THINK THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE ARE STARTING TO MINGLE, FED UP OF IT.
CapS lOcK soz
THINK THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE ARE STARTING TO MINGLE, FED UP OF IT.
CapS lOcK soz
Me and mrs 1985 are staying in doing as we should, but can hear a big bbq in one of the gardens up the road.
Lots more peeps going to the shop than there was 2 weeks ago.
Lockdown is creaking im afraid
Lots more peeps going to the shop than there was 2 weeks ago.
Lockdown is creaking im afraid
we might get some right fun and ga=mes,boycie said even if tracing for nothing we need to no who the top 3 yr olds are,ok for the top few but if theres no decent prize money about and you've got a top 10,20,30 horse you might as well avoid AOB,ETC and line a gamble or 2 up tp pay the bills, 
I think you are completely wrong The Knight. Where do you think the new sufferers will come from? They will come from being in touch with existing carriers. They won't just come out of the blue.
Now they have upped the testing to everyone then, when they have a vaccine, every person tested as having Cov 19 should tell those they have been in touch with to get vaccinated. Providing these groups get vaccinated immediately the spread will be halted in it's tracks.
This silly idea of vaccinating people then infecting them is just that. silly.
Now they have upped the testing to everyone then, when they have a vaccine, every person tested as having Cov 19 should tell those they have been in touch with to get vaccinated. Providing these groups get vaccinated immediately the spread will be halted in it's tracks.
This silly idea of vaccinating people then infecting them is just that. silly.
Apr 26, 2020 -- 3:05PM, Burkey1885 wrote:
Me and mrs 1985 are staying in doing as we should, but can hear a big bbq in one of the gardens up the road.Lots more peeps going to the shop than there was 2 weeks ago.Lockdown is creaking im afraid
1885?
I pranced aroung racecourses picking up the good looking women, even if they had husbands with them was easy. A simply look in the eye of a****. Myballs are needing racing to be back on again.
when the lockdown is lifted i can fly to china, wander round every manky wet market going - dirtier the better - drink a few pints of bat soup and eat some random animals. catch covid-19, 20, 21 and 22. then fly straight back to heathrow, walk into the country through the e-passport gate no questions asked and I'm back at my desk monday morning. 2 weeks later 800 people a day are dying. madness.
Apr 26, 2020 -- 4:37PM, hulk23 wrote:
when the lockdown is lifted i can fly to china, wander round every manky wet market going - dirtier the better - drink a few pints of bat soup and eat some random animals.
Doesn't matter. Inferior individuals, especially Chinese, are forgiven.
But this type of individual can take this home or other social gatherings and infect their parents , grandparents and others with underlying issues.
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
why not? at least this would be targetted, evidence based science, the arrogance and naivety of politicians thinking they can fine/jail millions of people MOST of whom will not catch the virus or have minor or manageable symptoms and can at least generate funds for the country which MUST be ploughed back into the health and social care system now and forever
we're surely all old enough to remember the rave culture, if this is a long hot summer, try stopping 1000s of folks congregating in city parks, beaches etc and having a few beers and a sing-dance along,,,not even maggie with her financially stimulated police numbers could quell the poll tax rebellion and the rebels were right then and probably now...when will a politician/professor come on one of these tedious briefings and be asked the straightforward question and give a straightforward answer to
how many lives are you prepared to put at risk from non-covid-19 factors to save those who may die from covid-19 factors and supplementary - is there a point when the economic cost of lockdown becomes too much to bear and if so what is that number - 50% GDP for 6 months, 10 million unemployed, 40% of forecast taxes raised etc etc
nicola has been fairly honest - although in my opinion misguided - so maybe stand a better chance of a response from her than raab/jenrick et al who are woefully out of their depths - and for prof ferguson to be most powerful person in UK at the moment is just plain wrong
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52902984
Or are they to remain behind a glass case in this version of normal life ?
why not? at least this would be targetted, evidence based science, the arrogance and naivety of politicians thinking they can fine/jail millions of people MOST of whom will not catch the virus or have minor or manageable symptoms and can at least generate funds for the country which MUST be ploughed back into the health and social care system now and forever
we're surely all old enough to remember the rave culture, if this is a long hot summer, try stopping 1000s of folks congregating in city parks, beaches etc and having a few beers and a sing-dance along,,,not even maggie with her financially stimulated police numbers could quell the poll tax rebellion and the rebels were right then and probably now...when will a politician/professor come on one of these tedious briefings and be asked the straightforward question and give a straightforward answer to
how many lives are you prepared to put at risk from non-covid-19 factors to save those who may die from covid-19 factors and supplementary - is there a point when the economic cost of lockdown becomes too much to bear and if so what is that number - 50% GDP for 6 months, 10 million unemployed, 40% of forecast taxes raised etc etc
nicola has been fairly honest - although in my opinion misguided - so maybe stand a better chance of a response from her than raab/jenrick et al who are woefully out of their depths - and for prof ferguson to be most powerful person in UK at the moment is just plain wrong
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52902984
brigus:
The idea of vaccinating people and then exposing them to the virus is so 'silly' as you put it, that 'challenger' trials (as it is called) where they do exactly as I said started in the US and China two weeks ago. Trawl the internet and you will find out about them.
But the problem with them is that the people you have vaccinated have to actually then catch the virus and, as yet, there is no certain way of having them do so.
Like quite a few on here, you clearly don't appreciate that money and commerce ALWAYS comes first in today's world. Anything that can be done to bring the world back to pre-COVID will be done. And that, rightly or wrongly, will often come in front of preserving individual lives.
But it must also be noted that the vaccine trials in Oxford look to be stuttering because the rate of infection is slowing so quickly they will run out of people to test anything on.
The idea of vaccinating people and then exposing them to the virus is so 'silly' as you put it, that 'challenger' trials (as it is called) where they do exactly as I said started in the US and China two weeks ago. Trawl the internet and you will find out about them.
But the problem with them is that the people you have vaccinated have to actually then catch the virus and, as yet, there is no certain way of having them do so.
Like quite a few on here, you clearly don't appreciate that money and commerce ALWAYS comes first in today's world. Anything that can be done to bring the world back to pre-COVID will be done. And that, rightly or wrongly, will often come in front of preserving individual lives.
But it must also be noted that the vaccine trials in Oxford look to be stuttering because the rate of infection is slowing so quickly they will run out of people to test anything on.
You are right Knight. The rate of infection is plummeting just like any other flu season. If there was no social media and mainstream propaganda this virus would have come and gone by now and no one would have noticed. It is the economy that supports 7 billion people on the planet and the repercussions of this huge error in policy will be felt for some years.
Without some economic activity, what would pay for the NHS?
They will have Sir Tom walking up and down his garden it worked last time.
re-reading this to check on my position at the start of the pandemic - whilst right on several aspects, I clearly did not foresee three critical elements:-
a) the willingness of the public to follow rules - most of them well meaning but all of them ill thought out
b) the furlough scheme - owning the Bank of England and borrowing from that very same bank seems financial trickery but it's what governments do, however the piper will have to be paid at some point
c) the global science community (for which we should all be grateful) pulled a Flemish Giant out of a top hat and identified and qualified a number of effective vaccines, now if only self-righteous politicians would allow the manufacturing supply chains to do their business we could accelerate the programme
a) the willingness of the public to follow rules - most of them well meaning but all of them ill thought out
b) the furlough scheme - owning the Bank of England and borrowing from that very same bank seems financial trickery but it's what governments do, however the piper will have to be paid at some point
c) the global science community (for which we should all be grateful) pulled a Flemish Giant out of a top hat and identified and qualified a number of effective vaccines, now if only self-righteous politicians would allow the manufacturing supply chains to do their business we could accelerate the programme
Apr 23, 2020 -- 8:45AM, foxy wrote:
These scientists would have us all in the house forever.what a bundle of fun they are !
Seems they're intent on reducing the risks to as close to 0% as possible. It'll be 2051 by then.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539