We told you.

[Citation needed]

 

End of the day, summat like the lockdown had to be done in my opinion! We didn't know at the time what we were dealing with.
Just my thoughts on it! Can't be arsed getting embroiled in it!
Put mi two penneth in and it's a sithi from me !!

 

Welcome to my world. TyketicalM's position on this has been consistently sensible and measured, and at no point has he or anyone else suggested we should 'just do nothing'. To anyone not hiding under their bed, it seemed pretty obvious from the outset how damaging the restrictions/lockdowns were going to be, and so it has proved. Those still arguing they were a good thing (or worse still that we should consider further such measures in future) should hang their heads in shame. Or seek help, if they can get an appointment of course.

 

So they can't just hold a different position? They have to "hang their heads in shame"? Really? TM's position is neither proved nor disproved by the the article in the Daily Telegraph. As Brush said earlier, we can't say what the outcome would have been without the spread-avoidance measures adopted by the government. They got lots wrong, and clearly venally benefited their mates, but in dealing with a global pandemic in a situation of uncertainty I don't think they could have done much different regarding lockdown. But that's just my opinion. No more or less valid than anyone else's.

 

Don't bring me into it

Edit; come on lads and lasses, calm down, have a beer or a prosecco and chill, it's pleasant evening and the sun's shining. I've got a bottle of McEwan's Champion and aye it's reet champion an all....

 

How about covid denier Bolsonaro whose inaction resulted in the death of 680000 Brazilians? Ask his citizens if his reluctance to lockdown was justified.

 

I did edit the post yes, as I recall to correct a typing / spelling error - and yeah, to add to it. But it was a matter of minutes later, so suggesting you ‘havent gone back to read my extended post’ with an implication I’ve gone back to it hours later and changed it after other posts and responses isn’t right.

As an admin I assume you can probably see what I wrote and when anyway.

I don’t see how this is an us and them/black and white issue, yet you (and plenty of others on both sides) seem to see it as purely one or the other. Pick your side.

Your argument, and TMs, plus others, is that lockdown was always going to be damaging and has proven to be. Yes it was and has been.

The other argument is that had they had not locked down, could/would there have been a lot more damage? A lot more deaths? A lot of people more learned than me have suggested yes - but obviously we don’t know.

There are some shades of grey here. The fact that lockdown has undoubtedly caused lasting effects does not lead to a definitive conclusion that it shouldn’t have happened, as there’s nothing to suggest any lesser, ringfenced or more targeted action would have been more effective, wouldn’t have led to more deaths directly, or even less damaging in other ways.

 

Who put a Bob in the (unt?

 

That is a reyt drink 7.3% and £1.49 a bottle (tesco) what could go wrong

 

You've enough to wear a hair shirt for voting Tory without adding that to the list!

 

A hair shirt is not really harsh enough to be fair.

 

I still like you.

 

I still like you too.

 

You'd probably enjoy a rough hair shirt

 

Just to bump this, and it appears that the initial knee-jerk reaction from the Telegraph might have been a little OTT. This is an interesting look at the actual figures, and TLR it appears that the main problem is severe overcapacity of A&E services causing delays in treatment (initial response for high priority incidents) and lack of beds in the rest of the NHS to admit patients. Some of this may be related to NHS staff being off sick and some may be budget cutbacks.