• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?

Forums Unread posts
[article]Very high-risk areas will at a minimum see a ban on all social mixing between households in private places including gardens, and pubs and bars must close unless they can operate solely as a restaurant serving alcohol only as part of a main meal, Johnson says.[/article]

Stupid fucking rule.
 
Why the Fuck can't the government just tell the truth and say it as it is..

It clear as day with the fancy charts being bandied about.. An increase of cases is down to kids and young adults going back to school, college and university

Hospitality industry is not the problem . In fact they made it more of problem with the 10pm curfew.. That being said.. you won't find me in a pub any time soon..

So what do they do now ?? .. Ban alcohol in restaurants to save face.. Clearly to tackle the 10pm curfew they put in place that should have never been there in the first place..
 
dantes said:
FPCJ5ENIOFA3JGFWKULI7UMSSI.jpg



Look at this fucking guy. The little weasel looking rat from Danger Mouse, he dares to lecture the public on the data and the science? If this motherfucker can even use excel I'll happily eat a plate of rat droppings by way of apology.
Click to expand...

Hamster actually.. Penfold..
 
A 25-year-old man from Nevada and a 42-year-old man in Virginia experienced second bouts of COVID-19 about 2 months after they tested positive the first time. Gene tests show both men had two slightly different strains of the virus, suggesting that they caught the infection twice.

Researchers say these are the first documented cases of COVID-19 reinfection in the U.S. About two dozen other cases of COVID-19 reinfection have been reported around the globe, from Hong Kong, Belgium, the Netherlands, India, and Ecuador. A third U.S. case, in a 60-year-old in Washington, has been reported but hasn't yet been peer reviewed.

Until now, immunologists haven't been too concerned about these reinfections because most second infections have been milder than the first, indicating that the immune system is doing its job and fighting off the virus when it is recognized a second time.
 
[article]At the Downing Street press conference on Monday, Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, warned that he was “not confident” that even the basic restrictions laid out in the top tier, tier 3, of new rules would be enough to restrict fast-growing Covid cases.
[/article]

This paragraph shows how much of a piss take this all is. These charlatans need their balls chopping off.
 
When it doesn't work, it will be the fault of us irresponsible, misbehaving, dirty Scousers, and they'll keep us in tier 3 or whatever.

As Woland said, we're being scapegoated and it's managed decline 2.0. They point to ICU beds and hospital capacity and that's why we're getting the harshest restrictions, but they've been cutting hospital beds for fuck knows how long.

I saw something the other day saying that there were 272 hospitalisations in Liverpool due to Covid, and something like 30 of the 36 (yes THIRTY SIX) ICU beds in the city were being used. It's hardly as if the population of Liverpool is overran with this virus, is it?
 
Who would’ve foreseen cutting vital services to the bone would come back to bite you in the arse?

Sensible people.
 
Is there any sort of kick back from this, or is everyone just accepting it as meekly as Merseyside Council did yesterday, and as meekly as the whole nation has accepted these cunts for the last decade plus?
 
peterhague said:
It's strange that they fell so rapidly from 2000 to the crash, when the economy was doing well and (at least I think) spending on the NHS was rising fairly significantly.

Where was the money going? PFI losses or something?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a money saving thing. As you say, in that period public spending was generally high. You wouldn't generally expect a Labour government to be cutting the NHS.

I think it was more to do with more community treatment so less actual need for beds. These wouldn't just be acute beds, A&E etc. They would be mental health and community hospitals too.

So advances in drugs and treatments meant that not as many people had to stay in hospital for so long. Just for example, minor operations could be done more quickly so didn't require an overnight bed.
 
Richey said:
I don't think it was a money saving thing. As you say, in that period public spending was generally high. You wouldn't generally expect a Labour government to be cutting the NHS.

I think it was more to do with more community treatment so less actual need for beds. These wouldn't just be acute beds, A&E etc. They would be mental health and community hospitals too.

So advances in drugs and treatments meant that not as many people had to stay in hospital for so long. Just for example, minor operations could be done more quickly so didn't require an overnight bed.
Click to expand...

Or people just died quickly due to rising levels of incompetence and/or getting an infection from the filthy ward, and the extra spending had to used trying to defend clinical negligence court cases and/or employing more management types to cover up the paper trail for those cases.
 
It's alright, though, that new hospital will be finished soon...

...with significantly less beds than the hospital it's replacing.

850 vs 646.

I hate this country.
 
Woland said:
Once they knew council staff would be boxed off they caved. Let's have it right, neither of our mayors are negotiators or have any acumen.
Click to expand...

I don't really see why you need to have two mayors anyway? I guess Anderson is essentially a directly elected version of the old-style Leader of the Council. Not a good system in itself but that's just my opinion. But Rotherham's role seems rather unnecessary.
 
Richey said:
I don't really see why you need to have two mayors anyway? I guess Anderson is essentially a directly elected version of the old-style Leader of the Council. Not a good system in itself but that's just my opinion. But Rotherham's role seems rather unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Anderson used to be the school bollocker at my kids school. That was literally his job. Title was school mentor but he was just there to scare naughty kids. From that to mayor and they wonder why he hasn't got a fucking clue. Rotherham is a nice enough dude but he's been on a building site most of his life. Having dickhead mayors didn't really matter until now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom