Social distancing......

Rustie Trombone said:
Is there any thread you can't divert down a brexit tangent?

Like there's not enough f***ing brexit threads on here you could have posted your whinge on?

Social distancing seems to have diminished since the face covering rules were brought in - which I believe was predicted by the behavioural psychologists?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I have mentioned Brexit on any football threads. There was also a recent one about sirloin steak.

I could have predicted the stupidity of thick people. Doesn’t take a psychologist to do that.
 


Kent_Mackem said:
The EU representatives have reported time and time again that Johnson and team have not even been in touch. Even if I am wrong I’m suspecting Johnson has been instructed by above (i.e. Cummings, who himself is taking instructions from the wealthy Tory donors - The Establishment... those that really make policy decisions) not to negotiate a deal then he will be too lazy and shambolic to manage one.

Pitchforkers is exactly the right term to use. The Leave campaign was genius in its simplicity and effectiveness. Take a look at the demographics. All of the people I respect wanted to remain. That includes almost all economists, academics, leaders of industry and professional, educated people. It isn’t meant to be patronising, and I’m sure it will be difficult reading for some, but it’s just how it is. On the other side complete bell ends like Farage and Rees Mogg who have their own personal get-rich agendas.

In the build-up and aftermath speaking to Leavers and listening to why they voted was horrifying. All about “taking back control” (from whom?) and freeing themselves from draconian EU laws (although they couldn’t name any that affect them.)

Anyway, the damage is done now. We have to accept it and make the most of it. People still have the right to remain sad and/or angry that it happened. The turkeys have voted for Christmas.
Click to expand...

your just nuts
 
soapster said:
try thinking it was Corbyn who refused to be active in the campaign. the media were against leaving and even John Humphries stated the BBC refused to accept leaving the EU was a viable option. The EU were meant to be our partners but all they wanted was our money. We asked them for help in controlling immigration but they just laughed at us, patted us on the head like naughty schoolboy. Just like now, France is demanding £30 million to stop the immigrants leaving France.
AS for the media they wanted a quick headline and would phrase questions to get that headline and to be honest they were a disgrace for either side of the divide. They didnt report the facts in a balanced way. Just the same as the referendum debate. It was a farce non of the sides reported facts and in a way they couldnt. It was all suppositions. The people aginst leaving also used terms which were insulting, because somebody thought leaving was a good idea, they were called names. Just like you have done. You are refusing to accept leaving is a good idea and therefore using insulting terms such as pitchforkers. we know what you mean by that. what gives you the right to insult somebody. The reason we may MAY leave without a deal is because of EU unwillingness to deal. What gives them the right to demand to come into accepted british waters to fish. That should be for those given permission to fish. Can you leave you front door open please, so that people passing can just walk into your house and help themselves
Click to expand...

can you back that up with a source?
 
monkeytassle said:
The whole f***ing thing is a joke. It's ruined a generation. Death rates under 45 are so low its unreal.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far.
dangermows said:
But aye, the elderly don't seem to give a shit :lol:
Click to expand...
They don't.

Part of me understands it. If you're in your 80s the time you have left could be weeks not years.

If you tell them to stay away from their mates for months there's a good chance they are never seeing some of those friends again regardless of whether they socially distance or not.
 
Last edited:
Some Random Guy said:
I wouldn't go that far.

They don't.

Part of me understands it. If you're in your 80s the time you have left could be weeks not years.

If you tell them to stay away from their mates for months there's a good chance they are never seeing some of those friends again regardless of whether they socially distance or not.
Click to expand...
I would. This is 10-20y time frame to repair the damage. We'd only just recovered from the gfc
 
Some Random Guy said:
I wouldn't go that far.

They don't.

Part of me understands it. If you're in your 80s the time you have left could be weeks not years.

If you tell them to stay away from their mates for months there's a good chance they are never seeing some of those friends again regardless of whether they socially distance or not.
Click to expand...

I know they don't. That's why I said so.
 
Goat Eyes said:
We’re humans. We’re not conditioned to keep our distance from everyone for so long.
Click to expand...
We could all wear Herbal masks? People might get the message
monkeytassle said:
49 is the turning point I believe you can look at the stats on the ons website. And that's people that die with covid and not of covid.

We've ripped a hole in the economy for nothing.
Click to expand...
We needed a lockdown but not as long as we did imo
People just thought it was rubbish and things were very close to breaking point.
it was supposed to be about flattening the curve notmaking it go away
 
Last edited:
monkeytassle said:
He's right about the stats like. Deaths under 50 or whatever aribtrary figure they used are ridiculously small. Probably less than flu. That said I speak with the ebwfot of hindsight. Given your average govwrnemt minister is less qualified than your or I then you can see why they bought into the numbers.

Make no mistake. The treatment here is worse than the ilnnes. Growth is lucky to be down 20%. That will be reflected in job losses.
Click to expand...

There are 2 fairly glaring flaws in your logic though. The first is the implied premise that it is somehow possible to isolate effectively those at risk from those not at risk. It isn't possible. Even if you could identify everyone risk, at the facilities aren't available to isolate them all. Even if they were, there would be sufficient inevitable mixing (at risk parents with no alternatives, people caring for older relatives/people, etc) to make it futile.

The second is the implied premise that the economy would have just tootled along nicely if there hadn't been an official lockdown. If 1,000+ people are dying every day from a highly infectious disease, the country will spontaneously lock down. This started happening before the lockdown, so there is no pretending it wouldn't have continued as the death rate climbed. The only difference would have been is that more idiots would have been mixing, so the 1,000+ daily deaths would still be happening and the economy would be ruined.
 
matt228 said:
People keep saying things like this, but whenever I'm outside I'm always amazed how well people are following the guidelines. Momentary slips here and there, and a certain number of people who have decided it doesn't apply to them, but by and large I think it's being well-observed. What I've found surprising is that the ones I've seen not following the rules are overwhelmingly elderly. Being a youngster I would have expected my fellow under 30s to be the worst at observing it, but that's certainly not what I'm seeing.

I noticed there were a lot of people in Middlesbrough today who weren't wearing their compulsory face coverings indoors, mind.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It's trendy to say social distancing is not happening when it clearly is. There are always exceptions of course but generally people are avoiding close contact.
stapler said:
There are 2 fairly glaring flaws in your logic though. The first is the implied premise that it is somehow possible to isolate effectively those at risk from those not at risk. It isn't possible. Even if you could identify everyone risk, at the facilities aren't available to isolate them all. Even if they were, there would be sufficient inevitable mixing (at risk parents with no alternatives, people caring for older relatives/people, etc) to make it futile.

The second is the implied premise that the economy would have just tootled along nicely if there hadn't been an official lockdown. If 1,000+ people are dying every day from a highly infectious disease, the country will spontaneously lock down. This started happening before the lockdown, so there is no pretending it wouldn't have continued as the death rate climbed. The only difference would have been is that more idiots would have been mixing, so the 1,000+ daily deaths would still be happening and the economy would be ruined.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, the economy / public would not have spontaneously locked down. Most who die do not contribute to the economy anyway, and most people would not risk being sacked because they didn't fancy going to work.
 
Last edited:
stapler said:
There are 2 fairly glaring flaws in your logic though. The first is the implied premise that it is somehow possible to isolate effectively those at risk from those not at risk. It isn't possible. Even if you could identify everyone risk, at the facilities aren't available to isolate them all. Even if they were, there would be sufficient inevitable mixing (at risk parents with no alternatives, people caring for older relatives/people, etc) to make it futile.

The second is the implied premise that the economy would have just tootled along nicely if there hadn't been an official lockdown. If 1,000+ people are dying every day from a highly infectious disease, the country will spontaneously lock down. This started happening before the lockdown, so there is no pretending it wouldn't have continued as the death rate climbed. The only difference would have been is that more idiots would have been mixing, so the 1,000+ daily deaths would still be happening and the economy would be ruined.
Click to expand...
Point 1. Everyone over the age of 65 or with conditions known to be at risk stays indoors. Everyone else crack on. Make available delivery slots and testing to those in contact with said vulnerable groups.

Point 2. It wouldn t have taken 20% out of the economy.
 
cornish mackem said:
We could all wear Herbal masks? People might get the message

We needed a lockdown but not as long as we did imo
People just thought it was rubbish and things were very close to breaking point.
it was supposed to be about flattening the curve notmaking it go away
Click to expand...
The WHO are now calling for countries to “suppress, suppress, suppress” the virus.
 
monkeytassle said:
Point 1. Everyone over the age of 65 or with conditions known to be at risk stays indoors. Everyone else crack on. Make available delivery slots and testing to those in contact with said vulnerable groups.

Point 2. It wouldn t have taken 20% out of the economy.
Click to expand...
This is the view of a well rounded adult mind who isn’t a civil servant thinking money grows on trees.
 

Back
Top