The virus. PPE. Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
For it to be a pandemic it has to be "prevalent across an entire country or the world"

There's no politics in it, it couldn't be declared a pandemic until it met the definition for a pandemic.
View attachment 275114



You're just being childish now.

It was already prevalent and obviously getting worse by the day and not going away. So no reason to delay in announcing it.

At least this "child" has the advantage of reasoned thought.
But you two carry on with your heads buried in the sand blaming our government when the fault already lies elsewhere.
 
I don't think the majority of the public would see him as breaking the rules.
...nor did I say he was in this case. However: when it comes to truthfulness he can hardly be described as overly scrupulous and at least one of his colleagues has interpreted the lockdown rules in a way that has raised eyebrows. In the current situation we need the government and its direct employees to be seen to be playing to the spirit of the rule book as well as to its letter.
 
Countries that followed WHO advice: Hardly any deaths

Countries that didn't: Loads of deaths.

Conclusion: The WHO should have done a better job.

I sense a little bit of failure of logic.
Logic failure is all yours. As already stated loads of times, deaths depend on many variations, not just whether WHO guidelines have been followed.
But yet again, you ignore that.
 
She wasn’t in Downing St, she was at some other address (her flat?) with symptoms of CV.

Makes it even worse then because if she was safe enough there why would it be any different now.

Well for a start she's not really a single pregnant mother in the true sense, she's in a permanent relationship.

The comparison is in relation to isolating and keeping safe as opposed to relationship status

Well for a start a huge security risk being the other half of a prime minister, and with his child too. Possibly easier for security services.

Ah, so when she was at her own home while he was in hospital was she any less secure? Did all the terrorists just think "Nahhhh, lets wait until she's even more secure" ?

Moot point, but she is in a relationship with Boris, I'm not sure that can be classed as a permanent relationship. :LOL:

Good point, well batted! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
For it to be a pandemic it has to be "prevalent across an entire country or the world"

There's no politics in it, it couldn't be declared a pandemic until it met the definition for a pandemic.
By the end of Jan it had spread to over 20 countries, and was spreading daily, but it wasn't declared a pandemic until the 11th March.
 
At least this "child" has the advantage of reasoned thought.
But you two carry on with your heads buried in the sand blaming our government when the fault already lies elsewhere.

You've gone from childish to trollish in two posts, congratulations.

I think you'll struggle to find a post where I have criticised the governments actions over the coronavirus.
 
Ah, so when she was at her own home while he was in hospital was she any less secure? Did all the terrorists just think "Nahhhh, lets wait until she's even more secure" ?
No
But why tie up security forces in 2 locations when one location is available...
 
By the end of Jan it had spread to over 20 countries, and was spreading daily, but it wasn't declared a pandemic until the 11th March.

Less than 10000 cases worldwide though. Wouldn't consider that "prevalent".
 
By the end of Jan it had spread to over 20 countries, and was spreading daily, but it wasn't declared a pandemic until the 11th March.
20 countries doesn't make it a pandemic and the definition is not simply determined by its geographical spread. It also has to be prevalent in population infection
 
By the end of Jan it had spread to over 20 countries, and was spreading daily, but it wasn't declared a pandemic until the 11th March.

There's a series of maps on this article that shows the spread, it's not in the greatest detail. But it shows why they might have made the call when they did and not too much earlier. It was only from the 9th March onwards that the scale of the spread was really obvious.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...hich-countries-have-the-most-cases-and-deaths
 
Has he been seen to be breaking the rules?
He's the prime minister for f***s sake and he's recuperating from a serious virus. He's been upfront about where he's going and I don't think the majority of the public would see him as breaking the rules.
We have a lot of flatlets that were sheltered housing for OAPs, at the end of our road. They were closed last year and were due to be demolished, but they are now being refurbished and will be used for COVID19 patients to recuperate and free up hospital beds, then they will return home.
I don't see Boris going to Chequers as any different, and Downing Street can continue to be used by his cabinet, whilst he recuperates.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because the available evidence changed.

The available evidence didn't change further to say it wasn't a problem anymore now, did it?

The one simple act of allowing Cheltenham Festival to go ahead more than likely spread it across the entire country.

This twitter thread shows a comparison between us, and Ireland. Who had a similarly ICU capability, but took the decision to cancel St Patricks Day while we went ahead with Cheltenham and a Stereophonics festival.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1249127908876128259.html

Yes, I just read that this morning, can't believe the difference and really shows the difference between taking it seriously and taking action in a timely manner and not.

No
But why tie up security forces in 2 locations when one location is available...

Is that really a reason that justifies breaking the lockdown rules?
 
I'd say 20 countries was pretty obvious where it was going......
There were 180 countries recording measles last year with over 500,000 cases, should we call that a pandemic?
 
Last edited:
So Johnson’s GF has relocated to Chequers ... wait, ... relocated, oh, that’s OK then, I thought for a moment she’d travelled to a second home, breaking the regulations :(.


Seems to be a Johnson family trait - didn't Stan come down to Exmoor for Easter?
 
There's a series of maps on this article that shows the spread, it's not in the greatest detail. But it shows why they might have made the call when they did and not too much earlier. It was only from the 9th March onwards that the scale of the spread was really obvious.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...hich-countries-have-the-most-cases-and-deaths

But it shows why they might have made the call when they did and not too much earlier. It was only from the 9th March onwards that the scale of the spread was really obvious.
You only have to look at the infection figures on each of those maps to realise the spread was going to get worse. Just because the number of countries and spread of infection still only came under epidemic classification, it is obvious it would be a pandemic. But they held off calling it so until it actually met the criteria. The fact that WHO and yourself find that acceptable is astounding.
 
This is where the real problem with controlling the contagion will emerge. When a government tells its citizens to behave in an unnatural manner then every single member of that government must be seen to comply. Each time a member of the hierarchy is seen to break the rules they are (in effect) giving all other citizens permission to also break the rules. Where the leadership of a government is in the hands of people widely perceived to be untrustworthy this is a recipe for disaster.

But there will be exceptions - if any of us decided to move in with someone else today no-one is likely to pick up on it. I bet lots of couples who don’t live together have broken the rules.
 
Has he been seen to be breaking the rules?
He's the prime minister for f***s sake and he's recuperating from a serious virus. He's been upfront about where he's going and I don't think the majority of the public would see him as breaking the rules.

In any case it could well have been a request from the security services. Easier to guard a couple than 2 separate people especially if they are short staffed or think rather than have say 20 people assigned to this let’s assign 10 and put 10 on the front line, or whatever the numbers were. Seeing as both seem to have had it, I don’t see the risk.

Assuming he is no longer infectious as he was driven home in a normal car!!
 
Is that really a reason that justifies breaking the lockdown rules?
Security forces will be classified as key workers. Just like the NHS, they need protecting so they can do their jobs efficiently with little disruption or extra workload. So it is bending the lockdown rules to alleviate workload on others.
 
Security forces will be classified as key workers. Just like the NHS, they need protecting so they can do their jobs efficiently with little disruption or extra workload. So it is bending the lockdown rules to alleviate workload on others.

Exactly. Of course there are rules that need to be relaxed at times. Common sense.
 
This poster is the gift that keeps on giving. Comedy gold...
Whoosh, that post went straight over my head. You want to explain it to me Phil?
 
Last edited:
Seems to be a Johnson family trait - didn't Stan come down to Exmoor for Easter?
I always thought he was fairly sensible until recently.. Latest has him telling us maybe the virus is really serious if it can infect the Prime Minister :(
 
No
But why tie up security forces in 2 locations when one location is available...
As I said, a reasonable point, but they didn't make it so it is unlikely to have been considered. Even her moving out of Downing Street in the first place may have been against the rules and presumably meant extra security employed.
 
But there will be exceptions - if any of us decided to move in with someone else today no-one is likely to pick up on it. I bet lots of couples who don’t live together have broken the rules.

So, that makes it ok then?

In any case it could well have been a request from the security services. Easier to guard a couple than 2 separate people especially if they are short staffed or think rather than have say 20 people assigned to this let’s assign 10 and put 10 on the front line, or whatever the numbers were. Seeing as both seem to have had it, I don’t see the risk.

Assuming he is no longer infectious as he was driven home in a normal car!!

It's still against the advice for the masses and does increase risk of spreading covid19

Exactly. Of course there are rules that need to be relaxed at times. Common sense.

Indeed, for those that can afford testing and get it done quicker while the masses ....... well no one really seems to care

As I said, a reasonable point, but they didn't make it so it is unlikely to have been considered. Even her moving out of Downing Street in the first place may have been against the rules and presumably meant extra security employed.

Indeed looking at when he tested positive (showing symptoms for 24-48 hours previously) and her reporting of her symptoms there's a definite overlap and thus she should have actually stayed isolated in downing street with him. But again seems different for some :cautious::cautious:
 
You only have to look at the infection figures on each of those maps to realise the spread was going to get worse. Just because the number of countries and spread of infection still only came under epidemic classification, it is obvious it would be a pandemic. But they held off calling it so until it actually met the criteria. The fact that WHO and yourself find that acceptable is astounding.

You find it astounding that they didn't declare it a pandemic until it was a pandemic?

They were still issuing guidance and warnings on a daily basis. The briefings and advice are all public and available on their website.

But they couldn't formally announce it was a pandemic until it was a pandemic.
 
IMO I think we should forget about who what and where any of the gov lot have been in the PAST, and start to think of NOW instead. Today is the start of week 4 of the lockdown and it will be looked at again on Thursday. Spain and Italy are starting to loosen their lockdown which is great so we must keep an eye on how that goes.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, for those that can afford testing and get it done quicker while the masses ....... well no one really seems to care
At a cost of just £225 for a home test and lab results, the masses can afford it.
 
Assuming this is correct, I wonder if this is also a problem in Wales and Northern Ireland.

11:17
Scotland hit by 'England-only' supply decision
cc784ee7-2351-483f-a4c9-a9250203251f.jpg

Mornings with Kaye Adams
BBC Radio Scotland
Supplies of protective equipment to carers in Scotland have been hit by the decision of the four largest manufacturers in the UK saying they will limit supplies to England, it has been revealed.
But Dr Donald Macaskill, chief executive of Scottish Care, tells BBC Radio Scotland that, although he remains concerned about supplies, he believes they are improving.
"We are facing an additional problem and that is that the care home sector and the care at home sector had traditionally ordered PPE from various sources, but the four largest companies in the UK last week said they were not sending to Scotland and their priority was going to be England - English NHS and then English social care providers.
"So, within two or three days, we've had a massive dry up of procurement into Scotland and that's had a really serious impact on our care homes and care organisations. Things have improved over the weekend. We are confident the stuff is there but just needs to be put out."
 
You find it astounding that they didn't declare it a pandemic until it was a pandemic

But they couldn't formally announce it was a pandemic until it was a pandemic.

Of course you can. There is no point in waiting until it reaches a hypothetical criteria when it is blatantly obvious it is going to happen anyway.
 
IMO I think we should forget about who what and where any of the gov lot have been in the PAST, and start to think of NOW instead.
The only guide we have to the competence, honesty and reliabilty of others is their past performance. Ignoring that increases the chance of making or perpetuating serious errors.
 
You find it astounding that they didn't declare it a pandemic until it was a pandemic?

They were still issuing guidance and warnings on a daily basis. The briefings and advice are all public and available on their website.

But they couldn't formally announce it was a pandemic until it was a pandemic.

Exactly, they were indeed monitoring and constantly evaluating, to announce a pandemic before it met the threshold and criteria set by experts would allow idiots to accuse them of scaremongering.
Plus it would be going against the expertise of those in the WHO and what it actually stands for and could then undermine the very critical message.
 
Assuming this is correct, I wonder if this is also a problem in Wales and Northern Ireland.

11:17
Scotland hit by 'England-only' supply decision
cc784ee7-2351-483f-a4c9-a9250203251f.jpg

Mornings with Kaye Adams
BBC Radio Scotland
Supplies of protective equipment to carers in Scotland have been hit by the decision of the four largest manufacturers in the UK saying they will limit supplies to England, it has been revealed.
But Dr Donald Macaskill, chief executive of Scottish Care, tells BBC Radio Scotland that, although he remains concerned about supplies, he believes they are improving.
"We are facing an additional problem and that is that the care home sector and the care at home sector had traditionally ordered PPE from various sources, but the four largest companies in the UK last week said they were not sending to Scotland and their priority was going to be England - English NHS and then English social care providers.
"So, within two or three days, we've had a massive dry up of procurement into Scotland and that's had a really serious impact on our care homes and care organisations. Things have improved over the weekend. We are confident the stuff is there but just needs to be put out."
I hope this untrue, the only rationale I can think of is that there are many more cases in England and they are concentrating supplies where most needed?
 
Exactly, they were indeed monitoring and constantly evaluating, to announce a pandemic before it met the threshold and criteria set by experts would allow idiots to accuse them of scaremongering.
Plus it would be going against the expertise of those in the WHO and what it actually stands for and could then undermine the very critical message.
Instead it allows idiots to think they have done the right thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top