China Coronavirus

[BennyCake]

But if it's lockdown , business shuts, council's will hardly get their rents, staff don't get paid , be pretty much close shop ,open shop six weeks later back to normal, govt lose a few quid from emergency fund .

What about staff who need to pay for things like food, heat, light, mortgage, cars? Are you f**king serious? It would be carnage!

Thousands coming back from Cheltenham isnt going to help this!

Stop and quarantine at entry points. The country can run smoothly as normal if it's contained at ports/airports. If they don't do that, we will have an Italy style lockdown in a week or two. Now that would be carnage!!

Anyone who goes to Cheltenham and comes back is a bollocks of the highest order. Much of this in Europe is a virus spread by the jet set.

Dr Harries said cancelling big outdoor events like football matches would not necessarily be a decision supported by science.

"The virus will not survive very long outside," she said. "Many outdoor events, particularly, are relatively safe."

Experts.

Expert or is Dr Jenny Harries a mouthpiece for the Boris Johnson government?

Yes an unqualified mouthpiece, as opposed to yourself who's seems to be quite the authority on public health issues including but not limited to the cause of the Spanish flu.

The UK government have said that they expect thousands to be infected. The number of deaths are unknown but it is very likely the hospitals are going to be pushed past their breaking point. I seen what ir was like with that flu two/three years ago.

If hundreds and thousands are going to be infected then it is obvious the current stage we are at is not working. Manage the problem while it is manageable and bring in stricter measures now otherwise we are facing a China and Italy style lock down. It is almost like the UK government are trying to put a house fire out with a fire extinguisher.

Yes, exactly.

[AFM]

Alternatively, they have saved all year for something to strike upon this kind of bad luck. No refund on cancellations is no alternative to some. You must acknowledge that.

Aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal virus with significant mortality risk for the elderly and people with common co-morbidities on one hand.

On the other hand is the disappointment of not getting on your holidays.

People who go on holidays definitely have the alternative not to travel. Anyone who does is a greedy bollix.

Balls. Governments should cancel flights then or implement procedures. Ridiculous to expect the average citizen to interpret all the data and information and do something different from what the government and WHO is advising and advocating.

Balls. There's not much data to interpret. It's a lethal virus with a mortality rate of up to 10% amongst the elderly and people with co-morbidities. It's spread very rapidly amongst people and communities. If you find yourself in a moral quandry between spreading a lethal disease and going on holidays then your a w**ker.

Enforce a travel ban - take it out of individuals hands!

I remember the shutting down of flights after 9/11, Bombardier lost contracts and 1000's of jobs were lost during that period because of uncertainty in the market.

If and they possibly should then it will be a economic disaster.

I'd say the analysts have weighed up the pros and cons financially

That's what it all boils down too, UK government probably happy if 100,000+ social care patients died, look at the money they would save looking after them.

[BennyCake]

Alternatively, they have saved all year for something to strike upon this kind of bad luck. No refund on cancellations is no alternative to some. You must acknowledge that.

Aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal virus with significant mortality risk for the elderly and people with common co-morbidities on one hand.

On the other hand is the disappointment of not getting on your holidays.

People who go on holidays definitely have the alternative not to travel. Anyone who does is a greedy bollix.

Balls. Governments should cancel flights then or implement procedures. Ridiculous to expect the average citizen to interpret all the data and information and do something different from what the government and WHO is advising and advocating.

Balls. There's not much data to interpret. It's a lethal virus with a mortality rate of up to 10% amongst the elderly and people with co-morbidities. It's spread very rapidly amongst people and communities. If you find yourself in a moral quandry between spreading a lethal disease and going on holidays then your a w**ker.

Out of curiosity, how many people on this forum would be in the at risk groups? I'm not at risk but I take ever precaution possible to ensure elderly people are not affected by a virus that could be eliminated if society as a while takes necessary precautions.

A lot of us could have underlying issues. How many of us could be walking around not knowing we could be borderline diabetic, heart disease or have a little bit of chest trouble that might prove problematic if they got the virus.

My mother has health issues, we have a new baby nephew, who knows how a baby's immune system could cope, have uncles/aunts with heart, chest and diabetic issues, and another not long over cancer treatment.

[BennyCake]

Alternatively, they have saved all year for something to strike upon this kind of bad luck. No refund on cancellations is no alternative to some. You must acknowledge that.

Aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal virus with significant mortality risk for the elderly and people with common co-morbidities on one hand.

On the other hand is the disappointment of not getting on your holidays.

People who go on holidays definitely have the alternative not to travel. Anyone who does is a greedy bollix.

Balls. Governments should cancel flights then or implement procedures. Ridiculous to expect the average citizen to interpret all the data and information and do something different from what the government and WHO is advising and advocating.

Balls. There's not much data to interpret. It's a lethal virus with a mortality rate of up to 10% amongst the elderly and people with co-morbidities. It's spread very rapidly amongst people and communities. If you find yourself in a moral quandry between spreading a lethal disease and going on holidays then your a w**ker.

Enforce a travel ban - take it out of individuals hands!

I remember the shutting down of flights after 9/11, Bombardier lost contracts and 1000's of jobs were lost during that period because of uncertainty in the market.

If and they possibly should then it will be a economic disaster.

I'd say the analysts have weighed up the pros and cons financially

That's what it all boils down too, UK government probably happy if 100,000+ social care patients died, look at the money they would save looking after them.

As mad as that sounds, you're correct. A big chunk saved on the DLA bill!

[Solo_run]

Alternatively, they have saved all year for something to strike upon this kind of bad luck. No refund on cancellations is no alternative to some. You must acknowledge that.

Aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal virus with significant mortality risk for the elderly and people with common co-morbidities on one hand.

On the other hand is the disappointment of not getting on your holidays.

People who go on holidays definitely have the alternative not to travel. Anyone who does is a greedy bollix.

Balls. Governments should cancel flights then or implement procedures. Ridiculous to expect the average citizen to interpret all the data and information and do something different from what the government and WHO is advising and advocating.

Balls. There's not much data to interpret. It's a lethal virus with a mortality rate of up to 10% amongst the elderly and people with co-morbidities. It's spread very rapidly amongst people and communities. If you find yourself in a moral quandry between spreading a lethal disease and going on holidays then your a w**ker.

Out of curiosity, how many people on this forum would be in the at risk groups? I'm not at risk but I take ever precaution possible to ensure elderly people are not affected by a virus that could be eliminated if society as a while takes necessary precautions.

A lot of us could have underlying issues. How many of us could be walking around not knowing we could be borderline diabetic, heart disease or have a little bit of chest trouble that might prove problematic if they got the virus.

My mother has health issues, we have a new baby nephew, who knows how a baby's immune system could cope, have uncles/aunts with heart, chest and diabetic issues, and another not long over cancer treatment.

You are right. There's a long list of issues that put people at risk, even people who think they are healthy.

The responses to this virus are a joke and it isn't like there have been subtle warnings in the past about what to expect and yet there seems to be no effective strategy implemented as of yet.

I work for a pharmaceutical company and their response so far is a joke. People can work at home yet they prefer to have a packed out office.

[93-DY-SAM]

This is a deadly virus for those in the most at risk categories. It doesn't respect borders, economics, your personal circumstances or anything else. There is no scenario which is a win-win for everyone while seeing this out. There is no rulebook as such for any of this. Some decisions will work and some won't. Some people won't be impacted in the slightest and some have serious consequences medically and financially. It is not about any one individual.

What exactly do people want or expect?

[armaghniac]

Let's not allow things get like Itsly
https://threader.app/thread/1237142891077697538

[imtommygunn]

The best time is to get it now

(If you are going to get it)

[AFM]

I work for a pharmaceutical company and their response so far is a joke. People can work at home yet they prefer to have a packed out office.

In our office I usually found that it was the managers with no life who forced their staff in, though they could WFH while their cat was sick or getting a new kitchen in, most people in power are cnuts.

[Main Street]

Alternatively, they have saved all year for something to strike upon this kind of bad luck. No refund on cancellations is no alternative to some. You must acknowledge that.

Aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal virus with significant mortality risk for the elderly and people with common co-morbidities on one hand.

On the other hand is the disappointment of not getting on your holidays.

People who go on holidays definitely have the alternative not to travel. Anyone who does is a greedy bollix.

Balls. Governments should cancel flights then or implement procedures. Ridiculous to expect the average citizen to interpret all the data and information and do something different from what the government and WHO is advising and advocating.

Balls. There's not much data to interpret. It's a lethal virus with a mortality rate of up to 10% amongst the elderly and people with co-morbidities. It's spread very rapidly amongst people and communities. If you find yourself in a moral quandry between spreading a lethal disease and going on holidays then your a w**ker.

Out of curiosity, how many people on this forum would be in the at risk groups? I'm not at risk but I take ever precaution possible to ensure elderly people are not affected by a virus that could be eliminated if society as a while takes necessary precautions.

A lot of us could have underlying issues. How many of us could be walking around not knowing we could be borderline diabetic, heart disease or have a little bit of chest trouble that might prove problematic if they got the virus.

My mother has health issues, we have a new baby nephew, who knows how a baby's immune system could cope, have uncles/aunts with heart, chest and diabetic issues, and another not long over cancer treatment.

Why not have it that a  family with those type of evident underlying issues should put themselves or be assisted into some form of self isolation for their own protection until the threat passes, thereby reducing their exposure to near zero.
Isn't that a more practical survival method than trying to get the rest of the world to adjust to a family's particular vulnerable circumstances?

Same goes for nicotine addicts who have that cough, asthmatics on steroid based inhalers etc.  If those sub groups don't want to get sick, then stay at home and take constant precautions on the outside. 

[Taylor]

The best time is to get it now

(If you are going to get it)

No evidence to suggest you cant get it more than once though?

[trailer]

What if they take away our freedoms.... and never give them back?

[imtommygunn]

The best time is to get it now

(If you are going to get it)

No evidence to suggest you cant get it more than once though?

There is that...

Trailer if they took away your keyboard / device which connects you to the internet at least something good would have come of it

[AFM]

Alternatively, they have saved all year for something to strike upon this kind of bad luck. No refund on cancellations is no alternative to some. You must acknowledge that.

Aiding and abetting the spread of a lethal virus with significant mortality risk for the elderly and people with common co-morbidities on one hand.

On the other hand is the disappointment of not getting on your holidays.

People who go on holidays definitely have the alternative not to travel. Anyone who does is a greedy bollix.

Balls. Governments should cancel flights then or implement procedures. Ridiculous to expect the average citizen to interpret all the data and information and do something different from what the government and WHO is advising and advocating.

Balls. There's not much data to interpret. It's a lethal virus with a mortality rate of up to 10% amongst the elderly and people with co-morbidities. It's spread very rapidly amongst people and communities. If you find yourself in a moral quandry between spreading a lethal disease and going on holidays then your a w**ker.

Out of curiosity, how many people on this forum would be in the at risk groups? I'm not at risk but I take ever precaution possible to ensure elderly people are not affected by a virus that could be eliminated if society as a while takes necessary precautions.

A lot of us could have underlying issues. How many of us could be walking around not knowing we could be borderline diabetic, heart disease or have a little bit of chest trouble that might prove problematic if they got the virus.

My mother has health issues, we have a new baby nephew, who knows how a baby's immune system could cope, have uncles/aunts with heart, chest and diabetic issues, and another not long over cancer treatment.

Why not have it that a  family with those type of evident underlying issues should put themselves or be assisted into some form of self isolation for their own protection until the threat passes, thereby reducing their exposure to near zero.
Isn't that a more practical survival method than trying to get the rest of the world to adjust to a family's particular vulnerable circumstances?

Same goes for nicotine addicts who have that cough, asthmatics on steroid based inhalers etc.  If those sub groups don't want to get sick, then stay at home and take constant precautions on the outside.

Are you for real, if there are 100,000 folk with serious medical issues and 3 or 4 family members who look after them in turn, who also have families and friends how many do you want to lock up!! 

[Franko]

I know it wouldn't achieve anything but I'd like to see everyone who said "it's just the flu" bull whipped.

Bulls shouldn't be whipped, that's animal cruelty 

Yeah I'm not advocating bulls being whipped just people who don't give a f**k about a virus that's killing thousands of people.

Im just asking. I haven't said this isn't real. The rates in Italy are frightening but also the facts show that in England alone 6500 people died last year of just flu. No other reason. When, and it will escalate, it's not in our control. I'll deal with it when it happens. You or I can only control what we can. Closing airports and countries won't happen

This aged well.