Mesterh

So what vested interests do they have and what decisions are they pushing through? If I go to the docs I trust his advice, I don't start to question which brand of drugs he is recommending. If I used duck duck go to search my ailments I'm sure I could find plenty of differing options and eventually find something damming my doctors practice and find something I like. Sometimes we need to just trust other people that know better than we do, if the vast majority of experts agree then so much the better.

Well for one we need to define who is vulnerable, that list could be very long if you start taking long covid victims into account and if you do how do you identify them for a start. If we are protecting them by locking them away then we have to lock away the people they live with and their careers, that's going to be a hell of a lot of people not going to work, not going to school not going anywhere. Who atm is locked away, I'm not you're not and a good proportion of the UK aren't confined to their house atm so there is no ethical dilemma there. As we all lockdowns are bad for the reasons you describe but surely this has been weighed up against the outcome if there wasn't lockdowns by the people who specialise in economics and health care, we aren't qualified to make those decisions. As it's already been mentioned it's not all about the numbers of people who die of covid it's the impact it would have if huge numbers of people where infected at the same time. None of us here are qualified to make these decisions, yes we can speculate and debate them but really none of us have a clue on the best course to take for the greater good. I wouldn't trust the advice from half the people on here on how to fell an elderberry in my back garden and it's an arb forum.

'Apart from not being able to shield the vulnerable' Seems like you failed to read that bit. But yes, ethics and morals should come into play. I know you aren't really bothered about that as 'most of the covid victims were going to die anyway' your words not mine.

I guess they are trying to drum up more of the rich to follow suit. There are a lot of good people out there that have money and do share their wealth, they aren't always looking for an angle.

Apart from not being able to shield the vulnerable I think there is a bit of an issue of an ethical issue in locking away the old, disabled and sick while everyone gets on with life. What's that statement that goes along the lines of, 'a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable' Well it's something like that, I think a lot of people have said the same type of thing over the years. Seems quite fitting recently.

The 10 mil was just a figure I used for myself, hell, if I had less than half that I wouldn't care if I had to get slapped with more tax. I totally agree that we do need the super rich, their money drives industry and technology forward and creates jobs. No super rich no yacht builders, private jets expensive dyson products etc. If they are saying tax us to help out then why not.

I don't really understand as that's what's more or less going on now to a degree and there are plenty of people out there with no common sense at all. If you mean open up all business's but try to distance and expect people to use common sense then that's not really going to work either, it was tried and the rates went up hence this current lockdown.

I'm thinking of the super rich like those in my post. If I had say £10 mil in the bank I would care not a jot if I had to take a hit for the next 5 years.

There does seem to be no doubt that track and trace is a farce, the contract should probably have gone to the NHS who already have track and trace systems in place like tracking and tracing STI'S etc but I obviously didnt word my comment correctly. Im interested in the comments of those that say this is all been blown out of proportion and the likes of lockdowns, distancing, masks, not visiting people, shutting pubs restaurants, closing the borders etc arent necessary and that we are being lied to and its all for some other agenda. What agenda, who is lying to us and why.

If you don't like the way people interpret your comments then don't be cryptic about it and say what you mean. So go on then, what do you exactly mean by saying this How dare you question Sage and their vested interests with their shares in companies that are making billions off of this pandemic

Hey I'm not saying people aren't making huge amounts of money out of this, of course they are that is obvious. But you aren't saying that are you. You are suggesting that these people are making serious decisions affecting millions with the intention to line their back pockets, that is a completely different thing altogether.

Ha, who says it isn't true is just as likely to be as true as your story. Surely you don't really believe what your saying. You think sage, the government etc are keeping us in these lockdowns so they can line their own pockets?

Well, maybe it's time to tax the rich, I know there can be issues with that type of idea but it seems there are some demanding that they pay. Super-rich call for higher taxes on wealthy to pay for Covid-19 recovery | The super-rich | The Guardian WWW.GOOGLE.COM Exclusive: Group of 83 wealthy individuals demands ‘immediate, substantial and...

Jesus, the captain of my plane has shares in a life jacket company, do you think he is going to crash the bleedin plane?! It was one politicians and he was talking about lawyers and ince when do we believe anything politicians say, ahhh that's right, when it suits us that's when. There have been and there are far worse laws being implemented in other countries and most actually all of them have done exceptionally better than the UK and Sweden, Netherlands etc .

It looked a lot less like he was feeding the hungry and more like finding a way to have a gathering. There are loads of people feeding the hungry, homeless and less fortunate but they aren't getting fined so obviously this guy was doing something wrong.

As one of the enlightened, (and yet with self-proclaimed respect for CV-19), could you tell the rest of us poor sheep what is really going on please? Tens of thousands of people are literally dying to know the real truth. Let's hope you get an answer as I've asked serveral times across many of these type of threads and not had one.

There's going to be nothing left of that setup if a 1 ton log falls any kind of distance. 1 metre fall would equal 9.8kN of force. I'm guessing it would be a lot more of a fall than 1 metre.

I very much doubt that is going to happen! Will you bounce up and down and make a cartoon twangy noise then be catapulted into oblivion like wile e coyote?

I like your way of thinking, any work on a leylandii needs to be a fell

That's the job I had in my head.

Climb it like a ladder and tie in at the top. Safe, easy and effective. I really want to see some videos of people climbing real life trees using the two rope system. It's soooo easy to do on paper.

Post a video of you doing that so we can all learn from it please. Try a 50 leylandii with branches every 6 inches first, that should be a lot of fun. I'm sure you will be in a fit state to work in once you reach the top.

If you do get questioned by the HSE for doing something silly just say you meant to do it. The home schooling, never ending lockdowns and depression has gotten the better of you. Might have to do a bit of therapy but could save you £60K Unfortunately I know a few people who have ended up in hospital which as nearly always was due to their own stupidness, cutting corners etc (me included) and the only one who got questioned by the HSE was just to ask if their employer had forced them into a difficult situation. A simple no was good enough for the HSE. Making tree climbers use two ropes all the time is ridiculous and as already mentioned down right dangerous at times. One rope and a secondary backup while cutting is enough IME. Ive only used two ropes and that was part way through a college course due to someone not have a secondary attachment point and cutting his main line.

They certainly won't promote it if it does have some positive effects! My Mrs was involved with this kind of research years ago. Teens 'smoke to have small babies' WWW.GOOGLE.COM Pregnant teenagers are deliberately smoking in the hope of having smaller...

Good news, let's hope it does go ahead.