With the two SNP shaggers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deeranged

Rather than back slapping and saying how well they all did, combined of course with the back biting and finger pointing, the enquiry should be looking at whether the lock downs were actually required or were excessive. It should also be asking why the emergency plan hey had in place was completely ignored and knee jerking was allowed to take over. Should also look at why scientists were ever allowed to propose worst case scenarios of death numbers as more or less guarantees causing complete panic amongst politicians which subsequently pervaded (almost) the whole of society. Ultimately it should ask why scientists were permitted to run the country rather than the elected government of the time and whether those politicians, particularly those in senior positions, were guilty of abandoning their responsibilities.

It should be recommending criminal proceedings against those responsible for the mess that was made.

Yes, the virus made people ill and was fatal to those with compromised immunity or respiratory conditions - but why did we all have to suffer? Healthy adults treated like nursery school children under threat of prosecution if we disobeyed an unelected scientist backed by weak politicians - absolute scandal.

---

The flu virus can be fatal to those with compromised immunity or respiratory conditions but we did not have a lock down during previous flu epidemics.
People just got on with things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islaydarkblue

The flu virus can be fatal to those with compromised immunity or respiratory conditions but we did not have a lock down during previous flu epidemics.
People just got on with things.

---

There were a few instances of Swine Flu reported on the news this week (or maybe last) and it was like they were desperate to cause another panic over it.

Of course vulnerable people will always be susceptible to respiratory conditions (as well as others groups who are vulnerable to other such conditions) and I'm all for them isolating. However to close down society in its entirety was a scandal of the highest order. As RRoS says though, they'll agree it was not enough and next time we'll be completely ****ed rather than nearly ****ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deeranged

There were a few instances of Swine Flu reported on the news this week (or maybe last) and it was like they were desperate to cause another panic over it.

Of course vulnerable people will always be susceptible to respiratory conditions (as well as others groups who are vulnerable to other such conditions) and I'm all for them isolating. However to close down society in its entirety was a scandal of the highest order. As RRoS says though, they'll agree it was not enough and next time we'll be completely ****ed rather than nearly ****ed.

---

I agree with everything you say.
However this is the result of the Nanny State where a tiny minority of people are protected with a full lockdown even it means causing considerable inconvenience to everyone else.
It would have been a different story if here had been no furlough payments with working people only being paid the basic weekly unemployment payment from the DWP. The lockdown would have been scrapped and the U.K. Government would have dealt with the Covid-19 outbreak the same way as they did in Sweden.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islaydarkblue

I agree with everything you say.
However this is the result of the Nanny State where a tiny minority of people are protected with a full lockdown even it means causing considerable inconvenience to everyone else.
It would have been a different story if here had been no furlough payments with working people only being paid the basic weekly unemployment payment from the DWP. The lockdown would have been scrapped and the U.K. Government would have dealt with the Covid-19 outbreak the same way as they did in Sweden.
.

---

I'm protected from getting knocked Doon if I never leave the house but it ain't sustainable.

Why should 99.7% of people have their liberties destroyed for the 0.3% ?

And worse why should some of the 99.7% be given a death sentence for the 0.3%........the 40 year old fighting cancer sacrificed to give an 83 year old another 3 mths of life?

It was so so so wrong and people still believe it was the right thing to do and would do it all again in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Returnofrros

I'm protected from getting knocked Doon if I never leave the house but it ain't sustainable.

Why should 99.7% of people have their liberties destroyed for the 0.3% ?

And worse why should some of the 99.7% be given a death sentence for the 0.3%........the 40 year old fighting cancer sacrificed to give an 83 year old another 3 mths of life?

It was so so so wrong and people still believe it was the right thing to do and would do it all again in a heartbeat.

---

Good points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Returnofrros

I'm protected from getting knocked Doon if I never leave the house but it ain't sustainable.

Why should 99.7% of people have their liberties destroyed for the 0.3% ?

And worse why should some of the 99.7% be given a death sentence for the 0.3%........the 40 year old fighting cancer sacrificed to give an 83 year old another 3 mths of life?

It was so so so wrong and people still believe it was the right thing to do and would do it all again in a heartbeat.

---

Hallelujah to that!!!!!


Disclaimer - I'm not religious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Returnofrros

I'm protected from getting knocked Doon if I never leave the house but it ain't sustainable.

Why should 99.7% of people have their liberties destroyed for the 0.3% ?

And worse why should some of the 99.7% be given a death sentence for the 0.3%........the 40 year old fighting cancer sacrificed to give an 83 year old another 3 mths of life?

It was so so so wrong and people still believe it was the right thing to do and would do it all again in a heartbeat.

---

This is the problem with the Nanny state in the U.K.
We now get announcements before television programmes such as the Yorkshire Vet warning that some operations will take place in the programme which might upset viewers.
If viewers do not like watching an animal receiving a life threatening operation then do not watch the Yorkshire Vet programme in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islaydarkblue

This is the problem with the Nanny state in the U.K.
We now get announcements before television programmes such as the Yorkshire Vet warning that some operations will take place in the programme which might upset viewers.
If viewers do not like watching an animal receiving a life threatening operation then do not watch the Yorkshire Vet programme in the first place.

---

That and normal drama type programmes like Coronation Street and Emmerdale being followed by the obligatory 'if you've been affected by any of the issues' statement.

Farcical and gets right on my thruppennies.