O/T:- Force Majeur

[Mapperleypie]

Sack the wasters, who are probably on full pay, and place those with commercial decision making logistics experience in the key areas.

I'm not sure removing the PM and all of the cabinet right now will be seen as prudent.

[Elite_Pie]

... Snbhd 1 - neither. Gov can only ever talk about intentions. Those charged with enacting the intentions have failed. It's not 'blame', (fatboy), it's f-ing failure. Sack the wasters, who are probably on full pay, and place those with commercial decision making logistics experience in the key areas.

So it's not the government who are at fault, it's the people who the government told to get PPE, increase testing etc who are at fault!
Another pile of manure from the horse. The fact that NHS workers are being forced to work on the frontline without even basic PPE is an absolute outrage. That's not 'political point scoring', it's the truth, and should be making front page headlines in all the papers whether left, centre or right wing.

[TheBlackHorse]

[I]"I'm not sure removing the PM and all of the cabinet right now will be seen as prudent."
... there are rare occasions when your sense of humour shows itself ...

[pingu_pie]

... there is a mismatch between what the government says is happening and what front line operaters say is reality. Somewhere in between something is seriously wrong. I suspect that commercial greed may be at play with suppliers playing silly devils whilst negotiating advantageous pricing for themselves. Providers say there is no shortage of necessary goods. It's not quite the same but it reminds me of the WW2 strikes at Castle Bromwich where Spitfires were made. So the middle men, who currently negotiate order for supplies, need sacking and direct orders to suppliers to take out the proverbial finger and comply. If they do not, it will be time for retribution when all this is over. Time for Gov to stop being polite to everyone.

Commercial greed being blamed, now?? Brilliant.

This is not a force majeure, this is Thatcherism's finest moment.

[TheBlackHorse]

... I understand that in 2016 there was a government lead exercise to test our capabilities in the event of a pandemic - so it would have been Cameron/May in charge. The outcome was that we were short of equipment in key aspects of health care - guess which items. There would then have been an instruction to make good the shortfalls. Can you then imagine someone going to Spreadsheet Phil asking for £x million; the short version of his reply most likely f-off...

[jackal2]

How right wing people think. Stage by stage.

I'm not sure this should be a right v left thing, but anyway my thoughts are as follows...

1. Coronavirus isn’t serious, same as flu, lots more people die of other things.

For the vast majority of people who don't have underlying health conditions, Coronavirus isn't serious and only brings mild symptoms. Some sufferers apparently remain capable of "working from home" while they have the virus, which often isn't the case for anyone who has suffered flu (i.e. genuine flu as opposed to footballers' flu! ). And yes, lots more people are dying of other things.

2. Coronavirus is serious, but if we let enough people get it then herd immunity will develop. We'll allow stuff like Cheltenham races to go ahead.

Coronavirus is serious for some older people, especially those with underlying health conditions, and for a tiny number of younger healthy people who develop extreme symptoms for whatever reason. Until a vaccine is available, developing herd immunity remains a practical/inevitable way to tackle the virus. The debate is over how best to allow that immunity to develop whilst minimising the number of deaths.

3. Coronavirus is very serious, but if we make people stop at home then it’ll be all over in 12 weeks/by Easter.

When their scientific advisers recommended a change from delay/containment to lockdown, the Government followed their advice, but for social and economic reasons the lockdown can only be a temporary or sporadic measure, and it won't be a solution. It simply seeks to flatten the trajectory of cases over the short-term.

4. Coronavirus is very very serious and it’s all someone else’s fault when loads of people die.

In the midst of the outbreak people look upon the rising number of deaths and the amount government activity and media attention as 'confirmation' of the seriousness of the virus and 'justification' of extreme measures, but this can be deceptive. Only when we look back on Coronavirus in years to come will we be able to assess just how serious or not it was relative to other pandemics and causes of death, and whether our reaction as a nation was excessive, measured, insufficient, or even futile.

Some say that if China had reacted more quickly to the first signs of the COVID-19 outbreak rather than covering it up, they might have nipped it in the bud, but I'm not sure. They might have been able to delay the spread, giving other parts of the world a little more time to prepare, but a virus of this nature is difficult to contain completely.

Pandemics are a naturally occurring phenomenon which afflict humankind every so often and kill large numbers of people. Perhaps Mother Nature is trying to cull the worldwide population explosion that is the real driving force behind climate change, but if so, she's going to have to come up with something far more deadly than this to save our species.

[drillerpie]

Regarding mortality here's an article from an Italian broadsheet (If you speak a Romance language, especially Spanish, you'll probably be able to read it, otherwise Google translate it) which reports data from the Italian version of the ONS showing a significant increase in deaths compared to previous years.

It also shows that in some areas of Lombardy there have been up to four times as many deaths as would be expected for the first three weeks of March.

I'm just baffled that people are still comparing it to the flu.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rep...252910084/amp/

[navypie]

I'm not sure this should be a right v left thing, but anyway my thoughts are as follows...


For the vast majority of people who don't have underlying health conditions, Coronavirus isn't serious and only brings mild symptoms. Some sufferers apparently remain capable of "working from home" while they have the virus, which often isn't the case for anyone who has suffered flu (i.e. genuine flu as opposed to footballers' flu! ). And yes, lots more people are dying of other things.


Coronavirus is serious for some older people, especially those with underlying health conditions, and for a tiny number of younger healthy people who develop extreme symptoms for whatever reason. Until a vaccine is available, developing herd immunity remains a practical/inevitable way to tackle the virus. The debate is over how best to allow that immunity to develop whilst minimising the number of deaths.


When their scientific advisers recommended a change from delay/containment to lockdown, the Government followed their advice, but for social and economic reasons the lockdown can only be a temporary or sporadic measure, and it won't be a solution. It simply seeks to flatten the trajectory of cases over the short-term.


In the midst of the outbreak people look upon the rising number of deaths and the amount government activity and media attention as 'confirmation' of the seriousness of the virus and 'justification' of extreme measures, but this can be deceptive. Only when we look back on Coronavirus in years to come will we be able to assess just how serious or not it was relative to other pandemics and causes of death, and whether our reaction as a nation was excessive, measured, insufficient, or even futile.

Some say that if China had reacted more quickly to the first signs of the COVID-19 outbreak rather than covering it up, they might have nipped it in the bud, but I'm not sure. They might have been able to delay the spread, giving other parts of the world a little more time to prepare, but a virus of this nature is difficult to contain completely.

Pandemics are a naturally occurring phenomenon which afflict humankind every so often and kill large numbers of people. Perhaps Mother Nature is trying to cull the worldwide population explosion that is the real driving force behind climate change, but if so, she's going to have to come up with something far more deadly than this to save our species.

How do you that, section by section ?

[countygump]

How do you that, section by section ?

Paragraphs? Or did you not want to mention the word 'Para'?

Press return/enter on your keyboard to send the cursor down the page.

Like this.

Miduck.

[tarquinbeech]

Paragraphs? Or did you not want to mention the word 'Para'?

Press return/enter on your keyboard to send the cursor down the page.

Like this.

Miduck.

No....how do you break up the "reply with quote" into sections to answer different pieces on their own?