Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Grinch]

There's a big issue there then when money dictates science. No?

Gates is actually a pretty smart guy with alot of influence on certain companies and businesses that could maybe be the ploy. Bloomberg is a nut job with alot of money and lives in NY. I can understand Gates not Bloomy. and yeah, if you got money, the influence is heightened.

 

[BrendanGOT]

Unfortunately there has to be a balance because money (or, the economy) also = lives.

'Scientifically' the solution is surely wait for a vaccine. That's why you get scientists saying stuff like no crowds for anything for two years etc.

But realistically, that's not really a viable solution.

Agree mate but I was meaning more that these guys are completely unqualified and are business men at their core. Put in charge/ given influence over coronavirus decisions, people's health, infrastructure, wellbeing and vaccines is worrying imo. Should be left to medical professionals and elected representatives not self professed philanthropists who haven't been elected by the people. I'd imagine with some digging we'd find that these guys are set to profit greatly from this disaster if we let them. Money shouldn't influence science, especially medical science when people's health and lives are on the line.

 

[Brisan123]

I was meant to be going Portugal in August but doubt they'll be letting me in

They will if you bring @Paris and his scissors with you

 

[Brisan123]

Just to follow on from Bruce graphs earlier, here is the distribution, no of cases and curves per county in Ireland. View attachment 85867

To be fair who the hell wants to live in Leitrim

 

[Brisan123]

And so it begins...

It will be the first of many media outlets to go to the wall
Advertising revenues will plummet

 

[Joey66]

Unfortunately there has to be a balance because money (or, the economy) also = lives.

'Scientifically' the solution is surely wait for a vaccine. That's why you get scientists saying stuff like no crowds for anything for two years etc.

But realistically, that's not really a viable solution.

You do know the has never been a vaccination for any Covid virus that has worked 100 percent as yet - one can hope with social distancing, and tracking technology,the virus might get weaker - but how the hell did it get as far as the Isle of Skye care homes is a worrying thought.......

 

[Brisan123]

The death stats are very misleading. Take them with a pinch of salt.

FFS you will have @Joey66 on the warpath again

 

[peteblue]

I always wanted to be..........................................................................................................................A Lumberjack !! (Cue song)


Who did the propaganda briefing today then?

Davek.....

 

[Neiler]

NI Executive to advise public to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces

https://jrnl.ie/5093840

 

[Billy Dean]

crikey my region in Germany has announced it's pretty much opening everything. This is gonna be interesting lol

 

[Kenshin]

Because if you announce people can go and visit others at home the infection rate will shoot back up again.

What if one person has four or five kids, who all visit with their partners, etc.

So let me ask you something. Genuine question.

What is the difference between me going to visit a relative in their home and going shopping?

Or more to the point that relative going shopping and having their son visit?

After 7 weeks and the numbers dropping , something as simple as that can make a huge difference. Yes I know 'risk' and asymptomatic and all of that. But at what point do you put that aside? Given that the virus won't go away anytime soon so are we to remain at home for the next 6 months? Because the risk will always be there.

People are going out anyway. Going to people's houses , going the park en mass, visiting others , hanging round the streets all day etc in fact part of that hasn't changed since day one.

I guess my point is, at some point you need to trade off on what people can do to control what they can't. Because even when you tell people to stay at home they don't listen anyway.

If you constantly put an entire population into lockdown using fear then they eventually will rebel anyway. So why not offer something so small and put aside the risk element because at some point you have to let people out their homes, and that risk will still be there despite that.

 

[anjelikaferrett]

He's a nice distraction and a good scapegoat. Matt Hancock saying he thought he should be prosecuted, on the same day as they roll out Robert Jenrick (who has twice broken lockdown rules) to do the media, tells you everything.

And Boris who nicked off to Chequers to be with his bit of skirt.

 

[Joey66]

Davek.....

I've stopped watching them now the crap they spout is alarming......
PPE should have been set up and made in the UK from day one buying it in from China and Turkey FGS .....
Labour will get in under Starmer next GE ....they look very electable with this bunch of fools tbh......

 

[Billy Dean]

crikey my region in Germany has announced it's pretty much opening everything. This is gonna be interesting lol

Actually I was not quite right there. Loads of things will be reopening like gyms, all shops, restaurants, cafes etc. Nightclubs have to stay shut. Still contact restrictions though, but they've been relaxed now to "2 households are allowed to meet" whatever dafuq that means. Meanwhile in Berlin gatherings of up to 100 people will be allowed

Edit: just checked again, in my region too gatherings of up to 100 people allowed as of Saturday, beer gardens to open the saturday after that

 

[Dixieslaces]

So let me ask you something. Genuine question.

What is the difference between me going to visit a relative in their home and going shopping?

Or more to the point that relative going shopping and having their son visit?

After 7 weeks and the numbers dropping , something as simple as that can make a huge difference. Yes I know 'risk' and asymptomatic and all of that. But at what point do you put that aside? Given that the virus won't go away anytime soon so are we to remain at home for the next 6 months? Because the risk will always be there.

People are going out anyway. Going to people's houses , going the park en mass, visiting others , hanging round the streets all day etc in fact part of that hasn't changed since day one.

I guess my point is, at some point you need to trade off on what people can do to control what they can't. Because even when you tell people to stay at home they don't listen anyway.

If you constantly put an entire population into lockdown using fear then they eventually will rebel anyway. So why not offer something so small and put aside the risk element because at some point you have to let people out their homes, and that risk will still be there despite that.

The numbers arent really dropping though!