The Budget

[BlackDiamond]

No it's not simple mate...and I do seriously get where you guys are coming from...bit Hard Arse at times ...
but I get it ...Finding the Balance of stuff...How far do we go in getting rid of this thing,how far do we push things,cos
it is Fuckin our society up...no doubts..Lockdowns etc have screwed and fucked us...financially,emotionally,you name it.
BUT...........
How do you put a value on life..anyones life....

Some of us are doing that..by saying we should suffer the consequences of it...let a few more of us die,in order for the rest
of us "Stronger" ones to crack on.....just Morally wrong mate.

When something gets over complicated and confusing...it's best to simplify it if you possibly can...
Do we crack on and let, we don't know how many die...and risk we don't know what...or do we go No.. we stop it by any means..

My opinion is the second one..lets just fuck it of..get it under...and get back to normal again without it hanging over our
heads ...indefinitely maybe.

All those at risk have had the jab and are therefore protected, now it either works or it doesn't

If it doesn't then there are far bigger questions at hand, so let's assume it does.

Lift the fucking restrictions and let the rest of us get on with life, unless you're swallowing the variant bollocks.

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

[Newmarket]

All those at risk have had the jab and are therefore protected, now it either works or it doesn't

If it doesn't then there are far bigger questions at hand, so let's assume it does.

Lift the fucking restrictions and let the rest of us get on with life, unless you're swallowing the variant bollocks.

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

And without meaning to sound callous , if it’s acceptable for flu deaths then surely ....?

[BlackDiamond]

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

And without meaning to sound callous , if it’s acceptable for flu deaths then surely ....?

That would be the working assumption, however I'm not sure what the comparable ratio data for flu is to hospital admissions. That would obviously be a big driver in the decision matrix.

[terrya1965]

Don’t panic the NHS might go on strike soon.

Words fail me.
1% a fucking insult.
How they've got the knackers to offer that is beyond me. My niece is a nurse and in one week lost two of her mates through covid, both in their 20's.
Young kids just doing a job.
And they offer them that!!!!!!
Fucking shameless cunts.

It's also an insult of offering nurses a 1% pittance while handing out multi-billion pound contracts to random, unqualified cronies(their associates,family and friends) that makes it so obscene.

[Whiskyman]

All those at risk have had the jab and are therefore protected, now it either works or it doesn't

If it doesn't then there are far bigger questions at hand, so let's assume it does.

Lift the fucking restrictions and let the rest of us get on with life, unless you're swallowing the variant bollocks.

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

But are we not constantly being told we have an increasingly ageing population? And don’t older people tend to die in greater numbers than younger ones ? And are they not more susceptible to all diseases?

[BlackDiamond]

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

But are we not constantly being told we have an increasingly ageing population? And don’t older people tend to die in greater numbers than younger ones ? And are they not more susceptible to all diseases?

Yes and indeed, which is why the average deaths per year is approx 600K and has been for the last 5 years. Last year will be higher and the entire carnage would have added an additional 15%.

Those that like to suggest it could have beeen 250K more, just like to quote big numbers.

[Ironworksfc]

All those at risk have had the jab and are therefore protected, now it either works or it doesn't

If it doesn't then there are far bigger questions at hand, so let's assume it does.

Lift the fucking restrictions and let the rest of us get on with life, unless you're swallowing the variant bollocks.

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

You have confused me a little with your response BD

Referring to accepted levels of death before covid for another respiratory illness is a bit strange, given I was pointing out that those at risk,the vulnerable people have had the wonder vaccine and are now protected.

The ones left, as shown by the numbers of deaths in those age groups, with no underlying health issues have virtually no risk of death. Why are we all still under house arrest? If you are still scared, nothing stopping you from hiding away until you get the vaccine, everyone else should be allowed to just get back to a free democratic life, given the very low level of risk.

Before this virus fucked our civilization, we had influenza, it killed people, far less indiscriminately than Covid, young and old alike. Did we test the nation and on the basis of the amount of people who tested positive, regardless of whether they needed medical attention, close the country down? No we didn't.

If those who need protecting have got it and those that in most cases won't even know they have had the dreaded kungflu, why the fuck are we still in this place?

[BlackDiamond]

In terms of a value there is a number that has been understood to be acceptable. That number is 40,000-50,000 deaths per year. That equates to a bad years seasonal flu mortality.

That is roughly speaking 900-1,000 a week or 137 per day. That's the acceptable level of death. Or was.

And that is the number quoted in all the scientifc journals on the subject.

You have confused me a little with your response BD

Referring to accepted levels of death before covid for another respiratory illness is a bit strange, given I was pointing out that those at risk,the vulnerable people have had the wonder vaccine and are now protected.

The wonder vaccine as you describe it, might not protect sufficiently against the P1 (Brazil) variant. Should that be confirmed, then until a 'new' vaccine tweak is released, then the whole bloody cycle of lockdowns will continue to be on the agenda. Regardless of people claiming a decision is 'irreversible'

Because everything is irreversible until it's decided it isn't.

It simply depends on case numbers. So if Covid infections mirror a bad year of flu, then society will function normally, because society has deemed that level of morbidity acceptable. Otherwise it will be lived under restrictions.

I agree people could just ignore the problem and say fuck it, but they won't.

[palerider]

You have confused me a little with your response BD

Referring to accepted levels of death before covid for another respiratory illness is a bit strange, given I was pointing out that those at risk,the vulnerable people have had the wonder vaccine and are now protected.

The wonder vaccine as you describe it, might not protect sufficiently against the P1 (Brazil) variant. Should that be confirmed, then until a 'new' vaccine tweak is released, then the whole bloody cycle of lockdowns will continue to be on the agenda. Regardless of people claiming a decision is 'irreversible'

Because everything is irreversible until it's decided it isn't.

It simply depends on case numbers. So if Covid infections mirror a bad year of flu, then society will function normally, because society has deemed that level of morbidity acceptable. Otherwise it will be lived under restrictions.

I agree people could just ignore the problem and say fuck it, but they won't.

Unfortunately Pandora's box has been opened with transmutations between species now probable and that includes us.

A virus is a cunning little fucker and will look for ways to spread, otherwise it dies. So whether it's a Brazil variant, a South African variant or a Timbuktu variant, each year there'll be something. So do we lock down everything until the pips squeak ?

The answer has to be no, unless the variant is as lethal as ebola because we can't afford it.

Life HAS to get back to normal. And covid or it's future cousins have to be dealt with in the same way as flu. Prepare, take care, wear masks if you want to but if we lived through Spanish flu a century ago which killed ten times more than covid then we have to learn to live with this.

[BlackDiamond]

The wonder vaccine as you describe it, might not protect sufficiently against the P1 (Brazil) variant. Should that be confirmed, then until a 'new' vaccine tweak is released, then the whole bloody cycle of lockdowns will continue to be on the agenda. Regardless of people claiming a decision is 'irreversible'

Because everything is irreversible until it's decided it isn't.

It simply depends on case numbers. So if Covid infections mirror a bad year of flu, then society will function normally, because society has deemed that level of morbidity acceptable. Otherwise it will be lived under restrictions.

I agree people could just ignore the problem and say fuck it, but they won't.

Unfortunately Pandora's box has been opened with transmutations between species now probable and that includes us.

A virus is a cunning little fucker and will look for ways to spread, otherwise it dies. So whether it's a Brazil variant, a South African variant or a Timbuktu variant, each year there'll be something. So do we lock down everything until the pips squeak ?

The answer has to be no, unless the variant is as lethal as ebola because we can't afford it.

Life HAS to get back to normal. And covid or it's future cousins have to be dealt with in the same way as flu. Prepare, take care, wear masks if you want to but if we lived through Spanish flu a century ago which killed ten times more than covid then we have to learn to live with this.

And when we consider the whole purpose of restrictions and lockdowns is to protect the NHS then the nurses 1% pay rise is even more contemptible.

If hospitalisations are too large then the NHS service will creak and crash. If that happens then the government will be wholly to blame and they will look bad. And they are afraid of looking bad.

Now it seems that the situation is has been averted, the people that largely kept the whole system just about solvent are basically left unrewarded and insulted.

The pay rise should have respected the great effort in thye last 12 months patient care and the reward should be something that looks rewarding. So something like 4.5% at a minimum. The cost for this would be provided by the Bank of England who can lend interest fee sums over lengthy periods
without impacting normal budgets.

Matt Hancock might well consider his reputation over this weekend and finding it hovering pretty low, make a cowards u-turn and try and recover his position.