Youngstu

I know what I meant?

Maybe I'm open to different possibilities and willing to give some benefit of the doubt. For me it seems that you're very happy to say they/ you are idiots for doing this that or the other because it didn't turn out as bad as it might've been. When there was no compulsion to close/ isolate etc there was also no compensation available for those whose businesses couldn't operate but due to no customers but weren't forced to shut. If those with health conditions were able to receive compensation during forced shielding, what about those on the borderline of eligibility. It would end up like universal credit/ sickness benefit issues but potentially with more fatal consequences.

The older ( more vulnerable?) Relatives chose to come and visit us and regarding the R rate it is a factor of the number of people infected so the R rate can be high with low numbers. But I agree with you in that respect as it doesn't really seem that there was a particular point at which they decided to reduce restrictions, the scientists don't seem to have agreed with them.

So is it a bad thing that the public responded and obeyed in this instance as without that it could've been worse? We still appear to have been the worst in Europe despite having a head start on preparations with Italy, France and Spain ahead of us, but we maybe should've responded faster. What should they have done? Yes the Nightingale Hospitals didn't get much if any use, but what if it had been worse and we didn't have the additional space? A bit like life really, would you rather regret doing something that seemed like the right thing at the time, or regret not bothering trying when you thought it might be a good idea. In March when this all started over here the Virus had only been in existence/detected for 3 months, what had happened in China and the far East wasn't entirely clear and it appeared that there was a massive problem in Italy, then Spain and France. Should they just have ignored it and told us not to worry. I don't think the Government have done a good job in any way, but it seems like for completely different reasons from you. What do you think they should have done between March and now?

Similar situation here too, it's not been possible to work for me, don't live so rural so have seen people out and about but saw family today for the first time since March as we wouldn't have wanted to put them at risk. I don't personally feel that the lockdown was ludicrous and had it been imposed sooner maybe we'd have been out of it much sooner too, but hey ho at least some got to Cheltenham, footie etc before being shut at home. Do we really know the severity and long term effects of those that have been infected? do we really know what's going to happen in the next year? The time is probably time to open up but is it the right way to do it? Why wasn't the NHS overwhelmed like Italy's was, and if we hadn't locked down when we did maybe it would have been (with or without the big nightingale emergency hospitals). The mathematical models may well have got it wrong, but that's what they are, models and they can very massively by what gets put into them and nobody really knew that much about the disease, how the public would respond or how easily it would have transmitted. Should we expect a cure or medicine for new diseases? we have the technology and scientific expertise so why shouldn't we. And yes I do remember the mad cow disease problems but as I was overseas for much of it and probably not particularly interested in it at the time I don't have any recollections of the specifics of the involvements of scientists in the debacle. But if that's evidence of reasons not to trust scientists, I'd rather trust the scientists to learn from their mistakes than politicians and armchair experts.

I'm not sitting at home expecting the virus to get me, but as with most people (yourself included it seems) am continuing to take reasonable precautions to try and avoid getting infecting or infecting others. I wouldn't trust the current or previous government one bit and I most certainly haven't voted for them or at any point felt that they have the best interest of the majority of the country at heart in any way at all. How exactly is it "soft and conditioned" to put some faith in the medical discoveries and systems that have (alongside other aspects of development) allowed the population to reach an unsustainable level? By that statement I take it that you've been out and about trying your best to catch Covid just to prove that you're tough enough to deal with this "flu" and don't bother to have yourself or your family vaccinated against any other diseases that may or may not cause significant harm. It's a very valid point about the fuss being made about this when so many around the world die of preventable diseases and that's exactly the reason why it has scared people, because anyone , rich or poor could be susceptible to it (but you're much more at risk if you have underlying health issues or are from specific ethnic groups). So can we try again : Can you explain the purpose of this "propaganda" that you talk of and explain who is really generating it? Did the government and media want to cause a recession, or to cause huge numbers of job losses, or a mental health crisis, or to highlight the failings of the NHS in the state it's been left in, or to deprive children of education and social opportunities, or to increase distrust in the ruling government, or potentially crash the housing market or to get the population calling for improvements in the NHS funding or calling for a universal income.

Can you explain the purpose of this "propaganda" that you talk of and explain who is really generating it? Did the government and media want to cause a recession, or to cause huge numbers of job losses, or a mental health crisis, or to highlight the failings of the NHS in the state it's been left in, or to deprive children of education and social opportunities, or to increase distrust in the ruling government, or potentially crash the housing market or to get the population calling for improvements in the NHS funding or calling for a universal income. I'm just curious what has caused you to come to this conclusion when there have probably been more than 60000 excess deaths here and this virus is continuing to cause increasing problems around the world, particularly in countries that failed to increase anti transmission precautions early on.

So who's paying that 150k and were you all being paid for quarantining? It does sound like a massive waste of money and I assume it's considered to be very important by whoever is paying. So, if you hadn't all been quarantined and tested then worked in close proximity and someone had brought a special gift for everyone how would that have gone down with all the lads and those fitting the bill, and the HSE or whoever? I'll agree with you about Farage, he is consistent: consistently divisive, consistently getting himself publicity...

But from what I've seen we don't actually seem to know when he returned from his boot licking trip to Texas. It may be hypocritical to criticise a divisive politician whilst not criticising protesting members of the public but you wouldn't expect any more. I'd imagine that Farage would be critical of the BLM protestors for not following social distancing and putting the health of the country at risk whilst supporting the defenders of statues and the great british public crowding onto already full beaches as it supports his cause. It's the way it is and someone like Farage will always be a target for criticism (like most politicians and public figures).

And if Farage is stupid enough to get himself spotted in another country with a major Covid issue, then fail to follow the required quarantine on his return home so he could have his favourite pub based photo opportunity he can't exactly be surprised to have been "grassed up" by political opponents amongst many others. And deny having broken the rules when the available evidence shows that he did. If he didn't fair enough, but if he did, testing or not he should have the same consequences as anyone else (fine, slap on the wrist or whatever that may be).

How many years of motorbike and car accidents gave us those necessary statistics to make the decision to put helmets and seatbelts into law (I'd bet there were a fair few objections to this change at the time too, did they get through on the first attempts even with the evidence for their importance?!) We have 6 months of this virus now, loads of deaths and much worse in some countries than others (the UK is doing particularly badly in this respect and we haven't mandated the use of masks in shops etc where others have). It seems that there is a lot of advice from the scientists, doctors, medical advisers, virologists etc over here and in other countries that wearing masks in places where social distancing is difficult to maintain is a very good idea and will go some way to reducing the further spread of Covid 19. By wearing masks more, maybe the restrictions can be eased further as risks are further reduced! I don't necessarily agree with maintaining the lockdown as it does have a really negative effect on many in our society, but opening up travel, pubs, restaurants etc all on one day does seem like a bit of risky strategy. The british public don't generally do a good job of following the common sense that's expected from them. With a wet and windy "Super Saturday" is this going to make it better or worse. Not too fond of following the rules, especially when plucked out of thin air by this current bunch of incompetents and as they change their minds every 25 seconds you can't expect the instructions to remain from one week to the next.

Masks in shops, in England we don't currently have to but if we do then so be it, the government's done a fine job of cocking it all up so far, so a few sticking plasters are a bit late but wouldn't go amiss really to try and reduce further spread now we're 24 hours away from Boris's free for all, good luck reopening. How did you feel about being forced to wear a seatbelt or motorbike helmet, was that also a removal of your freedoms and rights? What about if they decided cyclists had to wear helmets. Lots choose to anyway after seeing what can happen if you don't, to protect themselves and/or save others from having to pick up the pieces after a crash. At least we can live in hope that compulsory mask wearing is likely to be a temporary measure to help people to protect themselves and others. Helmets and seatbelts don't save everyone from the effect of a crash but go some way towards it. If you look at it like masks really, or safety glasses, or ear defenders, or chainsaw gloves, or airbags, or age restrictions on selling knives) fireworks/ alcohol or .....

Sometimes it does seem that the Governments want to take more control, but not convinced this is one of them. Maybe they should have said to wear masks in shops the whole time, but they didn't and with the lack of PPE at the early stages that's possibly understandably. For the last few months we've been told not to go to shops unnecessarily and to maintain a 2m social distance at all times, wearing a mask at this point probably wouldn't achieve much more and the shops were much more empty. Now with shops getting busier and people doing less social distancing maybe this is the right time to enforce mask wearing in shops and other enclosed public spaces. The virus hasn't actually gone away (see USA) but with people travelling widely there is again more opportunity to spread it about.

Looks like I missed something in my message so you got yourself a bit confused, I'll give you an example to help you understand. Racism was once acceptable in general but some people including the victims and others objected to it, but many, including those in power didn't "give a toss" about the thoughts, feelings or sensitivities of the victims or the others that felt it was wrong. Over time petitions, demonstrations, reports etc raised awareness and increased the support for victims of racism and made that behaviour generally unacceptable and eventually laws were made protecting people from that behaviour. If it wasn't for the ongoing persistence of these "sensitive" types those practices would still be widely acceptable and the victims would be suffering from much greater levels of blatant racism in society. This applies to sexism, homophobia, disability discrimination etc and unfortunately none of them have gone away, they're just less blatant than they were in the past. Is being old or from a certain demographic an acceptable excuse for being racist or sexist or homophobic?

And if everyone who believed that legalised racism, homophobia, slavery, sexual discrimination , disability discrimination etc took that attitude, rather than working to change the attitudes of others that "don't give a toss" and in doing so increase the momentum of positive change by sheer volume of numbers pushing against the old ways change would never come. Old ways and traditional behaviour stick around unless people push to change the minds of others.

Thought this'd fit in well here!? "Everyone's too sensitive these days" is literally code for 'I wish I could be racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist etc without getting called out for it.'

It'd be interesting to read some undisputable facts about what these individuals are actually doing to swing other people's opinions. There was a very interesting programme about how Soros has become a bogeyman for the right and receiving the "credit" for lots that he and his organisations have nothing to do with, also lots of anti-Semitic issues around this. Assuming that they are doing things to influence voters etc, how is it different to or is it any worse than the involvement of Cambridge Analytica in the vote leave and trump campaigns? both of which may not have won without their data harvesting and targeted advertising tactics. There's lots of dubious information on both sides and plenty of conspiracy theories to add to the genuinely possible options.

Most Muslims go to a mosque for religious purposes. The football lads alliance, Tommy Robinson's supporters went to these demonstrations for a scrap (and to get pissed up with other right wing thugs. Some undoubtedly went to peacefully defend the already covered statues from people that had said they weren't coming anymore, but they probably weren't getting tanked up, fighting with the police or pissing where they shouldn't. Unfortunately as soon as it was announced that "proud, patriotic Englishmen" we're going to protect the statues, it was inevitable that this would happen.

I'm sure that this is absolutely true and an important point, but the same thing can be said about the anti racism protests over the last couple of weeks. Far more news coverage has been devoted to the violence and vandalism of the few rather than the overwhelming majority who were peacefully protesting. Obviously I don't have figures but by the look of it a very significant proportion of these "monument protectors" turned up looking for trouble and a fight,with BLM protestors or anyone else that they didn't like the look of.

When those on the left think the BBC is too far on the right and those on the right think it's too far on the left, maybe they're doing what they're supposed to be?! I'm not convinced myself as they give far too much credence to the conservative government and UKIP etc in the past, but that might be because I don't like what they're saying.

And we and our governments, the UN etc should be stamping up and down and making a fuss about both of these examples, imposing sanctions etc, but should we really be involved with trying to directly change the powers to ones of our liking? Does it ever really work? These countries came into being after the British left, but are these problems because we left or did the British being there in the first place contribute to the tensions and issues that have lead to these problems? Do you think the British should have stayed in power in India and not returned power to the people of the subcontinent?

Absolutely! I assume Pakistan was chosen as an example of a failed state as it follows its own path and it's not always in line with what Western powers would like. For some countries, the wars and mistreatment that lead to their formation or are key parts of their history are often scars that run deep and often influence how they are run and what their ambitions are for their future, and for some this includes taking back what they believe is rightfully theirs.

This certainly should be the case all other things being equal, but the current global protests are in response to the fact that unfortunately it doesn't always work this way, as getting the same opportunities isn't always possible for people from different backgrounds for many reasons and "race" can be very influential on the opportunities available. which politicians should be doing this, those of the countries in question or politicians of "successful" countries? In recent years the attempted changing of politicians by western powers doesn't seem to have had a particularly successful outcome. Some really nasty dictators are now gone but the countries are still in chaos. What has caused Pakistan and similar countries to be a "failed state"? If it's their culture, what has caused that culture to develop in that way? My thinking is that the culture of many of these countries is massively influenced by their history and for a lot of them it is a colonial history, which unfortunately involved the colonial powers taking everything they could from their colonies and transferring the resources and wealth back to Europe. Many of the countries did make some gains in term of development, but I doubt that many benefited in terms of wealth as when the colonisers went the wealth generated went with them.

So you're saying that this country is free from racism and discrimination!? And if I remember correctly it was you that lives in the countryside and doesn't see any there? Living and working in a rural area and working with lots of "Joe average white working class male" over the years, I'm very well aware of how hard a time some have with it all and nobody here is saying that any particular group doesn't have it hard, but I'm also very aware of the racism and discrimination that exists in this part of society, especially where society is far from diverse. I think it's also reasonable to say that you don't know any more about what I think, do or have done other than my responses on this topic. Some others make their opinions very clear on a regular basis!

not at all, but maybe show some understanding about why others wish to support those fighting against racism and discrimination that is entrenched in our society.