O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Trickytreesreds]

I can't wait till this government changes and to see whether the animosity is of the same intensity and vitriol.
I'm all for slagging for the right reasons, though I am not sure whether many comments are based more on natural despisement, rather than substance.

But we'll see soon enough.

[ramAnag]

I can't wait till this government changes and to see whether the animosity is of the same intensity and vitriol.
I'm all for slagging for the right reasons, though I am not sure whether many comments are based more on natural despisement, rather than substance.

But we'll see soon enough.

What ‘animosity and vitriol’? This thread is entitled ‘The Government’s Handling of Covid’. If you bother to read it, rather than just make things up, you’ll find that the ONE thing most people, including me, have ever given Boris Johnson credit for is the handling of the vaccine roll out.
There have been other things, most notably about contracts, that have attracted criticism...quite reasonably imo...however in ‘resurrecting’ the thread in recent days I haven’t indulged in any ‘animosity or vitriol’ and I don’t believe anyone else has.
Speaking personally, my sole intention has been to encourage debate about how it is being handled at the moment by a) a government sidetracked by the failings and dishonesty of its own leader and b) at a time when the increases in cases and decrease in testing and mask wearing have been correspondingly spectacular.

[Ramshank72]

Maybe I didn't explain the purpose of the car analogy correct. It wasn't about introducing legal COVID practical, theory and awareness tests, with legal responsibilities and punishments, it's a moral question to those who believe that responsibility for the vulnerable, only lies with the vulnerable. Let me put it another more extreme way to hammer the point across:
Kill someone by being careless with a car, morally bad?
Kill someone by being careless with an illness, morally acceptable?
We all have a responsibility to look after each other.
On the government, I'm not advocating lockdown or segregation, but it's not unreasonable for risks to public safety to be in conversation. After all, I hear every day on the radio not to use my phone whilst driving, so it's not out of place to remind people of good practice.
Also, with my phone I'd be lucky to open Google in 10 seconds!

[Andy_Faber]

Maybe I didn't explain the purpose of the car analogy correct. It wasn't about introducing legal COVID practical, theory and awareness tests, with legal responsibilities and punishments, it's a moral question to those who believe that responsibility for the vulnerable, only lies with the vulnerable. Let me put it another more extreme way to hammer the point across:
Kill someone by being careless with a car, morally bad?
Kill someone by being careless with an illness, morally acceptable?
We all have a responsibility to look after each other.
On the government, I'm not advocating lockdown or segregation, but it's not unreasonable for risks to public safety to be in conversation. After all, I hear every day on the radio not to use my phone whilst driving, so it's not out of place to remind people of good practice.
Also, with my phone I'd be lucky to open Google in 10 seconds!

So you mean something like the AIDS public info campaign in the 80s?

[Ramshank72]

That's actually my wife's specialist subject as an advertising pro so I'd have to defer on the technical side, but maybe not as scaremongering as the aids campaign as that would cause more division (eg how the gay community were treated during that time). But some simple reminders of good practice could save lives.

[ramAnag]

Maybe I didn't explain the purpose of the car analogy correct. It wasn't about introducing legal COVID practical, theory and awareness tests, with legal responsibilities and punishments, it's a moral question to those who believe that responsibility for the vulnerable, only lies with the vulnerable. Let me put it another more extreme way to hammer the point across:
Kill someone by being careless with a car, morally bad?
Kill someone by being careless with an illness, morally acceptable?
We all have a responsibility to look after each other.
On the government, I'm not advocating lockdown or segregation, but it's not unreasonable for risks to public safety to be in conversation. After all, I hear every day on the radio not to use my phone whilst driving, so it's not out of place to remind people of good practice.
Also, with my phone I'd be lucky to open Google in 10 seconds!

Well put...and no Andy, he means exactly what he says, ‘we all have a (collective) responsibility to look after each other’...which includes not carelessly or irresponsibly spreading illness.

[Andy_Faber]

That's actually my wife's specialist subject as an advertising pro so I'd have to defer on the technical side, but maybe not as scaremongering as the aids campaign as that would cause more division (eg how the gay community were treated during that time). But some simple reminders of good practice could save lives.

Unlike 80s AIDS though, the odds of an unfavourable outcome (I'm being polite there) are massively lower, and I'm not sure a gentle reminder to exercise good hygeine to avoid a few days feeling grim (which is most folks' experience) would hit the spot. Not saying don't try of course

[Andy_Faber]

Well put...and no Andy, he means exactly what he says, ‘we all have a (collective) responsibility to look after each other’...which includes not carelessly or irresponsibly spreading illness.

Thanks rA but I'm happy letting Ramshank clarifying what he means

[SithHappens]

It will be interesting to see if attitudes change towards illness, not just covid, we talk about a collective responsibility towards others but having worked in office environments all my working life there has always been the 'hero's' who will come in to work no matter how ill, and were always happy to make sure everyone knew especially if someone else dare have a day off 'i could work why cant they'. Or the other idiot who always comes in when ill, but makes it obvious hes ill and is just waiting for someone to tell him to go home, but hes a hero he tried but yeah i better go home.

What these 'hero's' were too thick to realise was their heroic efforts spread illness to everyone else causing collectively more sick days. But management and HR don't help as they sit down someone who has been off ill, shine a big light in their face and conduct a return to work interview with stupid questions about what you will do in future to avoid becoming ill, 'how about interview that dip**** over there that came in spreading their germs?'.

Hopefully with many office workers now with the capability, even if they are now back in the office, to work from home, thats exactly what they will do if they feel sick but well enough to work, i know not everyone has that luxury of course.

[ramAnag]

Thanks rA but I'm happy letting Ramshank clarifying what he means

Oops...apologies Mein Fuhrer. Fancy offering clarification or tacit support to another poster’s viewpoint, that’s not how a forum works is it?

My point throughout has been that Covid is wholly different and infinitely more random than AIDS or even Monkeypox. It is transmitted in exactly the way SithHappens describes in his office environment scenario (or any indoor crowded work/travel place) and, if we are going to get on top of this thing properly then attitudes are going to have to change as he implies.

Of course there is a risk that for some, a minority, this will become a scivers’ charter but then most rules and legislation are made with the behaviour of the lowest common denominators in mind.