lockdown mk3

As expected, only this time there is hope for an exit strategy with the vaccines being available

A lockdown isn't that much different to the way we have lived in Manchester since summer.
Tier 3, then 2nd lockdown, tier 3 again, then  tier 4.

It's time now for another full lockdown, pussyfooting around picking and choosing who has the lesser restrictions just doesn't work, we are worse off now than when this bloody plague first started.

The vaccination thankfully is being distributed, that's the only way to really beat this.

Syl wrote:A lockdown isn't that much different to the way we have lived in Manchester since summer.
Tier 3, then 2nd lockdown, tier 3 again, then  tier 4.

It's time now for another full lockdown, pussyfooting around picking and choosing who has the lesser restrictions just doesn't work, we are worse off now than when this bloody plague first started.

The vaccination thankfully is being distributed, that's the only way to really beat this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53918568

This is why there aren't full lockdowns. There are very serious repercussions when that happens. The entire British welfare state is funded with an economy that sort of needs to work. Kill the economy and something will have to give.

A shorter lockdown that includes all schools and hospitality venues would be better than six or more weeks of this bullshit.

All those caught breaking the rules and putting other lives at risk should be shot on sight .This is the only way to get across to the idiots how serious this is. Shooting one idiot could save the lives of dozens of those who follow the rules.

nicko wrote:All those caught breaking the rules and putting other lives at risk should be shot on sight .This is the only way to get across to the idiots how serious this is. Shooting one idiot could save the lives of dozens of those who follow the rules.

That's a bit drastic Nicko.

I do think it may be the right time to bring the military in for more than just administrative purposes.
The police cant handle all the rule breakers....they can't even handle 'normal' crimes in this city. Bring the trained army and navy on the streets, I bet then the majority of people would suddenly remember the rules.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:A lockdown isn't that much different to the way we have lived in Manchester since summer.
Tier 3, then 2nd lockdown, tier 3 again, then  tier 4.

It's time now for another full lockdown, pussyfooting around picking and choosing who has the lesser restrictions just doesn't work, we are worse off now than when this bloody plague first started.

The vaccination thankfully is being distributed, that's the only way to really beat this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53918568

This is why there aren't full lockdowns. There are very serious repercussions when that happens. The entire British welfare state is funded with an economy that sort of needs to work. Kill the economy and something will have to give.  

The first lockdown was working though....would it not be better to have that kind of lockdown short term than the shilly-shallying around we have had for months since then?

Ben Reilly wrote:A shorter lockdown that includes all schools and hospitality venues would be better than six or more weeks of this bullshit.

It would have the same effect, unless it eliminated the virus. As soon as you let up, it would flare back up again.

The whole idea of lockdowns is to flatten the curve. Push the case load off into the future. Not eliminate the virus.

The future is now.

The half assed lockdowns are designed to save the economy, save some lives and buy time until the vaccine can work.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53918568

This is why there aren't full lockdowns. There are very serious repercussions when that happens. The entire British welfare state is funded with an economy that sort of needs to work. Kill the economy and something will have to give.  

The first lockdown was working though....would it not be better to have that kind of lockdown short term than the shilly-shallying around we have had for months since then?

It worked on destroying your economy worse than any country in Europe.

If your only measure of working is to limit transmission of the virus, while ignoring all of the other negative repercussions of those lockdowns, then yes, they work.

But leaders can't do that. Destroying the economy will kill people too. It's just more indirect.

It won't be 45 minutes after this virus is under control that people who bitched about not enough lockdowns will be bitching about the austerity measures in place due to the treasury being empty from the massive economic slowdown.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

The first lockdown was working though....would it not be better to have that kind of lockdown short term than the shilly-shallying around we have had for months since then?

It worked on destroying your economy worse than any country in Europe.

If your only measure of working is to limit transmission of the virus, while ignoring all of the other negative repercussions of those lockdowns, then yes, they work.  

But leaders can't do that. Destroying the economy will kill people too.  It's just more indirect.  

It won't be 45 minutes after this virus is under control that people who bitched about not enough lockdowns will be bitching about the austerity measures in place due to the treasury being empty from the massive economic slowdown.  

Bullshit.  It's axiomatic that if you want to change results, you change the causes.  Here, you have an argument: if you want to change results, ignore the causes!  This argument—which boils down to: "genocide will cure anything"—is recognizable from Atilla the Hun through Hitler.  It is the principle by which the noble-elect manage the unwashed masses before them, so as to maintain their position and wealth.

The primary rai·son d'ê·tre of human existence is to stay alive and healthy, and make the world one’s own.  Locke, John, Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689).  In Locke's famous trilogy—Life, Liberty and Property—the economic component comes last.   This is because, taking everyone into consideration, the first two (life & liberty) are essential before the third (property) comes into existence.

It is only when one divides society into two parts—the privileged and the masses—that society becomes compartmentalized, and the lives of some become expendable.  Black lives don’t matter or the aged have had their day…these are the calls of a divided community, where one part is willing to sacrifice the other for their own privilege and wealth.  They mold their arguments into one size fits all, as they argue that it is a benefit for all society (see post above); but look to the other side, and you find someone who is being sacrificed.

Fittingly, we find two parts to our present society: Republicans/Tories, who generally favor an ideology of selfishness and economic benefit; and Democrats/Labour, who have not gone over to the selfish philosophy, and are still trying to work for the common good (called public protections).  While this issue of the pandemic, is not perfectly the patricians/plebeians of modern day politics, it attacks the central principle of patrician, selfish values: economics.  Hence, putatively on behalf of all, they hold that economics is as important as life itself:

Maddog wrote:Destroying the economy will kill people too. It's just more indirect.

“Indirect”, as in hidden, as in: ‘trust what I tell you, not what you see with your own eyes’.

This argument really says, sacrifice those who are in the way, in the name of wealth.  It also says, just because you’re not wealthy, like me, doesn’t mean you don’t want to be…so, this is a common goal.

We should all say Bullshit!.  This is the clarion call of inhumanity and plunder everywhere, throughout history.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It worked on destroying your economy worse than any country in Europe.

If your only measure of working is to limit transmission of the virus, while ignoring all of the other negative repercussions of those lockdowns, then yes, they work.  

But leaders can't do that. Destroying the economy will kill people too.  It's just more indirect.  

It won't be 45 minutes after this virus is under control that people who bitched about not enough lockdowns will be bitching about the austerity measures in place due to the treasury being empty from the massive economic slowdown.  

Bullshit.  It's axiomatic that if you want to change results, you change the causes.  Here, you have an argument: if you want to change results, ignore the causes!  This argument—which boils down to: "genocide will cure anything"—is recognizable from Atilla the Hun through Hitler.  It is the principle by which the noble-elect manage the unwashed masses before them, so as to maintain their position and wealth.

The primary rai·son d'ê·tre of human existence is to stay alive and healthy, and make the world one’s own.  Locke, John, Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689).  In Locke's famous trilogy—Life, Liberty and Property—the economic component comes last.   This is because, taking everyone into consideration, the first two (life & liberty) are essential before the third (property) comes into existence.

It is only when one divides society into two parts—the privileged and the masses—that society becomes compartmentalized, and the lives of some become expendable.  Black lives don’t matter or the aged have had their day…these are the calls of a divided community, where one part is willing to sacrifice the other for their own privilege and wealth.  They mold their arguments into one size fits all, as they argue that it is a benefit for all society (see post above); but look to the other side, and you find someone who is being sacrificed.

Fittingly, we find two parts to our present society: Republicans/Tories, who generally favor an ideology of selfishness and economic benefit; and Democrats/Labour, who have not gone over to the selfish philosophy, and are still trying to work for the common good (called public protections).  While this issue of the pandemic, is not perfectly the patricians/plebeians of modern day politics, it attacks the central principle of patrician, selfish values: economics.  Hence, putatively on behalf of all, they hold that economics is as important as life itself:

Maddog wrote:Destroying the economy will kill people too. It's just more indirect.

“Indirect”, as in hidden, as in: ‘trust what I tell you, not what you see with your own eyes’.

This argument really says, sacrifice those who are in the way, in the name of wealth.  It also says, just because you’re not wealthy, like me, doesn’t mean you don’t want to be…so, this is a common goal.

We should all say Bullshit!.  This is the clarion call of inhumanity and plunder everywhere, throughout history.

The world is lucky to have people like you to care so much for others, while doing nothing for them.

We can all argue whether lockdowns are the best way or not, but I think it's pretty obvious by now, that even a full lockdown like we had in the UK in March will only work short term.
It obviously saved many thousands of lives, but it's true that other factors caused by lockdowns have ruined many others.

The vaccine is the only way out, and even then, and even if enough people have it, I think this virus and it's mutations will be something we all have to live with for a long long time....possibly, like the common cold and the flu, it will always be around.

Syl wrote:We can all argue whether lockdowns are the best way or not, but I think it's pretty obvious by now, that even a full lockdown like we had in the UK in March will only work short term.
It obviously saved many thousands of lives, but it's true that other factors caused by lockdowns have ruined many others.

The vaccine is the only way out, and even then, and even if enough people have it, I think this virus and it's mutations will be something we all have to live with for a long long time....possibly, like the common cold and the flu, it will always be around.

Exactly, they buy time at the expense of the economy. You have to balance out the two.

It's child like to say money doesn't matter, when people need it for survival.

It's hypocritical to say money doesn't matter when you are talking about someone else's money, while your standard of living remains basically unchanged.

It's heartbreaking to see and hear about people who have lost family businesses that they have built up for generations, or people who have been furloughed for months only  then to be made redundant with no jobs to go back to when lockdowns end.

Alternatively, another 830 people have died of the virus here in the last 24 hours, and the total is set to go up steadilly over the next weeks.
Every number leaves hearbreak behind.

I would hate to be the person making the decision of  what to  close and what not to.

Syl wrote:It's heartbreaking to see and hear about people who have lost family businesses that they have built up for generations, or people who have been furloughed for months only  then to be made redundant with no jobs to go back to when lockdowns end.

Alternatively, another 830 people have died of the virus here in the last 24 hours, and the total is set to go up steadilly over the next weeks.
Every number leaves hearbreak behind.

I would hate to be the person making the decision of  what to  close and what not to.

Me too. But we can understand that its not a simple decision.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:It's heartbreaking to see and hear about people who have lost family businesses that they have built up for generations, or people who have been furloughed for months only  then to be made redundant with no jobs to go back to when lockdowns end.

Alternatively, another 830 people have died of the virus here in the last 24 hours, and the total is set to go up steadilly over the next weeks.
Every number leaves hearbreak behind.

I would hate to be the person making the decision of  what to  close and what not to.

Me too. But we can understand that its not a simple decision.

No  one, not Boris, Trump, or any other world leader has ever been in this position before, I imagine it's not unlike being in wartime, when decisions had to be made, knowing whatever one decided, many people would die.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Me too. But we can understand that its not a simple decision.

No  one, not Boris, Trump, or any other world leader has ever been in this position before, I imagine it's not unlike being in wartime, when decisions had to be made, knowing whatever one decided, many people would die.

I was thinking of it being like standing on the deck of the Titanic, but your war analogy is good too.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
No  one, not Boris, Trump, or any other world leader has ever been in this position before, I imagine it's not unlike being in wartime, when decisions had to be made, knowing whatever one decided, many people would die.

I was thinking of it being like standing on the deck of the Titanic, but your war analogy is good too.  

Thank you Maddog, I was quite impressed with it myself.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I was thinking of it being like standing on the deck of the Titanic, but your war analogy is good too.  

Thank you Maddog, I was quite impressed with it myself.

Not to get off track but think abiut what Ike and Montgomery were thinking in June of 1944. They were ordering thousands of boys to attack positions that would slaughter thousands of them. But they did it knowing the sacrifices of many would serve many more.

Its a sobering thought.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Bullshit.  It's axiomatic that if you want to change results, you change the causes.  Here, you have an argument: if you want to change results, ignore the causes!  This argument—which boils down to: "genocide will cure anything"—is recognizable from Atilla the Hun through Hitler.  It is the principle by which the noble-elect manage the unwashed masses before them, so as to maintain their position and wealth.

The primary rai·son d'ê·tre of human existence is to stay alive and healthy, and make the world one’s own.  Locke, John, Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689).  In Locke's famous trilogy—Life, Liberty and Property—the economic component comes last.   This is because, taking everyone into consideration, the first two (life & liberty) are essential before the third (property) comes into existence.

It is only when one divides society into two parts—the privileged and the masses—that society becomes compartmentalized, and the lives of some become expendable.  Black lives don’t matter or the aged have had their day…these are the calls of a divided community, where one part is willing to sacrifice the other for their own privilege and wealth.  They mold their arguments into one size fits all, as they argue that it is a benefit for all society (see post above); but look to the other side, and you find someone who is being sacrificed.

Fittingly, we find two parts to our present society: Republicans/Tories, who generally favor an ideology of selfishness and economic benefit; and Democrats/Labour, who have not gone over to the selfish philosophy, and are still trying to work for the common good (called public protections).  While this issue of the pandemic, is not perfectly the patricians/plebeians of modern day politics, it attacks the central principle of patrician, selfish values: economics.  Hence, putatively on behalf of all, they hold that economics is as important as life itself:



“Indirect”, as in hidden, as in: ‘trust what I tell you, not what you see with your own eyes’.

This argument really says, sacrifice those who are in the way, in the name of wealth.  It also says, just because you’re not wealthy, like me, doesn’t mean you don’t want to be…so, this is a common goal.

We should all say Bullshit!.  This is the clarion call of inhumanity and plunder everywhere, throughout history.

The world is lucky to have people like you to care so much for others, while doing nothing for them.

100% wrong.

Syl wrote:We can all argue whether lockdowns are the best way or not, but I think it's pretty obvious by now, that even a full lockdown like we had in the UK in March will only work short term.
It obviously saved many thousands of lives, but it's true that other factors caused by lockdowns have ruined many others.

The vaccine is the only way out, and even then, and even if enough people have it, I think this virus and it's mutations will be something we all have to live with for a long long time....possibly, like the common cold and the flu, it will always be around.

Absolutely. A short-term shutdown is all that we can do, as the virus will shut us down if it wins.

I think it's counter-productive to frame the issue as the economy or life. The virus shuts down the economy as it shuts down life. It is a detriment to both. Therefore, it is essential to treat the virus as the enemy, and life or the economy as the victims in varying degrees.

Even while the virus kills some now, the biggest threat of the virus is exponential spread. To allow the virus to 'infect' the four corners of humanity (eg, on the assumption of herd immunity) is to destroy all hope for the economy. Reliance on analogies to the common cold is inapt; the better analogy is the Plague, as this virus is terminal (360,000 deaths in the US, so far).

Ultimately, it's the speculation that will harm the economy. People will destroy the economy on their own if it sets in that they are offered the choice of: 1) death; or 2) economic ruin. They naturally fear death more than joblessness. So, we'd better start thinking of the detriment to the economy as the consequence of the virus, rather than as a result of the shutdown.

That creates the first-things-first of our dilemma. When people finally realize that the stakes are death, they will be unwilling to gamble. The difference between that and jumping off a 1,000-foot ledge are just the odds. Some say the odds are the majority won't die. Just as people buy a lottery ticket against all odds, they will choose to stay away against all odds. The economy will suffer. That's what they did during the 17th-century plague…get out of London was the cause of the day.

Once we realize that the virus threatens both our lives, and our economy, we will focus our enmity on the covid-19 virus. We'd better not stop with a vaccine, as we did with flu (only recently have therapeutics for the flu come on market: eg, oseltamivir (Tamiflu), zanamivir (Relenza), and peramivir (Rapivab). There will be need for therapeutics with covid-19 as well. The flu doesn't kill as frequently; the covid-19 kills on genocide orders-of-magnitude.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thank you Maddog, I was quite impressed with it myself.

Not to get off track but think abiut what Ike and Montgomery were thinking in June of 1944. They were ordering thousands of boys to attack positions that would slaughter thousands of them.  But they did it knowing the sacrifices of many would serve many more.  

Its a sobering thought.  

The UK lost 383,700 fighting personnel, and the US lost 407,300 fighting personnel, during the entirety of world war II, which lasted from 1939 to 1945.

The US has lost 366,000 citizens to covid-19 (UK 76,428) in barely the first year. Ike and Montgomery had it easy by comparison.

How can it be easy for a sane person to order young kids to advance when the odds were that they would be shot down almost immediately, were they not called 'cannon fodder'?
It was either send them forwards or retreat and admit defeat.

I should think , though I know I did compare the decision making in WW2 to the decision making now re Covid....no one could get over having to knowingly send young people off to die.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Not to get off track but think abiut what Ike and Montgomery were thinking in June of 1944. They were ordering thousands of boys to attack positions that would slaughter thousands of them.  But they did it knowing the sacrifices of many would serve many more.  

Its a sobering thought.  

The UK lost 383,700 fighting personnel, and the US lost 407,300 fighting personnel, during the entirety of world war II, which lasted from 1939 to 1945.

The US has lost 366,000 citizens to covid-19 (UK 76,428) in barely the first year.  Ike and Montgomery had it easy by comparison.

What a shock, you missed the point.

It's right on point: Costs in deaths.

Syl wrote:How can it be easy for a sane person to order young kids to advance when the odds were that they would be shot down almost immediately, were they not called 'cannon fodder'?
It was either send them forwards or retreat and admit defeat.

I should think , though I know I did compare the decision making in WW2 to the decision making now re Covid....no one could get over having to knowingly send young people off to die.

Sane people would exclude one poster around here that claims to live in California.

Syl wrote:A lockdown isn't that much different to the way we have lived in Manchester since summer.
Tier 3, then 2nd lockdown, tier 3 again, then  tier 4.

It's time now for another full lockdown, pussyfooting around picking and choosing who has the lesser restrictions just doesn't work, we are worse off now than when this bloody plague first started.

The vaccination thankfully is being distributed, that's the only way to really beat this.

Yep, this is just Tier 4 + schools closed.