Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

Duke I do agree it would seem a poor show that the current leader of our nation is not very visible at this time of deep crisis.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of the facts. Is anyone else? Is he still ill and recovering, on paternity leave with a premature child, or is he hiding as Duke suggests????

Yes, Covid has impacted the job market, as you would expect.

Separate ONS figures showed UK unemployment rose by 50,000 to 1.35 million in the three months to March.

There's been a general increase in unemployment for the last 2 years with the youngest being hardest hit. The number of working people claiming benefits has also been on the increase.

The furlough scheme has been pretty good but unfortunately far too many people have fallen through the gaps.

Allegedly it's paternity leave. I sit on the fence with that one.

I've said before what would have helped the economy in the long run, an actual lock down. Not the lockdown we had.

Furlough has been a saving grace for many people so fair play to them for that

Cav wrote:Allegedly it's paternity leave. I sit on the fence with that one.

Well, did he allegedly have a child or not??

Blade wrote:Duke I do agree it would seem a poor show that the current leader of our nation is not very visible at this time of deep crisis.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of the facts. Is anyone else? Is he still ill and recovering, on paternity leave with a premature child, or is he hiding as Duke suggests????

Whatever is happening he and his government and not communicating effectively and that's unforgivable in a time of crisis.

We should know.

Cav wrote:Allegedly it's paternity leave. I sit on the fence with that one.

I've said before what would have helped the economy in the long run, an actual lock down. Not the lockdown we had.

Furlough has been a saving grace for many people so fair play to them for that

I think a stricter kickdown would have saved life's but fail to see how it could help the economy in the short term or long run. Please explain what I'm missing Cav?

C00kiemonster wrote:

Blade wrote:Duke I do agree it would seem a poor show that the current leader of our nation is not very visible at this time of deep crisis.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of the facts. Is anyone else? Is he still ill and recovering, on paternity leave with a premature child, or is he hiding as Duke suggests????

Whatever is happening he and his government and not communicating effectively and that's unforgivable in a time of crisis.

We should know.

I agree Cookie. I was just wondering why Boris is absent. Paternity has been suggested but don't think it's been confirmed.

Where is Boris? Anyone know?

Blade, can't you see how a shorter but stricter lockdown with fewer deaths would help the economy?

On the very basic level there are 40,000 deaths to process. That's a lot of paperwork. Morgues, courts, doctors, registrars etc all have to deal with that. Plus the tax office, there's pensions/benefits etc to deal with. A lot of government bodies are involved when someone dies. It's expensive.

Many of the dead will have to be disposed off by using public funds.

Of those who died, how many of them had people relying on them for a job? Care homes, nurses, therapists, carers, directly or indirectly employed by them.

Blade wrote:

Cav wrote:Allegedly it's paternity leave. I sit on the fence with that one.

I've said before what would have helped the economy in the long run, an actual lock down. Not the lockdown we had.

Furlough has been a saving grace for many people so fair play to them for that

I think a stricter kickdown would have saved life's but fail to see how it could help the economy in the short term or long run. Please explain what I'm missing Cav?

A strict lockdown would be worse short term, probably by some margin, as the government would be handing out significantly more money.

In the long run, it gets everyone working sooner because it would get the R number way down, way quicker.

Spend a penny to save a pound.

Isn't the R number 3 weeks old data????

I heard a goverment minster answer that it was when asked so seems strange to place so much reliance on it.

Yes because it takes them 3 weeks to collate the OS data.

Also, number of hospital cases has not fallen, the peaks and troughs are just ranging more than before. Our curve is flat so I don't understand why they have lifted the lockdown a little more. This does mean our logarithmic curve is flattening though which may be the reason for them lifting the lockdown. From the data I've seen it doesn't seem the right thing to do but I'm not an expert and it isnt my job to make these decisions.

I think deaths are down and we therefore assume recoveries are up but this data isn't published so we don't know.

The R number is almost certainly back above 1 now.

I can also pass on some insider knowledge that in some areas of the Country ICUs are full and can accept no more patients.

We are patently not being told the full facts which is why the Govt need to be questioned constantly and vigorously.

And if Boris is on paternity leave then it is unforgivable in the current crisis. If you decide to take on the top job, it’s your full responsibility to make sure you are there, something he has failed to do for some months now it would appear.

I bet when he wants to go on holiday the child will be packed off to the nanny.

Cav wrote: A strict lockdown would be worse short term, probably by some margin, as the government would be handing out significantly more money.

How so?

There were a large number of non essential businesses still running. In my mind, a stricter lockdown would mean critical businesses only and therefore a significantly larger number of people would be on Furlough. This would have seen a huge drop in the transmission rates compared to what has happened.

This is of course just 1 of all the factors. You'd still have a large number of people in ICU for weeks but then it would die down quickly. I don't think the medium term financial effect would be any different to now but long term would clearly be better.

We'll have to disagree. My impression of a strict lockdown is that there wouldn't be many more now allowed to work. The terms of the lockdown would be stricter and enforced. We saw the UK populations' half hearted interpretation of what lock down meant, with many deciding it didn't apply to them and trips to DIY stores and garden centres being deemed as essential travel.

It would also drastically reduce the number of people in hospital. The countries who went strict proved that.

But we all know we're not allowed to look at how other countries handled the crisis.

In my comments I'm assuming a strict lockdown being brought in at the same time the lockdown we are in started. I don't think we are far away in terms of our opinions so I've tried to make it clearer. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right by the way

A strict lockdown to me would be a stop on all jobs except for the Police, Ambulance, Fire, Food & Bev, Pharma and Energy. No one is allowed to leave their homes. 24 hour food delivery only. Home exercise only. No visitors. You'd still have the 2 or 3 week delay prior to the lockdown so initially there would be no difference to ICU than we saw with this lockdown, but by 4 weeks we would be hugely down on deaths to what we saw. By 6 weeks we would see it lifted to what we started with. By 18 weeks this would be over and then we could start to look at international travel.

There are a lot of assumptions thrown into my ideology but you get the picture and the vision.

So its the scientists fault for the care home deaths since they advised the Government and they took their advice.

Feck me. IF YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING YOU TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON YOUR WATCH! That's how it works.

How thick are these politicians???????

100% agree Duke, those in charge are responsible for their decisions.

Is that true, are they blaming the scientists? Thats low

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavi ... d=msedgntp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Causing a rift between the government and the science community suits Cummings. It means the scientists well be less likely to wantt to work for Johnson, leaving Cummings to pimp his policies unchallenged