And to add to what I've just written. I was wrong. I didn't realise there was a context to it. I apologise, what you wrote was entirely in keeping with the way you'd both interacted previously.
I know it’s all a hoax. So Bill Gates can spy on you because your life is that interesting. Every doctor nurse in the world is in on the deception as they were promised flying cars by Musk. With all the relevant info gleaned from watching you go to the chippy they will rule the world. Get your tinfoil hat back on mate your ears will get cold. Is 70k dead people not enough?
Barnsley and Sheffield rates still dropping. Rotherham and Donny slightly up. I guess we'll pay for that by staying in tier 3......sadly.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Barnsley Cases in Barnsley have started to level off.
Plans to relax Covid restrictions at Christmas must be reversed, according to a rare joint editorial from two of the UK’s most eminent medical journals. The government can no longer claim to be protecting the NHS if it goes ahead with “rash” plans to allow households to mix indoors over Christmas, the British Medical Journal and Health Service Journal have said. Monster Munch for Christmas dinner it is, then - on my own. Not to worry, though, I'm still alright to go to work.
I think the reasoning behind relaxing the rules at Christmas is that people will just break the rules anyway. Hopefully by allowing it on a limited basis it may stop people from disregarding it completely and make people more likely to comply again afterwards.
Except he's never said anything like that but you did say thousands of kids were dying. It's you that's repeated false information not him.
Here we go again. You guys always do this when you're losing the argument - start arguing against something that no-one's actually said. A common tactic with those who've advocated lockdown.
All four have been rising again over the last 3 or 4 days. Barnsley had fallen to 105 per 100,000 and it's risen now to 129. Rotherham had fallen to 170 per 100,000 and is now over 200 again.
a Government is there to make hard decisions not run away from them. If they believe something will be detrimental to public health they should not make that decision. It may be hard. It may be difficult to enforce. But that’s why we elect them.
That will be the reasoning though. Rules aren't being enforced or followed now so it would only be worse at Christmas. If they tried it would likely make little difference. As for damaging to public health every decision they make is damaging to public health one way or another.
I think he said thousands were going to die and that this had been briefed out or something to that end. It was ironically enough a hoax.
I thought at the time when they relaxed the rules, that they'd bottled it. no real scientific evidence to back it up, unless they struck a deal with the virus to ease off for 5 days. I assume the joint editorial is more in response to the recent London situation than anything else, but hey. I would imagine bozo has to respond to that now and reverse the Christmas thing. I still reckon huge numbers of people will ignore it - but I think they would have ignored it in the first case. merry Christmas x
I don’t really understand why it makes a difference. If your relatives are vulnerable, don’t see them - that’s why we’ll be doing Christmas Day just the four of us, regardless of the rules. If they’re not vulnerable, go and have a nice time. The sort of people who don’t apply that level of commonsense to their lives are not the sort of people who are going to listen to Boris’s arbitrary pronouncements anyway. People are acting as if it’s a compulsory dictat that you have to go and lick your granny’s face. I fail to see why every single story on the BBC website needs to be about it, other than to obfuscate from the catastrophic redundancy and unemployment figures published today.