Should there be a lockdown referendum in the UK?

Watch
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I think you’ll find they do. Lockdown are quite effective at slowing the spread of viruses. We know we’re not going to be able stop the spread of the virus until vaccines ate rolled out. But that’s already been explained so many times before .

Lockdowns are in place to stop the NHS being overwhelmed .
Not really.

There are several measures dealing with epidemics and pandemics and there are well known for long time know. And yes it has been explained a lot of times before in these threads. By the way how do you know what has been explained and what has not been explained given you are new here?

And I will ask you again. Since when lockdowns are effective and efficient measures in dealing with epidemics or pandemics? In which books do medical scientists, epidemiologists or health professionals learn about lockdowns? Can you point me to these books or some scientific publications?

I don't remember before in Europe or in the US for example to have used lockdowns as a means of dealing with epidemics. It's obviously something new. A political decision and not a medical or scientific decision.

Those who argue in favour of lockdowns are either naive or ignorant, or they don't care as they are affluent.

The World Health Organisation has advised against lockdowns by the way since the beginning of the story. So I don't think there is a lot to discuss when the WHO itself which is a mainstream political organisation has said so.

The only reason lockdowns are imposed is because there is public support after a large number of the population has been scared to death and terrified. Other than that your argument has no basis.

TCA2b
Megacent
PilgrimOfTruth
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I think you’ll find they do. Lockdown are quite effective at slowing the spread of viruses. We know we’re not going to be able stop the spread of the virus until vaccines ate rolled out. But that’s already been explained so many times before .

Lockdowns are in place to stop the NHS being overwhelmed .
I am quite puzzled on how do you know what has been discussed around here given that you are new?

What has been shown in these threads and very clearly is that lockdowns are taken by political decisions and are not sound scientific measures.

In addition it has been shown why lockdowns cannot work and why they can only serve as short term fixes. In the long term they are catastrophic. And we have long passed the 'short term' period.

If you think that someone here has proven the effectiveness and efficiency of the lockdowns then let me know who was it and how did he prove it.

There have been a couple of attempts but not very convincing. They have proven nothing and mostly their arguments were based on emotions rather than evidence and facts.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Not really.

There are several measures dealing with epidemics and pandemics and there are well known for long time know. And yes it has been explained a lot of times before in these threads. By the way how do you know what has been explained and what has not been explained given you are new here?

And I will ask you again. Since when lockdowns are effective and efficient measures in dealing with epidemics or pandemics? In which books do medical scientists, epidemiologists or health professionals learn about lockdowns? Can you point me to these books or some scientific publications?

I don't remember before in Europe or in the US for example to have used lockdowns as a means of dealing with epidemics. It's obviously something new. A political decision and not a medical or scientific decision.

Those who argue in favour of lockdowns are either naive or ignorant, or they don't care as they are affluent.

The World Health Organisation has advised against lockdowns by the way since the beginning of the story. So I don't think there is a lot to discuss when the WHO itself which is a mainstream political organisation has said so.

The only reason lockdowns are imposed is because there is public support after a large number of the population has been scared to death and terrified. Other than that your argument has no basis.

TCA2b
Megacent
PilgrimOfTruth
We’ve never had anything like this happen in living memory.

the last time this happened was in the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918. Lockdowns weren’t initiated then because there was a war going on.

Interestingly it got the name Spanish flu because neutral Spain was the only country reporting on it. The belligerents made no mention of it in their newspapers for fear it could damage the war effort.

The WHO have never mentioned lockdowns being bad.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=2e0a2563158c

there is mention of some dim witted people on social media purposely misrepresenting what they recommended.

lockdowns aren’t politically popular due to the huge impact they have on the economy. So be sure that when governments are advocating lockdowns it’s because there’s some serious problem behind it that they’re trying to contain.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
We’ve never had anything like this happen in living memory.

the last time this happened was in the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918. Lockdowns weren’t initiated then because there was a war going on.

Interestingly it got the name Spanish flu because neutral Spain was the only country reporting on it. The belligerents made no mention of it in their newspapers for fear it could damage the war effort.

The WHO have never mentioned lockdowns being bad.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=2e0a2563158c

there is mention of some dim witted people on social media purposely misrepresenting what they recommended.

lockdowns aren’t politically popular due to the huge impact they have on the economy. So be sure that when governments are advocating lockdowns it’s because there’s some serious problem behind it that they’re trying to contain.
There were no lockdowns during the Spanish Flu. Although some places closed but were not forced to close by their Governments. You are very wrong here.

The World Health Organisation has advised against lockdowns. You are wrong here too.
Here is one by the BMJ the British Medical Journal: Leading Doctors Argue Against Local Lockdowns.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3959

One paragraph of this:

David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for covid-19, has separately appealed to government leaders: “Stop using lockdowns as a primary means of controlling the virus. Develop better systems for doing it.” Speaking in an interview with Spectator magazine he said, “The only way that lockdowns are justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources and protect your healthcare workers.

If you have realised what Dr Nabarro said is that the only thing lockdowns do is to buy you time and nothing else.

Hence you are wrong twice from the beginning of your reply to me.

Another erroneous argument is to try to compare the Spanish Flu with Covid 19. One with a mortality rate of 10% and the other with 0.3%.

You say that there is mention on social media by dimwitted individuals who misrepresent and misinterpreting what the WHO has said.

Those who are dimwitted are those who try to argue In favour of matters they have no knowledge and experience. Especially if these are scientific and public health matters.

Other than that I think you don't have much there so rather not to continue with the arguments as I have shown that you are not correct in what you are saying.

TCA2b
Megacent
PilgrimOfTruth
Last edited by Lucifer323; 1 month ago
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
lockdowns aren’t politically popular due to the huge impact they have on the economy. So be sure that when governments are advocating lockdowns it’s because there’s some serious problem behind it that they’re trying to contain.
I'm worried that there is a more sinister agenda that goes far beyond political popularity. In my view, stuff like the masks/muzzles are about social control. It's been law t o wear them since summer and they haven't really brought cases down so how effective are they really?

If restrictions really were about health rather than control, and they were only temporary, I could get behind them. But I find it concerning that they are always moving the goalposts, there's always a convenient excuse to extend things. People are telling me "oh it's just a little bit longer" but now we've been told social distancing and masks might remain in place for another year. So it's not just a little bit longer is it? It keeps going on and on, and that's what I'm absolutely terrified of, restrictions that never end.
Last edited by Megacent; 1 month ago
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Lucifer323)
There were no lockdowns during the Spanish Flu. Although some places closed but were not forced to close by their Governments. You are very wrong here.

The World Health Organisation has advised against lockdowns. You are wrong here too.
Here is one by the BMJ the British Medical Journal: Leading Doctors Argue Against Local Lockdowns.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3959

One paragraph of this:

David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for covid-19, has separately appealed to government leaders: “Stop using lockdowns as a primary means of controlling the virus. Develop better systems for doing it.” Speaking in an interview with Spectator magazine he said, “The only way that lockdowns are justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources and protect your healthcare workers.

If you have realised what Dr Nabarro said is that the only thing lockdowns do is to buy you time and nothing else.

Hence you are wrong twice from the beginning of your reply to me.

Another erroneous argument is to try to compare the Spanish Flu with Covid 19. One with a mortality rate of 10% and the other with 0.3%.

You say that there is mention on social media by dimwitted individuals who misrepresent and misinterpreting what the WHO has said.

Those who are dimwitted are those who try to argue In favour of matters they have no knowledge and experience. Especially if these are scientific and public health matters.

Other than that I think you don't have much there so rather not to continue with the arguments as I have shown that you are not correct in what you are saying.

TCA2b
Megacent
PilgrimOfTruth
There was no lockdown during the Spanish Flu because we were fighting WW1 at the time. The German army had just redeployed 50 divisions front eastern front and kicked off the spring offensive. There was no lockdown as the news was censored. Troops were needed to fight and women were required to make the munitions.

lockdowns not going to stop a pandemic. As you say it buys time. It slows the rate of transmission so you at least have to chance to try and treat people in hospital instead letting them
cjole to death at home or in hospital corridors (as happened in the Spanish flu) they also buy time to make sure you can acquire medical supplies and generate vaccines. Remember the nightingale hospitals that were built and the scramble for ventilators first time around? That was needed as it Was a new disease with no vaccine and no known treatment.


scientific and public health officials (in developed country’s have all called for lockdowns .

do you know what the mortality rate has been for Covid? If you do, please do let the experts know . They’ll be waiting some time for the butchers bill to come in from this.

I hope it’s only 0.3% and not 10%. Then again we’ve we’ve had the benefit of 100 years of medical developments since the Spanish flu. No longer have a life expectancy of 55. Don’t live 10 to a house with no indoor toilet.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
scientific and public health officials (in developed country’s have all called for lockdowns .
The problem is they've changed their story so many times that it's eroded their credibility. In March masks didn't work, but now as if by magic suddenly they do work. So much conflicting narratives it's got to the point I just see them as a laughing stock.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Megacent)
The problem is they've changed their story so many times that it's eroded their credibility. In March masks didn't work, but now as if by magic suddenly they do work. So much conflicting narratives it's got to the point I just see them as a laughing stock.
Not changed. Adapted.

In March people didn’t know, and still don’t know how this works.

If you try reading news articles than glean information from Twitter, they do actually explain these things.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Not changed. Adapted.

In March people didn’t know, and still don’t know how this works.

If you try reading news articles than glean information from Twitter, they do actually explain these things.
That's not what happened, you are just repeating their excuses. I can't think of any specific change in our scientific understanding of the virus that would justify a change of position from "masks dont work" in March to "masks do work" now. Similar thing with the 4000 deaths a day. It's not a case of they predicted that number and then lockdown prevented it. They outright lied to us, we were not going to have 4000 deaths a day even without lockdown, they just wanted to frighten us. I'm not anti science, I just think that when scientists have lied to you once, you' are justified in being skeptical of any further claims they make. The fearmongering is disgraceful.
1
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Megacent)
That's not what happened, you are just repeating their excuses. I can't think of any specific change in our scientific understanding of the virus that would justify a change of position from "masks dont work" in March to "masks do work" now. Similar thing with the 4000 deaths a day. It's not a case of they predicted that number and then lockdown prevented it. They outright lied to us, we were not going to have 4000 deaths a day even without lockdown, they just wanted to frighten us. I'm not anti science, I just think that when scientists have lied to you once, you' are justified in being skeptical of any further claims they make. The fearmongering is disgraceful.
We still don’t know if the vaccines stop
you spreading the virus, or if it just stops you catching it or even if it still means yiu catch it but don’t get ill from it.

why they said don’t wear masks I don’t know. Personally I’d have been happy if they kept saying don’t wear masks. There’s people out there who think that my wearing a mask they can’t get it. Hell, it might have been a strategic decision. Imagine what would’ve happened if they did say we needed masks when there was a global PPe shortage.

I work in a manufacturing plant. Overnight our PPE vending machines were emptied of masks, infra red thermometers. We even had people
pulling hand sanitising machines off the walls in the toilets.

so tell me what you’re concerns are and I’ll try and educate you. I’ll even try and link it to the relevant statements and simplified supporting information.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
so tell me what you’re concerns are and I’ll try and educate you. I’ll even try and link it to the relevant statements and simplified supporting information.
My main concern is that this is about control, rather than health. I can get behind the restrictions if they are genuinely are temporary and for our health, but not if it's indefinite. The longer this goes on, the more they move the goalposts, the more it feels like they have no intention of giving us our freedom back.

Seeing masks on peoples faces makes me very uncomfortable. I've always had a problem here because for me, they look too much like muzzles, a symbol of oppression that humiliates and degrades the person wearing them. I know that not everybody feels this way and if they want to wear one I think that's ok, but people shouldn't be forced to if they are really uncomfortable with it. I know they say it helps slow the spread and logically I would agree with that, because the structure of the mask means it will contain some of the virus particles an infected person exhales. But just how much effect is it having? Shouldn't we have seen a big drop in cases around the time everyone started wearing them?

Basically I can get behind and support some temporary restrictions in the interests of health. If they asked us to wear masks rather than demanded, and guaranteed that it was only temporary and gave us a time table, I would probably feel more able to wear one. At the very least I would give it another try. I'm very defensive about my freedoms being restricted but if there was an end date to work towards then I wouldn't feel so threatened. But if there is no time table given, then I start to worry that I'll never get that freedom back, and that's what triggers severe reactance in me.
Last edited by Megacent; 1 month ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
There was no lockdown during the Spanish Flu because we were fighting WW1 at the time. The German army had just redeployed 50 divisions front eastern front and kicked off the spring offensive. There was no lockdown as the news was censored. Troops were needed to fight and women were required to make the munitions.

lockdowns not going to stop a pandemic. As you say it buys time. It slows the rate of transmission so you at least have to chance to try and treat people in hospital instead letting them
cjole to death at home or in hospital corridors (as happened in the Spanish flu) they also buy time to make sure you can acquire medical supplies and generate vaccines. Remember the nightingale hospitals that were built and the scramble for ventilators first time around? That was needed as it Was a new disease with no vaccine and no known treatment.


scientific and public health officials (in developed country’s have all called for lockdowns .

do you know what the mortality rate has been for Covid? If you do, please do let the experts know . They’ll be waiting some time for the butchers bill to come in from this.

I hope it’s only 0.3% and not 10%. Then again we’ve we’ve had the benefit of 100 years of medical developments since the Spanish flu. No longer have a life expectancy of 55. Don’t live 10 to a house with no indoor toilet.
You know something, you remind me of this user ByEeek! Same style of writing. Same questions asked!

And yes the mortality rate is 0.3% globally. Which means that 997/1000 survive the infection as most don't even develop disease. Most have nothing at all and they develop easily natural immunity after a coupe of days.

I don't need to let the experts know. The experts have let everyone know the last 12 months and the information is widely accessible to read if you can read some scientific publications or even newspaper articles that cite scientific publications and use relevant estimations.

Speaking of expertise, I have spent the last 12 years in academia and I am very familiar with mathematical models of epidemiology as well research I have done in other fields.

You have claimed that during the Spanish Flu there were lockdowns which wasn't true as I said to you. Then you said they were no lockdowns as it was WW1. Hence you cancelled yourself.

Going back to the other argument you made in relation to the WHO. Again you were wrong to say that the WHO argues in favour of lockdowns. As you see from my reply I cited Dr Nabarro who argued against them and an article from the BMJ.

Lockdowns are political in origin. Not scientific.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Megacent)
I can't think of any specific change in our scientific understanding of the virus that would justify a change of position from "masks dont work" in March to "masks do work" now.
Initially it was believed that the virus was spread primarily by contact with surfaces. Given your nose and mouth typically don't come into direct contact with many surfaces, if this had been the case a mask would not have provided much protection. As research has expanded, however, it has become apparent that surface contact is not the primary means of spreading - airborne transmission is. Which makes a mask much more protective.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 weeks ago
#34
MatureStudent37

So in a few words you have cancelled yourself as you demonstrated you don't know what epidemics are and how we deal with them. You don't even know the history of epidemics.
You started with a couple of assertions which are all false and shown above.

You really remind me of the other user ByEeek who made very similar arguments.

Is this a coincidence or you are him?

Regardless, these arguments of yours are very weak and not convincing at all. It's best if you don't debate matters you don't know.

TCA2b
Megacent
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Lucifer323)
MatureStudent37

So in a few words you have cancelled yourself as you demonstrated you don't know what epidemics are and how we deal with them. You don't even know the history of epidemics.
You started with a couple of assertions which are all false and shown above.

You really remind me of the other user ByEeek who made very similar arguments.

Is this a coincidence or you are him?

Regardless, these arguments of yours are very weak and not convincing at all. It's best if you don't debate matters you don't know.

TCA2b
Megacent
I haven’t cancelled myself out. Lockdowns weren’t imposed during the flu pandemic. The issue want even mentioned in the papers as it was censored.

There was no conscious decision to lockdown in that case as the belligerents wanted troops in the trenches and munitions workers marking shells. This was in the midst of the German spring offensive.

There was also little to no understanding of the causes of the pandemic or treatments.

Later on, certain countries introduced quarantine. If you traveled to places like
Australia, you’re were left on the boat for several weeks in harbour until you’re quarantine was over. That slowed the spread in many of the pacific country’s. But they were hit later by additional outbreaks once those worst hit had hit over it.

So I shouldn’t debate things because I hold a different opinion to you? I agree with lockdown therefore I don’t know what I’m talking about. Yet lockdowns seem to be happening all
over the place......even though you’re claiming they don’t work.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I haven’t cancelled myself out. Lockdowns weren’t imposed during the flu pandemic. The issue want even mentioned in the papers as it was censored.

There was no conscious decision to lockdown in that case as the belligerents wanted troops in the trenches and munitions workers marking shells. This was in the midst of the German spring offensive.

There was also little to no understanding of the causes of the pandemic or treatments.

Later on, certain countries introduced quarantine. If you traveled to places like
Australia, you’re were left on the boat for several weeks in harbour until you’re quarantine was over. That slowed the spread in many of the pacific country’s. But they were hit later by additional outbreaks once those worst hit had hit over it.

So I shouldn’t debate things because I hold a different opinion to you? I agree with lockdown therefore I don’t know what I’m talking about. Yet lockdowns seem to be happening all
over the place......even though you’re claiming they don’t work.
You have made a range of assertions that are incorrect. And yes you have cancelled yourself from the beginning. Clearly you don't have good knowledge in this subject and before taking parts in debates you should read first.
Lockdowns didn't exist as part of our lives before this pandemic. A lockdown is a new term that is political and not scientific. A quarantine is something else and very different.

There is no point in debating matters you don't know.

I can see that you have similar thoughts and debate skills with another user mentioned above. If you are him just let us know.
Last edited by Lucifer323; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I haven’t cancelled myself out. Lockdowns weren’t imposed during the flu pandemic. The issue want even mentioned in the papers as it was censored.

There was no conscious decision to lockdown in that case as the belligerents wanted troops in the trenches and munitions workers marking shells. This was in the midst of the German spring offensive.

There was also little to no understanding of the causes of the pandemic or treatments.

Later on, certain countries introduced quarantine. If you traveled to places like
Australia, you’re were left on the boat for several weeks in harbour until you’re quarantine was over. That slowed the spread in many of the pacific country’s. But they were hit later by additional outbreaks once those worst hit had hit over it.

So I shouldn’t debate things because I hold a different opinion to you? I agree with lockdown therefore I don’t know what I’m talking about. Yet lockdowns seem to be happening all
over the place......even though you’re claiming they don’t work.
There is no point debating as you don't have knowledge of scientific and public health matters just as th other user. You must understand this, either you are knew here or the other user.

As far as the other user is concerned he also came here made a range of assertions, received a lot of criticisms and his arguments wer often dismantled and dismissed.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Megacent)
My main concern is that this is about control, rather than health. I can get behind the restrictions if they are genuinely are temporary and for our health, but not if it's indefinite. The longer this goes on, the more they move the goalposts, the more it feels like they have no intention of giving us our freedom back.

Seeing masks on peoples faces makes me very uncomfortable. I've always had a problem here because for me, they look too much like muzzles, a symbol of oppression that humiliates and degrades the person wearing them. I know that not everybody feels this way and if they want to wear one I think that's ok, but people shouldn't be forced to if they are really uncomfortable with it. I know they say it helps slow the spread and logically I would agree with that, because the structure of the mask means it will contain some of the virus particles an infected person exhales. But just how much effect is it having? Shouldn't we have seen a big drop in cases around the time everyone started wearing them?

Basically I can get behind and support some temporary restrictions in the interests of health. If they asked us to wear masks rather than demanded, and guaranteed that it was only temporary and gave us a time table, I would probably feel more able to wear one. At the very least I would give it another try. I'm very defensive about my freedoms being restricted but if there was an end date to work towards then I wouldn't feel so threatened. But if there is no time table given, then I start to worry that I'll never get that freedom back, and that's what triggers severe reactance in me.
They don’t ask you to not drink drive for example. They pass laws to tell you. Not only to protect you, but more importantly to protect others.

Lockdowns not going to stop Covid, but it slows the rate of it spreading to give hospitals a chance to deal with those who have caught it, are unlucky enough to need treatment and give them a chance to survive it.

I don’t know what controls you think as being implemented by having to wear a face mask. You only have to wear it when you’re in an environment around others to minimise the risk of you catching it, or speeding it. Number star coming down, but people don’t wear masks all of the time. I don’t wear one at home.

It’s a crappy time for everybody, but to be honest other than not being able to take the kids out at the weekend, I see no attack on my ordinal liberties.

I’m more than happy to follow the rules. Then again I have a friend whose an A&E consultant who’s on the front line dealing with this stuff. She’s delay with people who have had it. She’s had it herself. She’s dealt with the fall out of the excessive pressure it’s pit on the NHS dealing with other non Covid related Iain’s in hospitals. She’s had to deal with patients dying from it. She even told me about one guy who she treated who was fighting for breath who refused to wear a mask as he believed it was all made up and she didn’t know what she was talking about.

Suck it up cupcake. Baboons have been developed, they’re rolling them out at a rate of knots and the end is in site.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
They don’t ask you to not drink drive for example. They pass laws to tell you. Not only to protect you, but more importantly to protect others.

Lockdowns not going to stop Covid, but it slows the rate of it spreading to give hospitals a chance to deal with those who have caught it, are unlucky enough to need treatment and give them a chance to survive it.

I don’t know what controls you think as being implemented by having to wear a face mask. You only have to wear it when you’re in an environment around others to minimise the risk of you catching it, or speeding it. Number star coming down, but people don’t wear masks all of the time. I don’t wear one at home.

It’s a crappy time for everybody, but to be honest other than not being able to take the kids out at the weekend, I see no attack on my ordinal liberties.

I’m more than happy to follow the rules. Then again I have a friend whose an A&E consultant who’s on the front line dealing with this stuff. She’s delay with people who have had it. She’s had it herself. She’s dealt with the fall out of the excessive pressure it’s pit on the NHS dealing with other non Covid related Iain’s in hospitals. She’s had to deal with patients dying from it. She even told me about one guy who she treated who was fighting for breath who refused to wear a mask as he believed it was all made up and she didn’t know what she was talking about.

Suck it up cupcake. Baboons have been developed, they’re rolling them out at a rate of knots and the end is in site.
Drink drive laws are fair enough, they are permanent and we know that. The problem with masks and distancing is that they tell us it's only temporary but not giving any indication how long that will be. About the guy she was treating, I don't share his view, I dont think it's all made up but I understand his lack of trust in the medical community. After this year, I think they've got a lot of work to do in order to win back that trust.

Now, if and when lockdown is over, we've got to deal with this pressing matter of baboon cruelty
Last edited by Megacent; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by Megacent)
Now that's just animal cruelty

Drink drive laws are fair enough, they are permanent and we know that. The problem with masks and distancing is that they tell us it's only temporary but not giving any indication how long that will be. About the guy she was treating, I don't think it's all made up, but I do understand the lack of trust in the medical community. People are simply fed up of being lied to.
It is temporary. They’re in place till vaccinations are rolled out.

We got hit by a global pandemic in March last year. We’ve developed a vaccine since then. Have developed domestic supply chains as well as secured external vaccine supplies. As well a being in the process of building additional vaccine production capacities to export.

The U.K. should be vaccinated by September this year. That’s 18 months from start to finish. We had three times more warning about WW2 happening and that still took 6 years to get over.

I know it’s no pain. It was a kick in the teeth with the school closures. Massively impacted both my wife and my kids. It’s need d and it will be over soon.

I don’t think people have been lied to. Tags have been constantly changing. We went into this with planning going on for mass graves to cope with the fallout. Fortunately that never materialised.

If you had red some of the earlier acientofic reports, they modelled these different peaks and troughs.

Personally, I’m suorised how well things have gone and have reactive we’ve been. Mistakes have been made, but to quite Sir John Bell, meritorious professor of medicine at Oxford. Nobody living has had to deal with something like this before .
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (77)
11.83%
Virtual campus tours/open days (158)
24.27%
Live streaming events (52)
7.99%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (59)
9.06%
A uni comparison tool (152)
23.35%
An in-person event when available (153)
23.5%

Watched Threads

View All