Jump to content

Tommy Cockles

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Team
  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

32,232 profile views
  1. Ha ha. Yeah I don’t think you do whims mate 😂
  2. I’m sorry to hear that. I really don’t think people should be put in this position. It’s my whole point. It would have been disastrous in the absence of any other action. That’s not what I’m saying is it. Im saying target protection at those who need it most & invest in healthcare infrastructure. More people may have died in the short term I don’t doubt that, but we we would be better placed for the future. And what is the exit strategy? What if these early vaccines don’t work? Just lockdown, lockdown, lockdown?
  3. Yes, of course. But at an incredible cost. Financially & socially. Serious long term costs that will harm the quality of life for millions of people. And does it make it the only solution? All I am trying to suggest is that it could have been done differently. And people have died & will die as a result of lockdown & the damage it has done. I’m glad it didn’t cost you your job, but has it stopped you getting another one? So draw the line at 80 or 85 then. And it should be optional. If folk want to take their chances then that’s their choice. Whatever the cost i
  4. See here’s the thing. I’m not saying that. It’s not about me personally. It’s about society. I would rather you hadn’t lost your job over this. I don’t think that was necessary. You don’t need a furlough scheme if you don’t shut down the economy do you?
  5. The Samaritans said its research, based on calls to its helpline, found the pandemic had exacerbated known risk factors for people already vulnerable. “Volunteers are telling us that many callers have been worried about losing their job and/or business and their finances, with common themes around not being able to pay rent/mortgage, inability to support the family, and fear of homelessness.” Insights from the Samaritans’ volunteers confirm that the lockdown’s impact on support networks has been amplified by loneliness, financial pressures and uncertainty about the future. Jacqu
  6. Mate this is needlessly pedantic. Age & existence of underlying conditions determine vulnerability. What more do you need from me here? There have been significant increases of serious social problems like alcoholism, child abuse, mental health issues & suicides as a result of lockdown. But that’s probably not substantive enough for you so just ignore it.
  7. Of course it’s vague. I wasn’t aware I had to have a fully costed model for you. I don’t know what capacity would be possible, whatever was possible would inform where the lines were drawn in terms of age/conditions. I think lockdown is causing more issues than it solves. Sorry for not liking that.
  8. If thinking things could have been done differently to achieve a better outcome for more people is “incredibly selfish” then, yeah cool. Thanks.
  9. 5 million is your figure Vic. I don’t know what number would be achievable, how could I? Work out what could be achieved & go from there. The point is those who needed it most would get priority. If the potential to do what I have outlined was there then I would have avoided a lockdown, yes. We knew it was coming, we had time to prepare. We did very little.
  10. I’m not advocating throwing these lives to the wolves am I, I’m actually proposing looking after them more. I will go back to my original post on this, what level of deaths do we need to be at to resume our normal lives? Zero? There were 50k extra deaths in the winter of 17/18, mostly from flu & associated respiratory conditions. Did you even know about it?
  11. Where has “upwards of 5 million” come from? I think that with a proper solution for the most vulnerable then there wouldn’t have been the need to trash the economy & destroy livelihoods. But, we did it. And what have we done with the time that it bought at such a cost, and indeed our greater understanding? What’s our solution going forward? More lockdowns? More long term damage to our society? Cool. Great system.
  12. I didn’t say you could. But you could commandeer places. Hotels, exhibition centres, whatever is necessary.
  13. It’s inarguably the case that many died due to the failure to manage the care home situation. Dealing with that competently would have been a start. I don’t have the answers, I’m just a bloke on a forum, but maybe providing bio secure accommodation for vulnerable groups for as long as necessary, and a proper testing regimen to ensure they aren’t compromised.
  14. Well I’m not a libertarian but I think the elderly & vulnerable would have fared better with an approach that was focused on protecting them rather than the blunt instrument that has been, is being, used. I also believe the money used to facilitate it ie furlough etc would have been better spent on infrastructure, hospitals etc. Not only would it have allowed us to manage it better, we would have the benefit of it for generations. Instead we will bear the burden of this for a long time. You just know in a year or so there will be no money for the NHS “because COVID”
  • Create New...