Hancock wants Teesside in Tier 3

[ChrisTheRed]

And he resorts to type

Reverts to type... You mean like you with your thumb up your a*se comment.

 

[Boroproud]

Reverts to type... You mean like you with your thumb up your a*se comment.

No, i want you to tell me what, other than sit around doing nothing , should be done to ensure the virus can be surpressed until a vaccine can be found.
I didnt resort to your 'dummy spitting ' ' stay in bedroom' comments.

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

No idea mate. But I'm sure business leaders would rather have financial support from the government than make staff redundant and shut down businesses?

Many businesses aren't affected directly and there's been little or no effect on them.

I just wanted to know that if business leaders are voicing concerns who they are and which sectors of business do they represent?

 

[Cappachoochoo]

You are actually the thick, ignorant one with a comment like that and represent a nodding dog population who swallow anything they say because it isn’t your business and your livelihood being wrecked.. How high is that horse you are on.

Colin, I am neither thick nor arrogant nor on my high horse. Neither do I swallow anything or agree with government, “the science”, or indeed the politicised media. The facts speak for themselves, any lockdown will reduce the infection rate and as soon as the release button is pressed a large percentage of the population will behave as though nothing has happened. Until there is a vaccine we have to learn to live with this hideous disease and we all have to take responsibility for our actions.

 

[A]

I've heard "we must learn to live with COVID" a fair bit, part of me agrees with that, but what does that mean? I'm not trying to be facetious either, it's a genuine question. Does it mean we dont lockdown which may mean we suffer many deaths from it in order to save the economy and prevent other causes of death that may rise as a result of further lockdowns? The only alternative seems to be vice versa and we do lockdown to try to stop the spread to prevent a health service which may not be able to cope and then people die both of the infection and also because there may not be beds available for those who need them for other health issues

It seems we can't save both health and wealth simultaneously, so if there has to be a balance, what is deemed acceptable? Do we spend a year trying to save the economy and accept the spread of COVID and the resulting death toll, or do we have a long term lockdown to quell the spread and then try to fix the broken economy afterwards?

As I say, genuine question because I really don't know what the answer is. There probably isn't one, just some who think A and some who think B. I keep flip flopping if I'm honest

 

[DCI_Gene_Hunt]

Colin, I am neither thick nor arrogant nor on my high horse. Neither do I swallow anything or agree with government, “the science”, or indeed the politicised media. The facts speak for themselves, any lockdown will reduce the infection rate and as soon as the release button is pressed a large percentage of the population will behave as though nothing has happened. Until there is a vaccine we have to learn to live with this hideous disease and we all have to take responsibility for our actions.

Sounds pretty logical to me.

 

[Randy]

It's interesting that one of the higher ups of the IMF came out the other day and said now is not the time for countries to be "balancing the books".