Is the fix now worse than the problem?

[PeterWilton]

Quit with the ******** turtle.

My comments were aimed more at the people who fraudulently claimed last time round which will cost people a lot more going forward.

In true turtle fashion though, with you getting the Trump thread closed you will now turn this into a thread for polishing your halo and trying to make others look in the wrong with your holier than thou internet etiquette.

Why are you so angry at such an unobjectionable reply?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Why are you so angry at such an unobjectionable reply?

Not angry in the slightest, this is what you do though. Probably also why you are on about your 5th username.

On the plus side, it won't be long til you need a 6th

[Devils_Advocate]

Is this the paper by Dr Johnny Bananas or is this the one supported by a long list of highly respected medical and scientific experts Combat?

[PeterWilton]

Not angry in the slightest, this is what you do though. Probably also why you are on about your 5th username.

On the plus side, it won't be long til you need a 6th

Just stop being so angry, and don't "aim" comments at people as if you detest them (I'm not saying you do, it just looks like you do) . We can have a civil conversation about this without your anger and without people trying to derail the discussion by trying to make it about specific forum users.

Just calm down, OK. We can talk like adults here.

[dsr]

Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID.

Some of those arguments are valid, but the one about there being no evidence that it gives lasting protective immunity isn't one of them. Our entire policy at present is that we are looking for short term solutions while waiting for a vaccine. To say that a solution is only short term is no grounds for rejecting it. We know for sure that catching the virus provides short term immunity.

[Murger]

TurtleHead, UTC version of James O'Brien. Tries to tie people in knots with copious amounts of bullshit and whataboutary.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Just stop being so angry, and don't "aim" comments at people as if you detest them. We can have a civil conversation about this without your anger and without people trying to derail the discussion by trying to make it about specific forum users.

Just calm down, OK. We can talk like adults here.

Irony

[CombatClaret]

Is this the paper by Dr Johnny Bananas or is this the one supported by a long list of highly respected medical and scientific experts Combat?

Surprisingly it's the one supported by a long list of highly respected medical and scientific experts and published in the world's oldest and best-known general medical journal.

[CombatClaret]

Some of those arguments are valid, but the one about there being no evidence that it gives lasting protective immunity isn't one of them. Our entire policy at present is that we are looking for short term solutions while waiting for a vaccine. To say that a solution is only short term is no grounds for rejecting it. We know for sure that catching the virus provides short term immunity.

I agree in principal that the proven short term immunity help us, but it is not a tool we should should deliberately use, ie letting everyone get the virus so they get this short term immunity. The lancet article is a direct response to dangerous and unscientific idea of using herd immunity as the primary method of solving the crisis. But It is neither a short or long term solution.

[PeterWilton]

Irony

I still don't understand what it was that I said that upset you so much but that's OK. Maybe you're just having a bad morning. God knows we've all had bad mornings this year.

If you ever want to talk about anything I say in future please don't feel like your outburst this morning will mean I'll reject your ideas or cloud my judgement of you or any ideas you want to share.
And if there is any way I can alter how I express my opinions on here in a way that will make you feel safer and less threatened then please communicate this with me and I'll be happy to try and accommodate you.

[bfcmik]

Opportunity to take part in a vaccine beta trial (stage 2&3): https://www.synexusclinic.co.uk/trials/ ... cSu376hGMM

[PeterWilton]

Problem for you charlie is that you aren't clever enough to be patronising. I still allow myself to smile at you being the big man while thinking of you getting put on your arse by someone of the forum for being a dick, again if you were smart you would learn a lesson.

If I found myself being banned from here I would accept I had been a dick and move on. I wouldn't have multiple usernames to continue being a dick.

Thank you for your kind offer but if in life I ever found myself needing an internet troll to help me with anything I would give up on life itself. Shame you didn't quit the forum as easy as you quit the army.

I think the issue you're having is that you think I'm someone else. This would be amusing to me were it not clear that this belief is causing you some serious distress.

I think the best thing for your health, and my conscience, would be if I stopped engaging with you. And might I advise you to stop replying or even reading my posts since it's clear that they seem to be harmful to your wellbeing, and that is absolutely not my intent. I just want to share ideas and opinions. I don't want to be a toxic influence on anyone here.

Take care of yourself.

[Corky]

But it’s more deadly than flu. Once we have a vaccine we should be able to manage it but until then we need to take other measures.

This might surprise you but I was actually aware of how deadly C19 is and that is why I said we do need to take measures. You might have missed that bit of my post. Perhaps you would like to hazard a guess as to when a vaccine is likely to become available, a month, a year, 10 years. Therein lies the problem. To which, sadly, none of us have a real answer.

[AndrewJB]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssion=true

The interconnectedness of it all is such a coincidence, anyone could be forgiven for wondering whether they were all working together to fleece the country.

[UnderSeige]

What happens next?

Its not a case of Covid or Cancer. We need to find a balance. We need to protect the vulnerable but in a way that also protects the non vulnerable.

We need more stats. More evidence on who are the most at risk groups. What are the stats for people outside of these groups. And allow people (including those at risk) some ability to make their own (reasonable) decisions and take their own (reasonable) risks.

The virus is clearly still here and clearly still a risk. There are no easy answers. Its about finding the least worse balance.

Hi Cricketfield.
I think the government have got it 'about right' at the moment albeit confusing the hell out of everyone in the process. Wales have gone too far. However, I believe that there will come a time in the 'not to distant future' where most of the cases will be 'not good to have' but 'not life threatening'. At that point, restrictions need to start to be lifted - cautiously and gradually.

I don't think that you can call a disease a pandemic unless you have exponential growth in mortalities and 'serious cases' across the country. At the moment, mortalities are rising and need to be watched in case they become exponential. However mortalities are currently low in relation to both 'Daily Cases' and 'mortality rates' in April. They are also mainly localised.

The current restrictions are allowing school and University students to continue their education. At the same time many of them are catching SARS-COV2 and feeling weak for a few days with a temperature and weakness. Following this 99.9% are immune. Similarly in work places. The virus looks to be moving through this 'Y group' (group who can catch the virus for a short time but who's T-Cells quickly overcome it). I think that the government have got this right.

The other restrictions (masks,distancing, protecting the elderly etc) are keeping mortalities relatively low and limiting the rapid growth of the virus - thus protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed. Could it be that the government have finally got to grips with things? 'Accidental genius' or 'deliberate controlled sensible way forward to the end of the pandemic'? Time will tell.

One thing to add. I think that we are a lot closer to end of the pandemic than the start of it.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I think it's mostly people who aren't vulnerable with strong immunity who have adopted that mindset, the 50/60 year old man/woman with COPD ect aren't even factored.

That’s not really true either. Most are looking for a sensible balance. Especially as someone who is close to more than one person in that category and worse.

[UnderSeige]

Problem for you charlie is that you aren't clever enough to be patronising. I still allow myself to smile at you being the big man while thinking of you getting put on your arse by someone of the forum for being a dick, again if you were smart you would learn a lesson.

If I found myself being banned from here I would accept I had been a dick and move on. I wouldn't have multiple usernames to continue being a dick.

Thank you for your kind offer but if in life I ever found myself needing an internet troll to help me with anything I would give up on life itself. Shame you didn't quit the forum as easy as you quit the army.

You shouldn't be insulting one another. It's not that important that you disagree in a debate. Now is a time in which everyone should be sticking together and encouraging one another.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Sweden’s cases are on the rise again.

Compare Sweden’s death rate with neighbouring Scandinavian countries and tell me their approach was better!

They look to have peaked already again with far lower death to case ratio. And without the extreme measures that have wreaked havoc here with other critical care and economic destruction.

[cricketfieldclarets]

We suffered over forty thousand deaths with the lockdown. How many more would have died without it? Even after a lockdown and slow reopening, the numbers are rising again - so much so parts of the country are locking down again. Your argument would be laughable, we’re it not for the significantly higher death toll that would have accompanied it; that you seem bizarrely relaxed about contemplating. And for what? Do you not think that with people getting ill and dying a lot more frequently, the rest of us wouldn’t panic and shut down the economy by our own actions? You’re trumpeting the ideology of a rich libertarian American, who has sponsored this idea.

And my analogy is fine thanks. Tobacco companies hired medical people and did research to play down the negative effects of smoking. Oil companies have done the same with climate change. And now billionaire right wingers are (and have been from the beginning) getting medical people to say Covid isn’t too bad. It’s a playbook, and in each case the preponderance of experts and evidence refute them.

If lockdowns are so effective what are we doing it for again if the first one worked so well? And how do we get out of the hokey kokey lockdown?

[UnderSeige]

I met with a teacher yesterday. He has been working from home on and off pretty much since the schools returned.

The madness of one kid testing positive and the whole class isolating for two weeks means it only takes 15 kids at different times to be exposed to the virus to have 30 weeks of no classroom teaching.

Possibly isolate the one kid and inform the parents what as happened (text or e-mail). Then continue the class and allow each parent to choose whether their child attends or not.

[cricketfieldclarets]

But now it’s mainly people who are 30 or 40 who are hospitals, as it spreads it will take in in other age groups.

Where is the evidence to back that up?

[Colburn_Claret]

All the nightingale are is space to put people. Creating space is the easy bit. Finding the thousands of medical professionals to staff them is the real issue.


A couple of weeks ago Boris said “the nightingales are being prep and will be ready to go. It will be up the local hospitals how they are used”. Smart move Boris. Clearly you have no idea how they can be used without anyone to staff them, so shift that impossible conundrum to the NHS.

Why is there no one to staff them. Hospitals would only be accepting Covid cases and emergencies only. All the staff that carry out the day case, non emergency duties will be sat there twiddling their thumbs.

[martin_p]

This might surprise you but I was actually aware of how deadly C19 is and that is why I said we do need to take measures. You might have missed that bit of my post. Perhaps you would like to hazard a guess as to when a vaccine is likely to become available, a month, a year, 10 years. Therein lies the problem. To which, sadly, none of us have a real answer.

I’ll hazard a guess based on what the scientists are saying, there’s likely to be something by the spring.

[Colburn_Claret]

Possibly isolate the one kid and inform the parents what as happened (text or e-mail). Then continue the class and allow each parent to choose whether their child attends or not.

Better still, let them go to school anyway, and let the other kids and teacher catch it. So long as they don't live with anyone who is shielding or contact anyone who is shielding, what difference does it make

[PeterWilton]

If lockdowns are so effective what are we doing it for again if the first one worked so well? And how do we get out of the hokey kokey lockdown?

To flatten the curve and keep hospital admissions within capacity. If you think the deaths from the first wave was bad imagine how bad a second wave will be if we let the NHS get so overwhelmed that people were deliberately left to die simply because there wasn't a bed for them, or a ventilator, or an uninfected nurse to administer treatment.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Re the OP

On one hand there are over 100,000 early deaths because of the lockdown (not all died yet, but will). Then there are all the kids suffering with schooling and the loss of their innocence, with a likely mental health crisis. Then we have the economic damage for all of us to bear, even those still in jobs and businesses.

On the other hand we have long covid affecting hundreds of thousands of people, in addition to the 50,000+ deaths, and the sufferers would be in the millions if we let it rip, doing untold damage to our NHS and to our economy / long term productivity, not to mention quality of life.

It’s the ultimate definition of a no win situation. No leader in their right mind would choose to serve during this. Its thankless, and impossible to get perfectly right.

Is the cure worse than the disease? Quite possibly. I do worry a lot about the above stuff. We haven’t got it right. But the failings in our state and civil service that some of us have been on about for years has made it impossible to get it right. At least we will have woken up now and be in better shape for the rest of the century.

Pretty much my point. It’s about the least worse choices right now. There are no simple or easy ones. But as it stands it seems like the strategy is so poorly planned that we end up with the worse of both

[mealdeal]

I agree in principal that the proven short term immunity help us, but it is not a tool we should should deliberately use, ie letting everyone get the virus so they get this short term immunity. The lancet article is a direct response to dangerous and unscientific idea of using herd immunity as the primary method of solving the crisis. But It is neither a short or long term solution.

We are doomed then, there is no other way out of this without immunity, whether acquired naturally or via a vaccine.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I think the issue you're having is that you think I'm someone else. This would be amusing to me were it not clear that this belief is causing you some serious distress.

I think the best thing for your health, and my conscience, would be if I stopped engaging with you. And might I advise you to stop replying or even reading my posts since it's clear that they seem to be harmful to your wellbeing, and that is absolutely not my intent. I just want to share ideas and opinions. I don't want to be a toxic influence on anyone here.

Take care of yourself.

perhaps you would have been off in the Italian army

[Burnley1989]

Hi Cricketfield.
I think the government have got it 'about right' at the moment albeit confusing the hell out of everyone in the process. Wales have gone too far. However, I believe that there will come a time in the 'not to distant future' where most of the cases will be 'not good to have' but 'not life threatening'. At that point, restrictions need to start to be lifted - cautiously and gradually.

I don't think that you can call a disease a pandemic unless you have exponential growth in mortalities and 'serious cases' across the country. At the moment, mortalities are rising and need to be watched in case they become exponential. However mortalities are currently low in relation to both 'Daily Cases' and 'mortality rates' in April. They are also mainly localised.

The current restrictions are allowing school and University students to continue their education. At the same time many of them are catching SARS-COV2 and feeling weak for a few days with a temperature and weakness. Following this 99.9% are immune. Similarly in work places. The virus looks to be moving through this 'Y group' (group who can catch the virus for a short time but who's T-Cells quickly overcome it). I think that the government have got this right.

The other restrictions (masks,distancing, protecting the elderly etc) are keeping mortalities relatively low and limiting the rapid growth of the virus - thus protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed. Could it be that the government have finally got to grips with things? 'Accidental genius' or 'deliberate controlled sensible way forward to the end of the pandemic'? Time will tell.

One thing to add. I think that we are a lot closer to end of the pandemic than the start of it.

hope thats the case, sounds a lot more positive than most I read

[AndrewJB]

Obviously the first lockdown didn’t kill the virus outright, and it’s said that we locked down too late and allowed the virus to spread too widely, resulting in 20k additional deaths.

Had we a working track and trace system, then reopening could have been managed a lot better. When so many other countries managed this (and far cheaper too) I can’t believe we’ve had so much failure on this important point.

[cricketfieldclarets]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssion=true

The interconnectedness of it all is such a coincidence, anyone could be forgiven for wondering whether they were all working together to fleece the country.

Very interesting. And also unsurprising.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Hi Cricketfield.
I think the government have got it 'about right' at the moment albeit confusing the hell out of everyone in the process. Wales have gone too far. However, I believe that there will come a time in the 'not to distant future' where most of the cases will be 'not good to have' but 'not life threatening'. At that point, restrictions need to start to be lifted - cautiously and gradually.

I don't think that you can call a disease a pandemic unless you have exponential growth in mortalities and 'serious cases' across the country. At the moment, mortalities are rising and need to be watched in case they become exponential. However mortalities are currently low in relation to both 'Daily Cases' and 'mortality rates' in April. They are also mainly localised.

The current restrictions are allowing school and University students to continue their education. At the same time many of them are catching SARS-COV2 and feeling weak for a few days with a temperature and weakness. Following this 99.9% are immune. Similarly in work places. The virus looks to be moving through this 'Y group' (group who can catch the virus for a short time but who's T-Cells quickly overcome it). I think that the government have got this right.

The other restrictions (masks,distancing, protecting the elderly etc) are keeping mortalities relatively low and limiting the rapid growth of the virus - thus protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed. Could it be that the government have finally got to grips with things? 'Accidental genius' or 'deliberate controlled sensible way forward to the end of the pandemic'? Time will tell.

One thing to add. I think that we are a lot closer to end of the pandemic than the start of it.

It is hopeful that by chance or planning that it will go through the universities where almost all will be fine and immune.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Possibly isolate the one kid and inform the parents what as happened (text or e-mail). Then continue the class and allow each parent to choose whether their child attends or not.

On a similar note. One of my good friends child has to isolate because a classmate has contracted it. Said friend doesn’t have to isolate though because his son hasn’t (yet) tester positive.

It’s insane.

[Corky]

I’ll hazard a guess based on what the scientists are saying, there’s likely to be something by the spring.

That amused me as it made me think of my cousins husband who believe it or not is a nuclear physicist and a Burnley fan. I've known him for 40 years and whenever we meet up for family do's I always ask about nuclear fusion and the clean energy that that would bring. And he always joked that it was just around the corner and if you ask me again in 10 years time you will get the same answer. I hope with C19 those timescales are more accurate.

[cricketfieldclarets]

To flatten the curve and keep hospital admissions within capacity. If you think the deaths from the first wave was bad imagine how bad a second wave will be if we let the NHS get so overwhelmed that people were deliberately left to die simply because there wasn't a bed for them, or a ventilator, or an uninfected nurse to administer treatment.

The problem is. In the first lockdown pretty much everyone with the odd exception (conspiracists usually) stuck to the rules rigidly.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Obviously the first lockdown didn’t kill the virus outright, and it’s said that we locked down too late and allowed the virus to spread too widely, resulting in 20k additional deaths.

Had we a working track and trace system, then reopening could have been managed a lot better. When so many other countries managed this (and far cheaper too) I can’t believe we’ve had so much failure on this important point.

I agree. And tried to make that point in my admittedly lengthy opening post.

Tracking and tracing effectively is as important as treatments themselves.

[Devils_Advocate]

On a similar note. One of my good friends child has to isolate because a classmate has contracted it. Said friend doesn’t have to isolate though because his son hasn’t (yet) tester positive.

It’s insane.

No its not, this makes perfect sense

[dsr]

That amused me as it made me think of my cousins husband who believe it or not is a nuclear physicist and a Burnley fan. I've known him for 40 years and whenever we meet up for family do's I always ask about nuclear fusion and the clean energy that that would bring. And he always joked that it was just around the corner and if you ask me again in 10 years time you will get the same answer. I hope with C19 those timescales are more accurate.

Exactly. In April, we hoped for a vaccine in October. Now it's October, we can hope for a vaccine in April. Next April, ... ... ...

[CrosspoolClarets]

The problem we have is that we cannot suddenly change 70m people into different people. We are who we are. If we had a few million young folk who aren’t the most responsible and like to go out on the razz, or if we have a student culture of beer and sex, those things aren’t going to suddenly change no matter what the government says.

The bit I find bemusing is that most of us could have bet our life savings on those things spreading the virus once lockdown was relaxed. Some of these politicians and eminent scientists live in a bubble, even the behavioural psychologists on SAGE seemingly didn’t have a good enough grasp of normal society to predict this stuff. Hence we are behind the curve, again.

So there is an air of inevitability about things. The second wave is affecting poorer areas more, unlike the first, and poorer countries more (Poland, Czech etc) unlike the first. There will be a lot of things to rebuild afterwards. The politicians and media should try not to make matters worse in the meantime.

[CombatClaret]

We are doomed then, there is no other way out of this without immunity, whether acquired naturally or via a vaccine.

Sorry I was referring specifically to the supposed non-vaccinated "libertarian" fringe non-scientific, misinformation lead "Herd Immunity"; do nothing, no restrictions concept, that is funded by shady money looking to destabilize western countries.

That Herd Immunity

[martin_p]

Exactly. In April, we hoped for a vaccine in October. Now it's October, we can hope for a vaccine in April. Next April, ... ... ...

Nope, they were pretty consistent at the start of this in saying it’d take at least a year.

[CombatClaret]

If lockdowns are so effective what are we doing it for again if the first one worked so well? And how do we get out of the hokey kokey lockdown?

The concept is very simple, maybe hard in practice but the blueprint is there. The first lockdown got the R rate and infections down to level that was theoretically manageable long term, but we didn't.

[i"]Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories. The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months."
[/i]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... X/fulltext

We got it down with the lock down, but then we did not control community spread effectively so now we are back to square one again.

[dsr]

Nope, they were pretty consistent at the start of this in saying it’d take at least a year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... eady-roll/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coro ... -flmwl257x
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nths-times

There were opinions both ways. Certainly no-one from government was pushing the idea that this lockdown would be years rather than months.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The furlough scheme has looked after 9.6 million out of a population of 65 million. A lot of people lost their jobs rather than being furloughed. That’s not “looked after nearly everyone.”

You defend nearly everything this government does. While taxpayers have forked out £40 billion ensuring people continue to pay their mortgages and credit card bills, you’ll no doubt insist we can’t afford to pay for free school meals throughout the coming half term.

Complains that I defend everything whilst you are simultaneously bitching about anything and everything they do.

Out of the population of 65 million, how many used the furlough scheme?
We already know it won't be the full 65 mill, as that includes kids.

As for the free school meals thing, if you care to browse the recent thread about the Queens honors list you'll quite clearly see me saying Rashford deserves his, his efforts are to be applauded and encouraged.

I've no issue if those in need are helped out over half term whilst this Covid is still an issue.
If we'd gone down your route I think the country would be in a worse position.

I'm also fairly certain if they'd done what you've been suggesting, you'd be like a grumpy wife and find something else to whinge about, because there is simply no pleasing people like you who hate anything and everything Tories do.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... eady-roll/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coro ... -flmwl257x
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nths-times

There were opinions both ways. Certainly no-one from government was pushing the idea that this lockdown would be years rather than months.

They didn't know if it would be years or months.

If they'd stated one over the other and gotten it wrong...

[Inchy]

Why is there no one to staff them. Hospitals would only be accepting Covid cases and emergencies only. All the staff that carry out the day case, non emergency duties will be sat there twiddling their thumbs.

This was the case last time in spring, but day case and non emergency cases have not stopped this time, and i imagine any trust will be reluctant to do so.

Specifically there is a shortage of ICU nurses and anaesthetists. You don’t want a non-icu nurse administering your potassium

[martin_p]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... eady-roll/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coro ... -flmwl257x
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nths-times

There were opinions both ways. Certainly no-one from government was pushing the idea that this lockdown would be years rather than months.

Go back to the government press conferences in March, Chris Whitty in particular was very clear it’d take at least a year and the pandemic was a long term thing. Obviously Johnson wouldn’t say that, but if you choose to listen to him rather than the Chief Medical Officer then it’s no surprise you’re confused.

[martin_p]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... eady-roll/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coro ... -flmwl257x
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nths-times

There were opinions both ways. Certainly no-one from government was pushing the idea that this lockdown would be years rather than months.

Whitty has been very consistent from day one in his thoughts on how this would pan out. Here he is talking in April, nothing he’s saying has proved to be incorrect. https://youtu.be/hpG19k-0KiU It’s a shame the government seems to have stopped listening to him.

[AndrewJB]

Complains that I defend everything whilst you are simultaneously bitching about anything and everything they do.

Out of the population of 65 million, how many used the furlough scheme?
We already know it won't be the full 65 mill, as that includes kids.

As for the free school meals thing, if you care to browse the recent thread about the Queens honors list you'll quite clearly see me saying Rashford deserves his, his efforts are to be applauded and encouraged.

I've no issue if those in need are helped out over half term whilst this Covid is still an issue.
If we'd gone down your route I think the country would be in a worse position.

I'm also fairly certain if they'd done what you've been suggesting, you'd be like a grumpy wife and find something else to whinge about, because there is simply no pleasing people like you who hate anything and everything Tories do.

I'm very specific with my criticism.

You think the country would be in a worse position if nobody was amassing rental arrears, and credit card debt - forcing many small businesses out of business? Okay.

https://www.business-live.co.uk/retail- ... 0-18177619

https://www.ft.com/content/5d198135-b38 ... 017f76929d

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 40771.html

[UnderSeige]

Why is there no one to staff them. Hospitals would only be accepting Covid cases and emergencies only. All the staff that carry out the day case, non emergency duties will be sat there twiddling their thumbs.

My guess is that they could be run partly by military medics.

The other point is that the hospitals that are at risk of being overwhelmed are in certain regions. Other regions that are not overwhelmed could lend staff to those regions.

Last time they were not used much and the situation was a lot worst than now.