O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Geoff Parkstone]

Harsh...actually no...although most things this government suggest do.

Does it not sound ‘ill thought through and contradictory’ then...in the light of what we’ve been told for the last six months?

Doesn’t it all seem a case of ‘these are the rules...this is what you’ve all got to do...except when it suits us to tell you something that completely contradicts those rules’?

P.S. Could you also explain how the 10.00 pm pub curfew is going to help overcome Covid?

I'm in no position to understand the logic behind the way restrictions are imposed, but, unlike you I assume that there is a basis.

As a guess, I'd assume that people get more pissed and more likely to ignore social distancing rules the longer the pub is open. They can't stagger opening hours as that would just result in pub crawls to find the late opener.

Socialising is plainly the way the virus spreads as seen by reduction in cases in full lockdown and rising numbers as its been eased. Its about finding a balance to stem the rising tide. I don't have the knowledge to understand if this will help (nor, I'm sure, do you) but you have to assume the underlying experts behind government policy may have, no matter how much you despise the face of government.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't make it wrong......

[ramAnag]

I'm in no position to understand the logic behind the way restrictions are imposed, but, unlike you I assume that there is a basis.

As a guess, I'd assume that people get more pissed and more likely to ignore social distancing rules the longer the pub is open. They can't stagger opening hours as that would just result in pub crawls to find the late opener.

Socialising is plainly the way the virus spreads as seen by reduction in cases in full lockdown and rising numbers as its been eased. Its about finding a balance to stem the rising tide. I don't have the knowledge to understand if this will help (nor, I'm sure, do you) but you have to assume the underlying experts behind government policy may have, no matter how much you despise the face of government.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't make it wrong......

Which...again...doesn’t begin to address the grandparent/over 60’s question.

It’s true...I do ‘despise’ this government. Not because they are a Tory government...I don’t ‘despise’ Tories...but because they are a right wing government who represent nothing other than the blinkered politics of selfishness...imo.

Now, put the boot on the other foot and imagine Labour had won the last election...can you honestly say you’d still have the ‘just because we don’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong’ philosophy’? I suspect not.

You say ‘socialising is plainly the way the virus spreads’ and I agree...but how do you square that with an allegedly vulnerable age group now being given special dispensation to mix with children who have spent the day mixing with other children from a variety of backgrounds and other - allegedly vulnerable - adults at the school gate? It’s a completely apolitical question...just tell me how it makes sense and what has changed.

P.S. I’d say you and I and many of the regular contributors on here have just as much ability as most politicians to understand the need for and logic behind restrictions.

[Andy_Faber]

The answer rA is use your judgement. It’s your life.

[ramAnag]

The answer rA is use your judgement. It’s your life.

As you know Andy, I do...and I am...but that’s no sort of ‘answer’.
My life will stand or fall by the decisions I make and tbh I take more notice of other leaders over this than our own.

Tricky says, and he’s the last person I anticipated quoting today, ‘they should concentrate their energy in shielding the old and infirm’...but, without suggesting that grandparents are all ‘infirm’...that’s the last thing yesterday’s policy announcement will do, by placing grandparents/older citizens in closer proximity to younger carriers and other older childcarers.

It makes no sense, and if this government can get things so fundamentally wrong on this one aspect of the pandemic, how can we trust them with the bigger issues?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Which...again...doesn’t begin to address the grandparent/over 60’s question.

It’s true...I do ‘despise’ this government. Not because they are a Tory government...I don’t ‘despise’ Tories...but because they are a right wing government who represent nothing other than the blinkered politics of selfishness...imo.

Now, put the boot on the other foot and imagine Labour had won the last election...can you honestly say you’d still have the ‘just because we don’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong’ philosophy’? I suspect not.

You say ‘socialising is plainly the way the virus spreads’ and I agree...but how do you square that with an allegedly vulnerable age group now being given special dispensation to mix with children who have spent the day mixing with other children from a variety of backgrounds and other - allegedly vulnerable - adults at the school gate? It’s a completely apolitical question...just tell me how it makes sense and what has changed.

P.S. I’d say you and I and many of the regular contributors on here have just as much ability as most politicians to understand the need for and logic behind restrictions.

RE My thoughts if Corbyn had been in charge: he would probably have wrecked the economy totally by now (maybe Sunak has as well) and so I would have been critical of his economic decisions, where I can understand the implications/risks. Hell, if he had been in power and COVID had not happened, he would probably be well on the way to wrecking the economy anyway.

As for the other aspects I'd like to think I would have been more tolerant of his government's decisions than you have of BJ's. I say this because whichever government had been in power, the advisors would still have been the same and been recommending similar approaches.

As for grandparents, whilst I can see the inherent contradictions in the advice, I am not so het up about it as you:

(1) How many grandparents actually live close enough to help with school runs. My parents/inlaws were not within 100 miles of my kids' schools

(2) if they do live close enough to help with this, are you really telling me that they are not socialising with their families and grandchildren already, since easing has taken place? So they are already exposed to the evils of the school environment anyway

(3) school pick ups tend to be outdoors and thus in an evident safer environment than, for example, taking them to a shop/cafe

(4) grandparents are not inherently stupid. Just because you are over 50 (say) doesn't mean that you will all huddle together under a tree sneezing on each other for recreation. its probably safer to collect kids from school than to go to the post office to pick up your pension, so to speak

(5) No one is forcing grandparents to do this. It's up to them if they want to help. They are sentient humans who can make decisions on their own mortality for themselves

(6) if it helps the community at large and the economy to recover, then its a planned risk that may make a small positive difference

[ramAnag]

RE My thoughts if Corbyn had been in charge: he would probably have wrecked the economy totally by now (maybe Sunak has as well) and so I would have been critical of his economic decisions, where I can understand the implications/risks. Hell, if he had been in power and COVID had not happened, he would probably be well on the way to wrecking the economy anyway.

As for the other aspects I'd like to think I would have been more tolerant of his government's decisions than you have of BJ's. I say this because whichever government had been in power, the advisors would still have been the same and been recommending similar approaches.

As for grandparents, whilst I can see the inherent contradictions in the advice, I am not so het up about it as you:

(1) How many grandparents actually live close enough to help with school runs. My parents/inlaws were not within 100 miles of my kids' schools

(2) if they do live close enough to help with this, are you really telling me that they are not socialising with their families and grandchildren already, since easing has taken place? So they are already exposed to the evils of the school environment anyway

(3) school pick ups tend to be outdoors and thus in an evident safer environment than, for example, taking them to a shop/cafe

(4) grandparents are not inherently stupid. Just because you are over 50 (say) doesn't mean that you will all huddle together under a tree sneezing on each other for recreation. its probably safer to collect kids from school than to go to the post office to pick up your pension, so to speak

(5) No one is forcing grandparents to do this. It's up to them if they want to help. They are sentient humans who can make decisions on their own mortality for themselves

(6) if it helps the community at large and the economy to recover, then its a planned risk that may make a small positive difference

Ah...so at last...’I can see the inherent contradictions in the advice’. Three cheers!

1. Lots...where your parents/inlaws lived is irrelevant.

2. Of course they’re socialising. I’ve socialised with the three grandchildren who live close enough but under much more controlled circumstances than taking responsibility for child care.

3. Yes...school pick ups are self evidently largely outdoors...and where do you think they go then?

4. See 3 above.

5. Nope...no one is ‘forcing’ grandparents to do this...but the emphasis has shifted. Members of society who were until very recently regarded as being most at risk now seem to be being encouraged to take on an infinitely more risky role. Why is that...what has changed?

6. So essentially you’re suggesting...if it ‘helps the economy to recover’ then grandparents are expendable.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ah...so at last...’I can see the inherent contradictions in the advice’. Three cheers!

1. Lots...where your parents/inlaws lived is irrelevant.

2. Of course they’re socialising. I’ve socialised with the three grandchildren who live close enough but under much more controlled circumstances than taking responsibility for child care.

3. Yes...school pick ups are self evidently largely outdoors...and where do you think they go then?

4. See 3 above.

5. Nope...no one is ‘forcing’ grandparents to do this...but the emphasis has shifted. Members of society who were until very recently regarded as being most at risk now seem to be being encouraged to take on an infinitely more risky role. Why is that...what has changed?

6. So essentially you’re suggesting...if it ‘helps the economy to recover’ then grandparents are expendable.

(1) I'm not sure why the location of my children's grandparents are or were is irrelevant to the generality of the issue. My point is that its quite likely a minority of grandparents that may be able to take advantage of this "break"

(2-3-4) Sorry, we are at cross purposes here - I'm not addressing full on childcare, but school pickups. However if grandparents are already "bubbled" with their grandchildren via regular social contact, where's the problem. They are still vulnerable to contracting covid from the grandkids on this basis. You may be very careful as regards "no hugging etc" but many are not based on what Ive seen on the streets

(5) Encouraged? I believe the word you are looking for here is "allowed"

(6) well, you said it. Malthus said it....... herd immunity says it.... in the first world war it was the 16-25 generation that sacrificed for the common good, am I being too cynical here? Especially for one that is in both grandparental and a clinically vulnerable group