Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[Jac Hawk]

i think this sums it up quite well

[Marco]

It's got nowt to do with picking on Johnson ..he's the prime minister ffs....If anyone should be leading by example it should be him...or did you think it would go un-noticed that Boris is going for a bike ride???

Indeed. Quite simply, he needs to practice what he preaches!!

Marco.

[Jac Hawk]

I see Nicola Sturgeon has laid down some new restrictions north of the boarder

[Filterlab]

Hear hear Marco!

[mad-moon]

It’s a big problem when the majority of the nation don’t understand simple economics. Sadly most seem to believe that infinite money grows on trees.

Of course we don't...but until we get this under control, what else can be done...bite the bullet...tighten your belt...once it's eradicated...or at least near under total control...rebuild...grief...how long did world war 2 go on for???...we are talking about a further year max...total 2 years...yeah the economy has took a shitty hit, I get it, but what can we do....keep going on with..stop indoors, virus starts to become under control...right everyone you can go out again....virus gets out of control again...add infinitum.....??

quicker people get the message to stop off the streets the better....can you imagine one of the aresholes, who treat this as a joke, then a family member of theirs falls ill and needs hospital treatment...they'll be the first to start an outcry, because there's no beds, staff to take care of them...

[Filterlab]

I agree. But it should be dealt with in a manner which gets the economy as strong as possible, as quickly as possible.

[Marco]

It’s a big problem when the majority of the nation don’t understand simple economics. Sadly most seem to believe that infinite money grows on trees.

I agree mate, and it's a situation that simply isn't tenable, but one of the government's (ANY government's) primary objectives in a pandemic is, first and foremost, to protect the vulnerable (and NHS), so I fully support that, and that they should also be the first to be vaccinated.

What should've happened is that the elderly and vulnerable should've been *completely isolated* from day one of knowing how easily this virus spreads and how potentially deadly it is, and been kept there until this whole thing was over/vaccine was available, then (as far as possible) allowed the 'workers', those keeping the economy going, to do that, but in a *strictly controlled manner* (with strictly enforced mask wearing, hand-cleansing, social distancing, etc), rather than not dealing with the situation properly [in reality making a total arse of it] and forcing the necessity for umpteen (largely unsuccessful) lockdowns, subsequently sending the country into a financial crisis/recession, which it will take YEARS to recover from.

However, I don't think you can say (in fact to some it may be rather insulting) that the elderly or vulnerable don't really contribute to the running of the country or the economy... They certainly did in the past when most of them were working from very young until retiral age, and putting BILLIONS of pounds into the economy in the process, or even more so, those who fought in the war to give you and I the freedom we currently enjoy.... I think that they certainly 'contributed'

No offence mate, but just thought I'd introduce a little more balance to your argument, in case anyone should think of you as ageist or uncaring, as I know you're not like that

Marco.

[mad-moon]

I agree mate, and it's a situation that simply isn't tenable, but one of the government's (ANY government's) primary objectives in a pandemic is, first and foremost, to protect the vulnerable (and NHS), so I fully support that, and that they should also be the first to be vaccinated.

What should've happened is that the elderly and vulnerable should've been *completely isolated* from day one of knowing how easily this virus spreads and how potentially deadly it is, and been kept there until this whole thing was over/vaccine was available, then (as far as possible) allowed the 'workers', those keeping the economy going, to do that, but in a *strictly controlled manner* (with strictly enforced mask wearing, hand-cleansing, social distancing, etc), rather than not dealing with the situation properly [in reality making a total arse of it] and forcing the necessity for umpteen (largely unsuccessful) lockdowns, subsequently sending the country into a financial crisis/recession, which it will take YEARS to recover from.

However, I don't think you can say (in fact to some it may be rather insulting) that the elderly or vulnerable don't really contribute to the running of the country or the economy... They certainly did in the past when most of them were working from very young until retiral age, and putting BILLIONS of pounds into the economy in the process, or even more so, those who fought in the war to give you and I the freedom we currently enjoy.... I think that they certainly 'contributed'

No offence mate, but just thought I'd introduce a little more balance to your argument, in case anyone should think of you as ageist or uncaring, as I know you're not like that

Marco.

Absolutely..

[anthonyTD]

Goes without saying that the elderly should have been protected from the very start!

I agree mate, and it's a situation that simply isn't tenable, but one of the government's (ANY government's) primary objectives in a pandemic is, first and foremost, to protect the vulnerable (and NHS), so I fully support that, and that they should also be the first to be vaccinated.

What should've happened is that the elderly and vulnerable should've been *completely isolated* from day one of knowing how easily this virus spreads and how potentially deadly it is, and been kept there until this whole thing was over/vaccine was available, then (as far as possible) allowed the 'workers', those keeping the economy going, to do that, but in a *strictly controlled manner* (with strictly enforced mask wearing, hand-cleansing, social distancing, etc), rather than not dealing with the situation properly [in reality making a total arse of it] and forcing the necessity for umpteen (largely unsuccessful) lockdowns, subsequently sending the country into a financial crisis/recession, which it will take YEARS to recover from.

However, I don't think you can say (in fact to some it may be rather insulting) that the elderly or vulnerable don't really contribute to the running of the country or the economy... They certainly did in the past when most of them were working from very young until retiral age, and putting BILLIONS of pounds into the economy in the process, or even more so, those who fought in the war to give you and I the freedom we currently enjoy.... I think that they certainly 'contributed'

No offence mate, but just thought I'd introduce a little more balance to your argument, in case anyone should think of you as ageist or uncaring, as I know you're not like that

Marco.

[tapid]

Indeed. Quite simply, he needs to practice what he preaches!!

Marco.

Says the person who drove all the way to York lol ... which was hardly in the spirit of the rules. Just saying