Labour Leader Demands Lockdown

It's the testing and trace since the outset, Jeremy Hunt today (I'm no fan) but he said why can't we be in a position by April (backhanded way of saying now 9 months later without offending the party) that everyone should or could be tested weekly.
I'm in agreement the whole situation and the restrictions are a joke but because there's no actual plan the virus is taking over again.

 

But that's not fair. Even Boris says it's not fair to expect vulnerable people to protect themselves. It's victimising them to expect them to make sacrifices to keep themselves alive. It's the job of the under 30s to make bigger life altering sacrifices to Doris doesnt have to.

Absolute ********

 

And yet every country that’s successfully dealing with the virus is doing exactly that.

it’s odd innit!

BoJo tells you that it won’t work because we’re ’independent minded’ but the weak willed Germans, S Koreans, Hong Kong, New Zealander’s seems to have the community spirit and strength of character to look after each other.

Totally bizarre, it’s almost as if he knows that the money he’s paid for our ‘world beating’ system is just being spent on coke and hookers by his mates, instead of an actual tracking strategy.

 

I continue to find the whole thing baffling. I can see no end point in sight at all. Dying from Covid is unacceptable and all other misery and death caused as a result is irrelevant. We are on a mission to "beat" a virus.

 

Don't worry.

Operation Moonshot will be in place by October - it's cost an estimated 100 billion pounds according to a leaked document.

Oh wait, it's been quietly swept under the carpet.

Tory ********.

 

If I was as worried as some posters on here who keep banging on for another total lockdown I wouldnt leave the house at all.

 

And if I was as worried about my mum, sister, wife etc etc as some on here. And I must stress I perfectly understand those worries, it's natural. Then I would be making sure they are isolated and shielded and if necessary I'd be moving them in with me. If I had to quit my job to give them the attention they need to stay safe then I would do exactly that rather than selfishly keeping my job and expecting someone else to lose their livelihood to keep my loved one safe.

 

I never stated it was a fact, it was an extrapolated projection based on previous rates of growth. It won't get that bad (hopefully) if the lockdown restrictions lower the spread. But we are nearly a week past the start of the prediction and infections are continuing to rise (figures are late again today). At the moment, I would be surprised if we were not at 30000 positive tests/day by the end of next week - unless the system can't cope or the measures start to take effect.

I am quite happy for us to come back to this in the future to see exactly where we ended up. I'm reasonably confident the predictions won't be too far off *if no significant interventions are made*.

 

in made up cloud cuckoo land.

 

If you shield all those classed as vulnerable you hit 22 million people plus a further 7 million carers and 1.2 million NHS workers. To achieve herd immunity you need 60% + ( if it even exists) so this can never be achieved. So your plan is basically to Lock up 30 million people permanently.

 

Scoff not having a go at you chief you're one of the level headed and non dramatic ones. Like I say, some of us are for some reason held to a standard whereby we have to be bang on the money or else its pitchforks are I told you so's.

Check out Kentish Express front page, it's about Brexit and explains this totally.

 

Your plan is to restrict people from being able to have a life or a livelihood hood permanently.

Why is that better?

 

If you quit your job, you do not qualify for full UC for 3 months. You are also expected to pay your mortgage, all your bills and buy food for that period and the foreseeable future. Do you quit your job in a recession, knowing that your house will be repossessed within 6 months to look after your relatives?

Remember *well* over 30% of adults fall into a higher risk category due to being over 60 (14 million), recovering from cancer (2 million in 10 years from diagnosis), diabetes (3 million), obesity (14 million - not the same as those over 60), dementia (800000), etc. And that assumes they know they are at-risk and aren't living in the same house as the 10 million+ school kids.

 

So the person worried about their mum shouldn't make a sacrifice but the person with no elderly relatives should lose their job instead. Sounds extremely selfish to me

 

It's totally barmy that London has been locked down.

 

Toby ******* Young you're quoting that lovely person! Mate you really need to get better sources.

 

it definitely isn’t my plan at all. But your shield the vulnerable stuff is just fantasy.

But looking at your plan. We have 30 million people isolating. Presumably we need to build super hotels for NHS staff and carers who now can’t go home and sone care hones for their kids who no longer have parents they can come into contact with. I presume we now give them some form of UBI or do we let them starve ? How do we afford all this?

 

Toby Young now that is a new low.

 

There are obviously completely different levels of vulnerable. Lets start with the elderly. They make up absolutely huge percentage of deaths and yet are a relatively small number of people compared to the country.

 

What's the answer then? Carry on just existing leisure, retail, airline industry's aswell as others on there arses. Or do a lockdown every 6 months and hope it goes away?
And I stand by what I said if I was so worried which I can understand people been worried, I wouldnt leave the house.