Think the main prob is mate...the Movement of people from one area to another...it's fine testing negative to get
in...(would still be a nightmare 15,000 tests in an hour or so...can't be done logistically,in time allowed)
You could pick it up on your journey home...
I have to say so what to be perfectly honest. I doubt if too many 80 year olds, those at risk of dying from it, would want to attend a football match. If you catch it you catch it. Then you’recover and move on. As the vast majority are doing on a daily basis.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
Think the main prob is mate...the Movement of people from one area to another...it's fine testing negative to get
in...(would still be a nightmare 15,000 tests in an hour or so...can't be done logistically,in time allowed)
You could pick it up on your journey home...
I have to say so what to be perfectly honest. I doubt if too many 80 year olds, those at risk of dying from it, would want to attend a football match. If you catch it you catch it. Then you’recover and move on. As the vast majority are doing on a daily basis.
Thing is mate...it's the carrying of it and the movement of it...the whole point of lockdowns etc,is to protect the
vulnerable..not the vast majority of us,who be asymptomatic or suffer mild cold symptoms...
A new high yesterday 490,000 new cases,at present rates thats about 10,000 deaths..480,000 day before
If carries on present trend week or 2 will be 1,000,000 new cases a day..and we've no Idea what the peak will be.
I have to say so what to be perfectly honest. I doubt if too many 80 year olds, those at risk of dying from it, would want to attend a football match. If you catch it you catch it. Then you’recover and move on. As the vast majority are doing on a daily basis.
Thing is mate...it's the carrying of it and the movement of it...the whole point of lockdowns etc,is to protect the
vulnerable..not the vast majority of us,who be asymptomatic or suffer mild cold symptoms...
A new high yesterday 490,000 new cases,at present rates thats about 10,000 deaths..480,000 day before
If carries on present trend week or 2 will be 1,000,000 new cases a day..and we've no Idea what the peak will be.
I get that mate. But common sense dictates if you're vulnerable, to anything, not just this, you take steps to protect yourself. And maybe it's just the way my mind works but even if you are in the so called vulnerable group and you are prepared to take the risk of infection, for example to see your grandchildren and give them a hug, you should be free to do so. We all take risks of some sort every day in our lives, some take greater risks than others, but as long as we're aware of those risks, such as those of us who smoke (not me) or those that drink more than the recommended guidelines (guilty, m'lud), I don't see the problem. Let us be accountable for our own actions. If we want to shut ourselves away, walk around in face masks or bath daily in bloody Domestos, we should be free to do so. But there are a great many who don't.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
I see a video the other day. Dunno how real it is but if real and true it shows the tests to be inept.
This guy had heard stories of p we pole ordering tests, swabbing pubnles and dogs gobs and sending back to find they got a positive result 5 days later. So he ordered one, literally just snapped it and put it in its pot without swabbing anything as nd sent it off. 5 days later he received a positive result. Obviously if true, these tests are completely flawed and complete bollocks.....or it could just be fake news.
Thing is mate...it's the carrying of it and the movement of it...the whole point of lockdowns etc,is to protect the
vulnerable..not the vast majority of us,who be asymptomatic or suffer mild cold symptoms...
A new high yesterday 490,000 new cases,at present rates thats about 10,000 deaths..480,000 day before
If carries on present trend week or 2 will be 1,000,000 new cases a day..and we've no Idea what the peak will be.
I get that mate. But common sense dictates if you're vulnerable, to anything, not just this, you take steps to protect yourself. And maybe it's just the way my mind works but even if you are in the so called vulnerable group and you are prepared to take the risk of infection, for example to see your grandchildren and give them a hug, you should be free to do so. We all take risks of some sort every day in our lives, some take greater risks than others, but as long as we're aware of those risks, such as those of us who smoke (not me) or those that drink more than the recommended guidelines (guilty, m'lud), I don't see the problem. Let us be accountable for our own actions. If we want to shut ourselves away, walk around in face masks or bath daily in bloody Domestos, we should be free to do so. But there are a great many who don't.
I drive a van and deliver to hospitals and care homes among many other places. The first outbreak in Vancouver was at a care home I went to regularly, they lost a third of their residents. 20 died in a month. They were elderly and would have died sooner than everyone else anyway, so it doesn't matter right? You might be ready to go, but those people didn't get a choice because a staff member brought it in. Those people had children and grandchildren who not only lost their loved one sooner than expected but didn't get a chance to say goodbye either. As getting to know some of the staff there, they were devastated and that is the type of situation that the government is trying to avoid - those vulnerable were not able to take steps to protect themselves, they and their loved ones thought they were in such a place where they were protected.
Mind you, if you get rid of all the seniors, that sorts out the pension problems. Get rid of the weak, that reduces the burden on the health care system too, so wins all round - right?
I get that mate. But common sense dictates if you're vulnerable, to anything, not just this, you take steps to protect yourself. And maybe it's just the way my mind works but even if you are in the so called vulnerable group and you are prepared to take the risk of infection, for example to see your grandchildren and give them a hug, you should be free to do so. We all take risks of some sort every day in our lives, some take greater risks than others, but as long as we're aware of those risks, such as those of us who smoke (not me) or those that drink more than the recommended guidelines (guilty, m'lud), I don't see the problem. Let us be accountable for our own actions. If we want to shut ourselves away, walk around in face masks or bath daily in bloody Domestos, we should be free to do so. But there are a great many who don't.
I drive a van and deliver to hospitals and care homes among many other places. The first outbreak in Vancouver was at a care home I went to regularly, they lost a third of their residents. 20 died in a month. They were elderly and would have died sooner than everyone else anyway, so it doesn't matter right? You might be ready to go, but those people didn't get a choice because a staff member brought it in. Those people had children and grandchildren who not only lost their loved one sooner than expected but didn't get a chance to say goodbye either. As getting to know some of the staff there, they were devastated and that is the type of situation that the government is trying to avoid - those vulnerable were not able to take steps to protect themselves, they and their loved ones thought they were in such a place where they were protected.
Mind you, if you get rid of all the seniors, that sorts out the pension problems. Get rid of the weak, that reduces the burden on the health care system too, so wins all round - right?
I don't know about Canada admittedly. And it's been shameful in any part of the world where the elderly have just been abandoned.
But it's reached the stage imo, that the damage being done by not getting back to some semblance of normality far outweighs what's happening. The bigger picture you might say.
The thing is, who can say if there'll be a third wave in the spring. Then a fourth. Plus other pandemics looming that aren't coronavirus ?
Apologies if I sound cold-hearted but associated deaths by closing down countries every time an 'expert' says so will be much higher.
I say it again. It's not ebola with a 90% fatality rate. The death rate is at worst 3% which will include the elderly and those in poor general health that you mention. Every death will leave a grieving family and that's tragic. And the way our government has dealt with it is shambolic.
But as with Spanish flu 100 years ago, when the death rates were far higher, life has to go on.
I drive a van and deliver to hospitals and care homes among many other places. The first outbreak in Vancouver was at a care home I went to regularly, they lost a third of their residents. 20 died in a month. They were elderly and would have died sooner than everyone else anyway, so it doesn't matter right? You might be ready to go, but those people didn't get a choice because a staff member brought it in. Those people had children and grandchildren who not only lost their loved one sooner than expected but didn't get a chance to say goodbye either. As getting to know some of the staff there, they were devastated and that is the type of situation that the government is trying to avoid - those vulnerable were not able to take steps to protect themselves, they and their loved ones thought they were in such a place where they were protected.
Mind you, if you get rid of all the seniors, that sorts out the pension problems. Get rid of the weak, that reduces the burden on the health care system too, so wins all round - right?
I don't know about Canada admittedly. And it's been shameful in any part of the world where the elderly have just been abandoned.
But it's reached the stage imo, that the damage being done by not getting back to some semblance of normality far outweighs what's happening. The bigger picture you might say.
The thing is, who can say if there'll be a third wave in the spring. Then a fourth. Plus other pandemics looming that aren't coronavirus ?
Apologies if I sound cold-hearted but associated deaths by closing down countries every time an 'expert' says so will be much higher.
I say it again. It's not ebola with a 90% fatality rate. The death rate is at worst 3% which will include the elderly and those in poor general health that you mention. Every death will leave a grieving family and that's tragic. And the way our government has dealt with it is shambolic.
But as with Spanish flu 100 years ago, when the death rates were far higher, life has to go on.
Within these arguments and regardless of opinions you still need a system that works. And I mean actually work.
I had been waiting on the result of a covid test for 72 hours now and the plain facts are that is not good enough. For anybody.
I don't know about Canada admittedly. And it's been shameful in any part of the world where the elderly have just been abandoned.
But it's reached the stage imo, that the damage being done by not getting back to some semblance of normality far outweighs what's happening. The bigger picture you might say.
The thing is, who can say if there'll be a third wave in the spring. Then a fourth. Plus other pandemics looming that aren't coronavirus ?
Apologies if I sound cold-hearted but associated deaths by closing down countries every time an 'expert' says so will be much higher.
I say it again. It's not ebola with a 90% fatality rate. The death rate is at worst 3% which will include the elderly and those in poor general health that you mention. Every death will leave a grieving family and that's tragic. And the way our government has dealt with it is shambolic.
But as with Spanish flu 100 years ago, when the death rates were far higher, life has to go on.
Within these arguments and regardless of opinions you still need a system that works. And I mean actually work.
I had been waiting on the result of a covid test for 72 hours now and the plain facts are that is not good enough. For anybody.
