They'd have to have been homemade since the board game didn't arrive in Britain until several years after you were born
Ooof!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They'd have to have been homemade since the board game didn't arrive in Britain until several years after you were born
Exactly, but they may have been used for another game...or just for spelling.They'd have to have been homemade since the board game didn't arrive in Britain until several years after you were born
My reply to you is very long. I've tried to tackle each point that I can, but I understand long posts are boring to read and hard to reply to, so I've written a TLDR section in as few points as I possibly can. In fact, my post was so long it hit the character limit. What you're reading now IS the TLDR of the long, long reply.
1. Two weeks to stop the spread is a straw man. That was never promised.
2. Just because the government's policy wasn't perfect doesn't mean it was a bad policy. It was reactive to an unprecedented situation.
3. If the UK government's policy wasn't the right policy, what was? What approach was less flawed?
4. You claim "a targeted vaccine rollout and isolation when positive" are preferable: we had both of these and you're forgetting the massive part of spread which is asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people.
5. You say the stats are clear and it mainly impacts the old/vulnerable, with a low fatality rate. Whilst this is true, it does still significantly impact younger groups, and it isn't just all about deaths. 193,000 COVID deaths, 850,000 COVID admissions. You need to factor in that COVID patients are resource intensive, so imagine having 20%, 30% maybe 50% more COVID patients in hospital. How would they have coped?
6. You rightly identify that lockdown has multiple negative impacts - schools, the economy etc. I accept there were things we could have done better, but in addition to more people being in hospital, how would schools, businesses and public services have coped with many more staff, students and pupils being off sick?
7. Sweden. Okay this is a hard one to distil. In a nutshell, that Telegraph article doesn't really flesh out what the headline claims. In fact it specifically mentions that Sweden's advantages were significant in a generally healthier population, and a better-resourced healthcare system. The article simply links "less strict lockdown" with "lower excess deaths" by association, not casually.
8. The Telegraph acknowledges that in terms of excess deaths, Sweden performed worse than Finland, and significantly worse than Norway. This leads to two conclusions - firstly that Sweden was always going to do better than average because it's a healthier country, and secondly that Sweden could have had an even lower rate of excess deaths, if they'd also put actual rules in place. Now, why do I say actual rules?
9. See, Sweden didn't put a lot of RULES in place, but it put a lot of GUIDANCE in place. This guidance was followed pretty closely, likely more closely than we followed our guidance. See Sweden scores very highly on measures of how much they trust each other, and how much they trust the government. The Swedish government could trust its citizenry to do the right thing.
10. Lastly, one final point on Sweden. The Swedish population realised the government didn't actually do that good a job with it's hands-off approach, and so they passed an act in January 2021 with more powers for more restrictions.
A question to you if I may, because I'm really hoping to get an answer to this, but people who argue against lockdown keep ignoring this question for some reason.
COVID is predominately airborne and requires close, social contact to pass it on. Restrictions limited that contact. If we had fewer restrictions, that would have meant more contact, so therefore more infected people, so more cases, more people in hospital and more people dying. Please can you explain to me how fewer restrictions would have led to overall better outcomes, when more people would be dead, and more people would have been admitted to hospital?
1. Give over, it was repeatedly stated as a talking point
2. I agree our governments response wasn't perfect and they've made a fair effort responding to such an event. Whilst the scandals around the finances are an issue, the vaccination program, development and rollout has to be respected.
3. On the global scale it differs, there numerous issues that are common and some extreme issues which are not. However societal wide lockdowns are one thing and in such an unprecedented situation could arguably be accepted in hindsight but to repeat this, c'mon. Not enough thought or consideration was given to the effects on such measures from a mental, societal and economic perspective in response to a virus with a very low fatality rate and a specific segment of society which as claimed by the arbiter Gates was known in March 2020.
4. Yes a targeted rollout, no mandatory jabs, focus on the elderly and compromised and work down to those who wish to have it. This is one thing we did it right. However you're also forgetting those jabbed can also catch COVID and transmit it, so it's not like the vaccine is a definitive be all and end all solution. It's pragmatism. Fundamentally on the vaccine I believe it should be pro-choice and I'm glad the NHS didn't go through with the mandatory rollout.
5.The stats are clear, as you admitted. Low fatality and elderly and compromised being those most vulnerable. It was evident as stated early doors. On the numbers front in regards to hospital admissions, we can broach a separate incident and that is that the NHS is not fit for purpose. It's a bureaucratic behemoth being stripped for everything that it's worth. How could we have tackled it? I mean, we managed to find billions for test and trace, PPE and so on that ultimately went into back pockets, perhaps we could have reacted quickly and bought more resources and built temporary facilities.
6. Yes I am right on the associated costs. But now you're being straw man in your response by stating how schools etc would have survived. There's an alternative isn't there and we did that didn't we. We brought in the right to work from home and overnight millions were able to do jobs that were previously determined to be solely completed in cubicles from their homes. We used technology to bring the schoolplace into childrens bedrooms. The caveat to this is the many business which fall victim to a shutdown, notably hospitality, lockdown was a financial death sentence.
7.So Swedens health system was better resourced then could one argue as stated above that our healthcare system was not fit for purpose despite the enormous costs? And in response to healthier populations who chose to confine people to their own four walls and never propagated the idea of general all round health in regards to combating covid?
8/9. Guidance great, all for it and that's exactly the point isn't it, educate the populace, allow them to make their own informed decisions. Not control their every action and confine them.
Your last point, protect the vulnerable and compromised and allow those who wish to to continue participate in society. We shut down the world for a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate, that targeted a small and spcific % of the population as stated by the arbiter of covid. It was a severe over reaction and the fallout will be felt for years to come.
Hadn't seen you'd replied @Hugh Gains. I'll give you an answer later.
Hadn't seen you'd replied @Hugh Gains. I'll give you an answer later.
1. Give over, it was repeatedly stated as a talking point
2. I agree our governments response wasn't perfect and they've made a fair effort responding to such an event. Whilst the scandals around the finances are an issue, the vaccination program, development and rollout has to be respected.
3. On the global scale it differs, there numerous issues that are common and some extreme issues which are not. However societal wide lockdowns are one thing and in such an unprecedented situation could arguably be accepted in hindsight but to repeat this, c'mon. Not enough thought or consideration was given to the effects on such measures from a mental, societal and economic perspective in response to a virus with a very low fatality rate and a specific segment of society which as claimed by the arbiter Gates was known in March 2020.
4. Yes a targeted rollout, no mandatory jabs, focus on the elderly and compromised and work down to those who wish to have it. This is one thing we did it right. However you're also forgetting those jabbed can also catch COVID and transmit it, so it's not like the vaccine is a definitive be all and end all solution. It's pragmatism. Fundamentally on the vaccine I believe it should be pro-choice and I'm glad the NHS didn't go through with the mandatory rollout.
5.The stats are clear, as you admitted. Low fatality and elderly and compromised being those most vulnerable. It was evident as stated early doors. On the numbers front in regards to hospital admissions, we can broach a separate incident and that is that the NHS is not fit for purpose. It's a bureaucratic behemoth being stripped for everything that it's worth. How could we have tackled it? I mean, we managed to find billions for test and trace, PPE and so on that ultimately went into back pockets, perhaps we could have reacted quickly and bought more resources and built temporary facilities.
6. Yes I am right on the associated costs. But now you're being straw man in your response by stating how schools etc would have survived. There's an alternative isn't there and we did that didn't we. We brought in the right to work from home and overnight millions were able to do jobs that were previously determined to be solely completed in cubicles from their homes. We used technology to bring the schoolplace into childrens bedrooms. The caveat to this is the many business which fall victim to a shutdown, notably hospitality, lockdown was a financial death sentence.
7.So Swedens health system was better resourced then could one argue as stated above that our healthcare system was not fit for purpose despite the enormous costs? And in response to healthier populations who chose to confine people to their own four walls and never propagated the idea of general all round health in regards to combating covid?
8/9. Guidance great, all for it and that's exactly the point isn't it, educate the populace, allow them to make their own informed decisions. Not control their every action and confine them.
Your last point, protect the vulnerable and compromised and allow those who wish to to continue participate in society. We shut down the world for a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate, that targeted a small and spcific % of the population as stated by the arbiter of covid. It was a severe over reaction and the fallout will be felt for years to come.