- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2287 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 27266
Right, now that the last corona thread is over 1,700 posts long, maybe it's time for a new one.
How long do you think it will be until we're fully back to normal?
|>>|| No. 27268
Normal wasn't sane. I can't see the world going fully back to the same state.
|>>|| No. 27269
Considering the government wants us to sarcrifice ourselves for the economy again now, and people are still for some reason desperate for holidays abroad, probably at least another year.
|>>|| No. 27270
Until an effective vaccine is developed, we're all at risk. So until then, it's about risk mitigation. It's not even been a year and the process usually takes about 3 years, even with stuff fast tracked for human trails we're talking roughly 18 months if we're lucky and people aren't rational about lock down.
|>>|| No. 27272
I'm not wasting three years of my life on 'risk mitigation', if you want to stay indoors thats your prerogative.
Going abroad doesn't give you coronavirus.
|>>|| No. 27273
>Going abroad doesn't give you coronavirus.
Obviously, it encourages the spread and you know this.
|>>|| No. 27276
Not all of us have the privilege of being able to sit at home wanking for three years.
|>>|| No. 27277
From where we are standing now, I think we should have just taken the deaths on the nose, honestly. Unpopular opinion and I know that, but if it turns out a vaccine can't be developed to give reliable immunity, that's about the only choice we will have. What can we do, socially distance forever?
It's not misanthropy that drives my viewpoint here, but rather the fact that we've gone above and beyond what should have been necessary, in a sensible world, to contain the spread and people still can't even follow the rules properly. If people are wilfully ignorant or too dense to put a mask on properly, or stay two metres away from me in the queue at Morrisons, then clearly they bloody well want to die. Who am I to stop them.
We're all still going to drown in fifty year's time and we're doing absolutely bugger all about it, but we're all sick with worry in case the nasty ickle cough bumps us off before then. I reckon we would have been absolutely fine if we just let it burn itself out like a wildfire.
The response to this virus offered us a choice to look at the way we operate society, and change it for the better, in the modern age. But we didn't take it. We're now heading for a worst of both worlds nightmare future, and on balance I'd have stuck with it before, as awful as things were.
|>>|| No. 27280
>Obviously, it encourages the spread
How can somebody not realise this.
Just read an article on Spain's tourism industry at the moment. Most countries that the bulk of tourists normally come from during the summer season have now issued either travel bans or warnings. It has taken away over 70 percent of their usual earnings during the summer months. And with few regional exceptions, they earn nearly all their annual revenue between May and September, so it's a double blow and they will be unable to make up their losses this year even if all travel restrictions are lifted again by October or November. And the beginning of the next summer holiday season, if there is going to be one, is still well over six months away.
|>>|| No. 27285
I'm inclined to agree with you, this whole thing's made me lose some more faith in humanity.
It's not as if there's an example out there of a country that did everything right in setting and following restrictions, and now has just over 100 cases. Oh wait. There is. Just like cases lowering in all the other countries doing the same. Seriously how is this a debate anymore?
Don't be stupid lad.
No, mate...Restrictions are for a timebeing so that the spread of the virus is greatly reduced, and then more easily controlled and any infections more easily managed, like you know, the entire reason we put restrictions in place to begin with. Then as time goes on, restrictions can be lessened gradually. It's how New Zealand was so on it, and how they got down to 0 cases. They restricted air travel too. But much like the Spanish Flu we apparently learned nothing from, opening up too early has/will make it much worse.
|>>|| No. 27302
No one is suggesting that you have to, but maybe keep your distance from strangers in shops until we have a vaccine, yeah?
|>>|| No. 27304
>Then as time goes on, restrictions can be lessened gradually.
Nope. Covid won't become less infectious just through the passage of time. China, South Korea and New Zealand were able to end their lockdowns and return to some sort of normality because they developed very efficient test-trace-isolate systems. It's all about speed at every stage - the quicker you find and isolate people who might be infected, the fewer people they can infect. That's what keeps the R value low enough to allow things to reopen.
Our system is getting worse, not better. The number of contacts being traced is below 80% and falling and the government doesn't even have stats on how quickly contacts are being traced. In many parts of the country it's taking a week to get results back from a COVID test. We don't have any real plan for how to improve those numbers.
|>>|| No. 27308
>Covid won't become less infectious just through the passage of time.
Not less infectious, but perhaps less dangerous. I think that's why we are just able to live with other seasonal coronaviruses like colds and flu, I think I read something that they would have started as a high-death toll pandemic and then mutated into something that isn't as deadly in order for itself to survive.
|>>|| No. 27311
Herd immunity is a thing, we'll eventually reach it to some degree, with the help of a vaccine or not. One of the reasons it has spread so effectively is that it's already one of those not-very-deadly pathogens, the death toll is just adding up because of the sheer number of cases. It's still only around 5% mortality.
Best case scenario it's full protection, but that's unlikely. Realistically it's more likely to end up being something like seasonal flu- The reason it's torn a path right across the world is because it was new and we've not been exposed to it before. Worst case scenario is it's like we're starting from scratch every time it comes round, and that's really the point at which we just have to accept it's one of those things out there in nature that might kill you, and deal with it come what may.
Either way, the impact will lessen over time, if not the actual potency of the disease. There are varying reports out there about re-infection and it's kind of hard to tell what's credible and what isn't right now.
|>>|| No. 27313
We have a government that can't lead and wants to sacrifice people for the economy, and apparently there's a good percentage of the country who are outright thickos.
|>>|| No. 27314
>Herd immunity is a thing, we'll eventually reach it to some degree
That was the theory when this first started, but it would have to spread massively for this to even begin to happen, seeing as how you can easily become re-infected. It's been bullshit for a while, unless it's left to spread uncontrolled and millions get sick and many more die, it won't happen.
|>>|| No. 27315
Also people seem to have completely forgotten how badly having covid can fuck you up in the long term. For some reason the "It's just like a seasonal flu" crowd are still about.
|>>|| No. 27316
You misunderstand what herd immunity means. It's not just a term thrown around to mean "everyone is safe".
If we develop a vaccine and deploy it en masse, herd immunity is exactly what we will have. As in, the people who cannot safely take the vaccine will be protected by virtue of high enough general population immunisation that they're unlikely to come into contact with an active case.
Now, if we don't develop an effective vaccine, yes, that's when massive numbers of people need to have had it, and the same level of protection probably wouldn't be reached. But it would still reduce the overall rate of transmission.
The trouble we're going to have is anti-vax dickheads. We've had comprehensive herd immunity to things like measles and polio for the last fifty odd years and only recently has that started to erode because of tossers who think vaccines give you autism.
|>>|| No. 27317
If you can become reinfected within a year, as recent cases are suggesting, you can't have herd immunity, at least not one that is logistically possible. We'd have to be getting vaccinations constantly, or the virus could come in different strains that would make the vaccine ineffective, like we see with the seasonal flu.
|>>|| No. 27318
Assuming money and logistics were no object, we could eradicate the flu by vaccinating everyone on the planet. If it's not in transmission, it's not going to mutate.
|>>|| No. 27320
Without a vaccine, we'd need at least 60% of the population to get COVID to develop herd immunity. At a conservative 0.7% CFR, that means at least 260,000 deaths. Getting to that level of infection without totally overwhelming the NHS would take the best part of a decade.
Unless the economic impacts of social distancing get really, really bad, I think the only politically tenable option is to ride it out until a vaccine arrives. The long-term health impacts of mass unemployment might end up being worse than the impact of uncontrolled COVID, but young people will bear the brunt of that and they don't vote.
|>>|| No. 27322
>but young people will bear the brunt of that
Not wanting to turn all middle aged tutting DM reading cunt, but serves them right for thinking they were invulnerable just because they were under 30 and couldn't get sick.
|>>|| No. 27324
Or thinking that being a barista or doing media studies is a good career choice.
It's gonna hurt.
|>>|| No. 27326
Yes, literally every person now between the ages of 23-40 did media studies and then wanted to be a barista.
Are you fucking reading the posts you're making?
|>>|| No. 27327
I bet kids these days must be having a right old laugh. Imagine getting months off school in the era of high-speed internet and then for the rest of your life the media pats you on the back for 'surviving' it.
Little shits will probably get to live forever as well.
|>>|| No. 27328
What many younguns get wrong is that almost all youtube channels are and always have been shit. There is a lot of survivor bias because everybody knows a handful of youtubers in their main areas of interest who have millions of subscribers and are actually able to make a living that way. But nobody sees or hears much about all the wannabe youtubers who dabble and upload two or three poorly boshed together videos but then realise nobody watches them, because they are shit, and then give up.
You're not going to be able to earn a living from being a youtuber just because you suddenly decide that spending a few minutes a day talking into a camera suits your layabout lifestyle more than sitting at a desk in an office. Those who do succeed as youtubers often put long gruelling hours into scripting and preparing their clips and then spending several days filming and editing them.
It's not going to be your daytime job unless you treat it as one.
|>>|| No. 27329
Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID, but we're trashing their future to save the codgers. It doesn't seem particularly fair to me. If the roles were reversed, would the current generation of over-65s sacrifice their pension to save young people?
|>>|| No. 27330
Herd immunity is what makes the flu jab effective m8. Not everyone gets it but not everyone has to, just enough people to stop it spreading.
|>>|| No. 27331
>Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID
They really aren't though.
|>>|| No. 27332
Less than 0.001% of under-18s who catch COVID-19 will die. For people aged 18-49, the infection fatality rate is less than 0.01%. About 15% of over-65s who catch COVID will end up in hospital and about 5% will die.
It might be politically convenient to pretend that we're all at risk, but it's just not true. COVID is a disease that only poses a real threat to people who are close to death already - the elderly and the seriously ill. A tiny handful of young and healthy people will die of COVID, but they're practically a rounding error.
|>>|| No. 27333
>Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID
The statistical data is skewed because at the beginning of the pandemic, young people were tested less. Which in turn means it's highly likely that mild cases were overlooked more than in older adults. Whereas now, there is much more testing among younger people, which reveals that they are much more likely to contract the virus than previously thought.
There is very generally more testing now than in March or April, while the hospitalisation rate, which should serve as a mark of how serious the pandemic actually is, continues to taper off. It should mean that we are already much closer to herd immunisation than has been assumed, and that the virus as such is both less serious and that we're long past the worst bit. If we're really at the beginning of a second wave, then it certainly doesn't manifest itself in an increase in hospital admissions yet.
|>>|| No. 27334
>COVID is a disease that only poses a real threat to people who are close to death already
Middle age is going to be living hell for you.
|>>|| No. 27335
Funnily enough, my neighbour is one of those who has "made" it on youtube. She doesn't seem to be rolling in money for all the work that's involved. At least back when it was rappers they would rack up huge debts on mansions and non-disclosure agreements.
Plus she proper shit herself when I made a joke about selling her address online. It was poor taste in hindsight but who wants to live like that?
I think if it was a straight choice like that they would. They're certainly invested in making sure they pass on their wealth at any rate.
The thing is I doubt any of this matters in the long run. In a worst case scenario it's the oil crisis where we'll feel a pinch for a decade but a recession was overdue and it's not like we don't have anything to be excited about for the future. How many people seem to remember the Great Recession at this point?
|>>|| No. 27336
When people talk about young people surviving Covid or whatever they never mention post-Covid syndrome. It strikes anyone at any age. That's why I'm terrified of catching this thing. I can go through hell for a couple of weeks if that was all it was, that's temporary. The fatigue? That's for life (presumably). Fuck that, I don't want to be out of breath climbing stairs until the grave.
|>>|| No. 27337
This is what I've been struggling to explain to people - a lot of people seem to think you either get it and die, or you're perfectly fine.
There's a mounting body of evidence that in some people, there's permanent long-term damage.
|>>|| No. 27338
>the elderly and the seriously ill
Or people who are overweight or have any kind of lung condition, it would seem.
Your rounding error is still hundreds of thousands of people - that's a city or two - I think that's worth saving.
|>>|| No. 27340
I get that you want to go to back to work as your only way to socialise but it's not the time for throwing around speculation and endangering people. We know that severe flu can have long-term impacts but there's no hard evidence the coronavirus is not more dangerous or shouldn't concern young people.
If you'd bothered to do a quick think before your post you'd realise there are no long-term studies into the coronavirus because it hasn't been around that long yet.
|>>|| No. 27341
Post-viral fatigue can happen with any infection, Respiratory or otherwise, and usually gets diagnosed as chronic fatigue syndrome if it persists beyond a year. Know a lass with CFS, she has ME too and constantly gets chest infections.
I have CFS, but don't have shortness of breath. It's a horrible fugue state that descends like fog and I need to sleep or I'll get a migraine. What caused it is also post-viral fatigue, but it was a severe case of impetigo that triggered it for me.
|>>|| No. 27342
>Your rounding error is still hundreds of thousands of people - that's a city or two - I think that's worth saving.
You're off by orders of magnitude. If literally everyone under 65 caught COVID-19, we'd expect less than 10,000 of them to die. 92% of people who died of COVID were aged over 65, 69% were over 80 and 27% were over 90. This is a disease that overwhelmingly harms the elderly, presents almost no risk to the young and presents only a very small risk to middle-aged people in poor health. If it weren't for the elderly, we wouldn't have ever considered a lockdown.
|>>|| No. 27343
You've equated death with all harm. I have friends in their 30s who have what appears to be permanent lung damage from covid. That is a factor that unknown in how it will affect people long term and how many are affected.
|>>|| No. 27345
Tories raising rates on second properties is not something I thought even a pandemic could bring about. What's next, increasing the seven year rule for inheritance?
Also unrelated but does anyone want to buy a flat in Leeds? It's very nice.
|>>|| No. 27349
We (globally) seem to be getting a bit better at treating it. Dunno if that's a plus, or minus, for long term effects?
|>>|| No. 27350
>Also unrelated but does anyone want to buy a flat in Leeds? It's very nice.
Does it have a view of a playground?
|>>|| No. 27351
Sadly not, though I'd have bought are Jim's flat for sure.
It's right by the canal though, if The Pusher is still active on here.
|>>|| No. 27352
Partly that, but partly that what we saw in April-May-June was infections running amok in care homes, their staff, nurses and doctors etc. To an extent there's now plausibly a certain level of herd immunity within that small subset of the population, as well as within those settings the access to PPE is much better than it was. So now the most vulnerable people, and the people most likely to pass it on to more vulnerable people are a bit safer.
The spikes in infections we're seeing now within the UK and the rest of Europe are to a larger extent in young people who aren't getting seriously ill, which is reflected in hospital admissions not rising in step with increasing infections. The biggest threat right now is that the young people getting infected will be passing it onto older family members.
|>>|| No. 27353
I think that generally, the bulk of elderly or otherwise frail and vulnerable people already caught it and died from the virus earlier this year. As highly contagious as the virus is, it is probably more widespread now by many orders of magnitude than we have any way of knowing.
What's really making statistics unreliable is that testing capacities have been expanded. According to data.gov.uk, testing capacity is now ten times what it was in early April. Test processing has also increased at least about five-fold.
You can probably liken it to the phaenomenon of overpolicing in crime hotspots. The more police you have watching people, the higher statistical crime rates tend to become in an area. Likewise, reported covid cases are on the increase now because there are simply more of them becoming known, both due to more testing and perhaps more public awareness. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the spread of the virus is getting worse as such.
|>>|| No. 27354
I agree with you general point - that far more testing, means we have far more known cases; and from there we are identifying far more of the "less lethal" cases. But my view is that we don't then extrapolate from there and go to "this is nothing to worry about" - it just shows how wrong we probably got the testing earlier in the year.
It has been interesting to see the (old, white, right-wing) media shift tack this weekend to the "everyone go back to work" lines. Almost as if there has been some concerted spinning..
|>>|| No. 27355
> It has been interesting to see the (old, white, right-wing) media shift tack this weekend to the "everyone go back to work" lines. Almost as if there has been some concerted spinning..
The mainstream media have just been a government mouthpiece for the whole covid period. Note the almost complete lack of dissenting views early on in lockdown, loss of civil liberties, destruction of economy etc.
|>>|| No. 27356
>Note the almost complete lack of dissenting views early on in lockdown, loss of civil liberties, destruction of economy etc
There was no shortage of all that in all the edgelad Breitbartian media that people like you probably prefer in general.
And even if everybody erred on the side of caution, including mainstream media, there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that the death toll would have been far greater if we had just stuck our heads in the sand and continued with Bojo's initial herd immunity approach.
Oh, I forgot, everybody over 65 is just a waste of oxygen anyway, right?
Have a word, lad.
|>>|| No. 27357
Anyone else looking forward to the flu and covid team up in the winter and second lockdown?
|>>|| No. 27360
U wot m8. I just want a media that raises questions that I myself would have.
|>>|| No. 27361
Who knows. Media peer pressure, or maybe just the fear that even with the best intentions, you will be put in the same corner as Breitbart if you doubt received wisdom about how this pandemic has to be handled.
But the onus isn't on the mainstream media, it's on all the idiots who believe the coronavirus is spread by 5G, who think that ordering people to wear masks is totalitarianism, and who retweet podcasts of conspiracy nuts on Twitter. They are the ones who have muddied the waters so that even if you present a well thought out point that calls general wisdom into question, people will think you are one of them.
|>>|| No. 27362
Corona's never going away. It'll keep on mutating and we'll get a new deadly strain each year just like the flu.
|>>|| No. 27370
>Oh, I forgot, everybody over 65 is just a waste of oxygen anyway, right?
Well. It's not quite that they're a waste of oxygen, it's just that out of any age group, they appear to be the one least appreciative of the sacrifices everyone has had to make- For their benefit, no less.
Also, not everyone you disagree with on the internet is some befedora'd alt right autist. Jumping to that conclusion says a lot more about how you see the world than that poster.
|>>|| No. 27372
>Also, not everyone you disagree with on the internet is some befedora'd alt right autist
No, you're right, that assumption isn't universally warranted. But there are plenty of alt right people out there right now who spout a lot of the same things as otherlad. And who on the surface will appear quite reasonable at first. It can be difficult to tell otherlad apart from them.
|>>|| No. 27384
It's more likely to mutate into strains that don't end up killing the host. I'm sure any singleton at the moment could tell you how social isolation impacts reproductive success.
Or it will mutate and give us all superpowers like in X-Men. This time next year we could all be wearing spandex.
|>>|| No. 27399
>It's more likely to mutate into strains that don't end up killing the host.
Why? How does that help it reproduce?
|>>|| No. 27400
Mutation as such is aimless, it just "happens". It's just as likely that strains will evolve that kill their host rapidly as it is that more benign strains come into being. But the more benign strains then have a higher chance of reproducing and jumping from host to host and spreading. Because if somebody gets rapidly and violently sick from a bad strain, it's much more likely that that individual will be spotted and isolated before the virus can infect a greater number of people.
It's one, but not the only reason why ebola has never led to a global pandemic. Incubation time is short, less than 48 hours in most cases, and patients deteriorate so rapidly and become very gravely ill that they're easy to spot. Also though, ebola tends to break out in small rural communities that have little contact to the outside world, and you can't normally give it to somebody just by breathing on them from a metre away. Whereas scientists now think that Covid-19 can even cling to exhaled smoke particles from a cigarette. I think Spain has now banned smoking in public areas for that reason.
|>>|| No. 27402
A virus needs living cells to reproduce and a host healthy enough to infect everyone else. It serves no purpose to kill people which is why pandemics emerge when viruses cross-species and why the various strains of the common cold are so successful.
I'm pretty sure this is common sense.
|>>|| No. 27403
But the lethality of covid is only about 1% and symptoms for most people are mild. Since it's a new virus there must be many ways it could evolve to spread better and many of these could have a higher lethality. The chances of it getting more lethal are 50-50.
|>>|| No. 27404
Town high streets are pretty much finished for volume sales, city high streets inly slightly less glum. Yes the virus has hastened the inevitable but its time for government to start looking at incentives for alternative uses
I'd imagine the airline industry is going to look very different before long
|>>|| No. 27406
The airline industry will recover before "high streets" do - I don't think the government realises, at all, because it doesn't want to try and solve the problem, how successful working from home has been for so many companies.
|>>|| No. 27407
>But the lethality of covid is only about 1% and symptoms for most people are mild
That's the key reason why it has spread so successfully. The aim of all life, forgetting for a moment the controversy if a virus counts as life to begin with, is to reproduce. The more a life form reproduces, the more successful it is, because it's proof that it's fit for life in its environment. There is no point in a virus killing its host "just because".
SARS-Cov-2 has spread so vastly because it's a mild infection for over 90 percent of people, enough so that many people pass it on without even ever knowing they were infected by it, and the rest of them probably have trouble telling their own symptoms from those of a common cold.
|>>|| No. 27408
>Outsourcing firm Capita is to close over a third of its offices in the UK permanently, the BBC understands.
>The firm, which is a major government contractor, is to end its leases on almost 100 workplaces.
>Home Office staff in England could be working from home for the next year as departments limit the number of people working in their buildings to comply with coronavirus social-distancing measures, a departmental email has revealed.
>Matt Hancock has said he cares more about how well his civil servants “perform” in their jobs than whether or not they return to the office, amid pressure on Whitehall to set an example after months of lockdown.
>The health secretary said he had “absolutely no idea” what percentage of staff in his department had returned to the office amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
They know that town and city centre footfall is fucked for the foreseeable, but they just don't want to admit it. Everyone has seen the benefits of work-from-home and nobody is going to go back to the office just to save Pret and WH Smith from oblivion. If they pretend that things will be back to normal soon, they delay the political reckoning. Same with the furlough scheme - they know that a heck of a lot of those workers won't be going back to their jobs, they know that we're going to see record levels of unemployment, but they don't have a plan so they're just pretending that everything will be alright.
|>>|| No. 27412
If companies like Capita are doing it, the government really doesn't have much choice but to follow suit. They practically are the government in a lot of areas.
|>>|| No. 27413
Equally, if the government can't persuade Capita not to do it then they sure as hell can't persuade anyone else.
|>>|| No. 27414
Yes - it also seems a bit rich to say to people "you're all going to get outsourced if you don't return to the office" when companies such as Capita and Serco have so much government outsourcing business.
|>>|| No. 27417
When the economy is destroyed and the globo homo digital serfitude system is up and running. The slave of the future shall be willing
|>>|| No. 27446
Is there something wrong with me? I've only just now noticed that coughing emoji isn't actually coughing.
|>>|| No. 27474
>consider wearing a mask when having sex
Just what the plastic surgery consultant told me while sadly shaking her head.
|>>|| No. 27481
From the very first frame you can see he is up for a fight. His body language gives him away. As for "panic attacks" FFS.
|>>|| No. 27482
Laddo has been coughing at people and spitting on the floor beforehand. The Nutters are trying to pin this as MUZZLE REFUSER GETS ATTACKED! Ignoring the first bit.
|>>|| No. 27483
"Medical condition". These are the same people who are "souverign citizens", believing magical incantations will save them.
|>>|| No. 27484
They're just lunatics - there is a brilliant legal judgement somewhere on the interwebs, by a Canadian judge, which dissects and destroys all the "legal" basis for those sovereign citizens - is a good read.
|>>|| No. 27487
Train Bobbies don't just turn up from a report of someone not wearing a mask - there needs to at least be a credible threat to other passengers.
Two Fridays ago at Hamilton Square, there was a squiffy Lad getting in everybody's face trying to scav a train ticket off them. Spent about a minute staring at my Walrus Card before offering to buy it for £20. BTP were already on the train ready to drag him away at James Street.
Also, the comments on those videos are distressingly loopy.
|>>|| No. 27513
I love it when right-wingers make cracks like this because they think they're satirising something but actually they just expose how clueless they are.
|>>|| No. 27518
Wealthy individuals are selling off investment portfolios and second homes in fear of massive tax increases rumoured to be in the Chancellor’s autumn Budget. Others are piling as much money as possible into their pension pots as their advisers are telling them to take advantage of tax breaks and the relatively low rates on offer now, before they go up dramatically.
It is all in anticipation of Rishi Sunak’s next Budget, to be announced before the end of the year. HM Treasury officials are understood to be contemplating sweeping tax reforms to pay for coronavirus and plug what is predicted to be a £322bn deficit, with total Government debt now outweighing the entire economy.
Tory donors have reacted with fury to reports of a 'soak the rich' plan by Rishi Sunak to help pay for the cost of Covid. They have privately warned the party that they will 'turn off the funding taps' if the Chancellor decides to go ahead with the controversial plan.
The plans were branded as Mr Sunak's fightback against the soaring cost of the pandemic, which has seen the national debt top £2trillion for the first time. But last night, party benefactors with close links to the City of London were particularly incensed at a proposal to hike corporation tax from 19 per cent to 24 per cent – a move that would raise £12billion next year alone.
|>>|| No. 27519
And this is why we should have closed the borders back in February and kept them closed. Let's see them rich cockroach bastards try and flee when Are Rishi, People's Chancellor, brings us back to a socialist utopia not seen since Tony Benn by seizing all their assets directly. .
|>>|| No. 27522
>Wealthy individuals are selling off investment portfolios and second homes
Does it say what and where they're planning on selling off? As someone looking to buy a home in the near future I'm licking my lips over a housing collapse and some undervalued investments sounds like a cherry on the top.
Saying that it's probably just be bollocks to scare him. Try to sell a home before Christmas, with everyone knowing what you're doing, and you're just pulling your own pants down.
|>>|| No. 27523
If you're on about second homes then it mentions passing them on to children rather than selling them.
Property prices are at about record highs now and a lot of lenders have withdrawn mortgage products with relatively high LTV rates. If prices do fall then don't be surprised if first time buyers are largely shit out of the market.
|>>|| No. 27525
>If prices do fall then don't be surprised if first time buyers are largely shit out of the market.
Exactly. Loads of first time buyers the last few years took advantage of low interest rates that enabled them to buy £300K family homes with next to no money of their own. If house prices ever go down again in a kind of way like they did after the 2007/08 Financial Crisis, then loads of young buyers just a few years into their mortgage will slip into negative equity, at which point many banks will pull a loan and force you to sell.
It'll depend on your living circumstances though. If the bank thinks your job is at risk during a concomitant economic downturn, they'll pull the rug from under you sooner than later. But banks also know that if they start pulling mortgages willy-nilly, it will only drive the property market down further and put even more people into negative equity.
|>>|| No. 27526
>young buyers just a few years into their mortgage will slip into negative equity, at which point many banks will pull a loan and force you to sell.
|>>|| No. 27527
Negative equity is when the market value of your house goes below what you still owe the bank.
In the 2008 property market crash, a number of mortgages were terminated when people had negative equity and no collateral to bridge the gap.
|>>|| No. 27528
This is why the property market just needs burning to the ground and starting again, fuck. Prices are dropping making it more affordable for people to step onto the ladder? SHUT IT DOWN, DON'T GIVE THEM LOANS. Prices start rising so the people who did get loans are going to get a better return on their investment? SHUT IT DOWN, DON'T LET THE BASTARDS HAVE THE MONEY WE WERE MEANT TO MAKE.
|>>|| No. 27529
Like most economic phenomena, it going up or down isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it changing drastically is.
|>>|| No. 27530
Forgive my ignorance, but why does the current value of the property matter as long as you're still capable of meeting the monthly mortgage payments and thus the loan is still getting repaid? Why would the bank care?
|>>|| No. 27531
Because a mortgage is essentially a big loan secured against the house you bought with it. If you can still make the repayments right now that's all well and good, but if you lose your job you might default, and in that case the bank's security is selling the house. So it's not as much of a problem if it goes up, but if it goes down, you're fucked, because they won't get the full amount they lent you back.
In a sane world that would be the bank's risk but it's not, it's your problem.
|>>|| No. 27532
Why not just have them go into negative equity, sell the house, have the prices crash through the floor, then have them take out a new mortgage on the same house?
The only major issue I can imagine is credit ratings, and frankly if your credit rating can be holed by the bank forcing you off a mortgage you were paying just fine then the whole credit rating system is fucked.
I would say that house prices consistently rising above wage increases is essentially always necessarily a bad thing. It's not like the price of tulips where you can just buy another flower.
|>>|| No. 27533
Negative equity doesn't mean that you lose your mortgage instantly over night. But the bank will be keeping an eye on how you are doing financially, and if there's a probability that you could lose your job as an economic downturn worsens. That economic downturn will be a key reason why house prices will have gone down in the first place, so it's all connected.
What's really going to bite people in the arse though is when the BoE someday starts raising interest rates to levels anywhere near what we had right before the Financial Crisis, i.e. 5 percent and more. We're at .1 percent now, and it means that a lot of people with very little money of their own can afford to mortgage proper mansions (or two-bedroom homes in Greater London). They can only hope that rising interest rates are so far off that they will have repaid a big chunk of their mortgage by then.
|>>|| No. 27534
It's good for landlords, and the numbers we use to determine the strength of our economy or productivity etc don't particularly care if people own their homes or just rent them for more than the price of a mortgage on the same property.
Since it's all credit the price of the overall property is near enough immaterial to anyone above the baseline income or buying as a couple (which I realise plenty of people aren't, but still), what's really harmful is the obstacle of raising a deposit. You used to be able to get full value mortgages. Nowadays people are wasting valuable years they could be paying towards their mortgage paying some cretin landlord's interest only mortgage instead while they scrape together for the deposit on their own.
Whole system is bent inside out honestly and if there's one thing I could change overnight about this country, the property investment market would be it. Don't care about imgrunts, don't care about jobs, don't care bout the bennies. Just let people have a fucking house for fuck's sake.
|>>|| No. 27536
Honestly it seems bonkers to me that we don't regulate the creation of credit more strongly than we do. My understanding is that we did until about the early 1970s, but the whole thing was a bit of a faff so we moved over to increasingly letting the banks do whatever they think will make them money and regulating that with interest rates. But in a situation like the late 1980s it seems utterly ridiculous to penalize productive industry with punitive lending rates just because there's a housing bubble, rather than just forcing banks to overcharge for mortgages and undercharge to industry. (To say nothing of forcing banks to underprice the risk of building a new house even if it means overpricing the risk of an old one.)
I know proper economists loathe these sort of games with the money supply, but until one draws up a nice scheme of tax credits that would have the same effect they can shut up.
|>>|| No. 27541
> But in a situation like the late 1980s it seems utterly ridiculous to penalize productive industry with punitive lending rates just because there's a housing bubble, rather than just forcing banks to overcharge for mortgages and undercharge to industry
Business loans for a company looking to expand its production capacity are usually cheaper than the interest you pay on a private mortgage. But this is largely due to bank policy, which attributes a lower risk to business loans for a well respected company than it does to private mortgages. There is also less overhead cost for a bank in managing big commercial loans than there is in managing mortgages. So there is already a divide between commercial and private loans.
A key reason for fluctuating interest rates on the whole over time is that it's a way of steering and controlling private investment during different phases of the economic cycle. At least traditionally. Making loans more expensive during boom phases means you are dissuading commercial companies from expanding their production capacities even further, which would then soon be unused once the economy cools off again. Likewise, it has usually slowed down housing bubbles during boom phases where more and more people were able to afford a mortgage, but then maybe put off their decision to buy a house until interest rates went down again a bit.
What we've seen the last couple of years since the 2008/09 housing market crash, at leat until earlier this year, is that we have had low interest rates despite a persistent increase in economic activity and prosperity. Interest rates no longer curbed economic expansion and prevented it from overheating. Which has led to a housing bubble unlike anything we've seen before.
The bigger problem with low interest rates is that it means dirt cheap money for investment banks and other speculators who can gamble the stock market at almost no risk. If you only have to pay 0.1% interest on money you borrow for financial market transactions, then even a return of 0.11 percent is enough to make a profit. It makes high risk transactions on the order of tens of millions per trade attractive, but it also causes extreme volatility of financial markets, which in turn affects many retail investors, but also things like life insurance policies, because insurance companies are finding it increasingly difficult to generate profit for their clients due to the unpredictability of markets. Which then hurts the average person who is hoping to put away retirement money. About the same is true for many pension funds. That's why I always say that there should be split interest rates depending on whether you invest money, either in a company or a mortgage, or if you just go and gamble with it. Money that is borrowed by investment banks to gamble the stock market should always have an interest rate about two percent above the general BoE lending rate. It will curb the most risky kinds of speculation and make big investors shift back to long-term investments, and the ensuing calming of financial markets will be beneficial to all of us.
|>>|| No. 27542
>lower risk to business loans for a well respected company than it does to private mortgages
But it's obvious why this is - the financial "habits" of a business are much better known than an individual, the directors (multiple people) have a legal duty not to spunk all the money on beer/hookers/gambling, there are usually better sources of collateral should the loan go badly wrong and all their accounts, history and performance is publicly available to everyone - none of those things happen with individuals.
>Money that is borrowed by investment banks to gamble the stock market should always have an interest rate about two percent above the general BoE lending rate.
Most investment banks aren't "gambling on the stock market". Even within a bank, the number of people who are allowed to proprietary trade like that are tiny, even in the biggest banks, single figures of people. You're thinking of hedge funds perhaps.
Banks are some of the most regulated institutions around - your level of understanding on what they do and how they operate is juvenile at best.
|>>|| No. 27556
>But it's obvious why this is - the financial "habits" of a business are much better known than an individual
You, or somebody was complaining further up in this thread that raising BoE interest rates to slow down the housing bubble would be unfair to businesses applying for a loan. My point was simply that large commercial companies tend to get better loans than a person applying for a mortgage no matter how high or low rates are. For all the reasons you and I have now stated.
>Even within a bank, the number of people who are allowed to proprietary trade like that are tiny, even in the biggest banks, single figures of people.
A lot of that money is no longer being moved back and forth by actual people, as I am sure you know, but by high frequency and algorithmic trading computers. They're the ones moving the markets. On some low-volume trading days, they already make up nearly 70 to 80 percent of all trading transactions. But they wouldn't be able to do much of that without all the cheap and almost free cash that can be borrowed for around 0.1% interest.
|>>|| No. 27557
The yute are the primary infected at the moment, plus we are getting better at treating it.
|>>|| No. 27559
>The yute are the primary infected at the moment
The only rational thing to do is lock up everyone under 30 and conscript pensioners into work teams to handle things like customer service (don't worry, they're experts at waiting tables). Everyone else can do whatever we want.
|>>|| No. 27560
The virus is only spiking because reckless young people are doing what the government told them to do, but not in a COVID-secure way, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
Don't kill your nan GO BACK TO WORK stay alert GO TO THE PUB control the virus GO TO SCHOOL save lives SAVE PRET A MANGER.
|>>|| No. 27561
>My point was simply that large commercial companies tend to get better loans than a person applying for a mortgage no matter how high or low rates are
I'm not sure that's helpful though. Say that house prices are going up by 15% per year, consumer prices are going up by 2% a year, industrial output is stagnant, wages are stagnant, and unemployment is slowly eeking upwards.
In those circumstances if you raise rates to temper the housing bubble you'll put businesses off from borrowing. Say you increase interest rates from 5% to 10%, which leads banks to charge industry 11% and mortgagees 15%. If the best return on investment industry can find is 9% then it's no longer profitable for them to borrow to invest, even if they are getting a lower rate than people looking for a mortgage.
We're dealing with the opposite side of the coin at the moment: Trying to keep the moribund real economy going even if it royally screws up the housing and share markets. Raising rates in response to a house-price-house-fire seems to have been more of a thing when RPI was the standard measure of inflation and interest rates weren't always preceded by a 0 and a period.
|>>|| No. 27562
I've seen quite a few people announce on Facebook that they're homeschooling their kids until at least January because of coronavirus. Not entirely sure why they felt the need to declare it.
|>>|| No. 27564
>Not entirely sure why they felt the need to declare it.
Would that not apply to 400% of everything posted on Facebook?
|>>|| No. 27568
I for one, do not even have 6 friends.
I'll be mildly annoyed if we can't travel again though as I've saved up a years worth of holiday that might turn into sitting in my house all December. I say mildly as that also sounds pretty tits.
|>>|| No. 27569
I have far too much holiday to take, for the same reason. I'm supposed to take two weeks in a whole block too, but I just can't be fucked.
|>>|| No. 27570
A couple of friends of mine I think of as being quite sensible are strangely being taken in by some "Great Reset" narrative (whatever that is) surrounding CV-19. Occam's Razor has left the building.
|>>|| No. 27571
It's been going on for long enough that they're all coming out of the woodwork now - have noticed this myself the past couple of weeks.
I would like to think people are just a combination of bored/scared - but as you say, Occam says they're probably just thick as mince.
|>>|| No. 27573
So Lockdown 2.0 sounds like it is about to be delivered - although it is curious they're giving us until next Monday.
And the AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine has had a hiccup in testing and one of the test subjects has had some kind of serious side-effect.
Not a great day for COVID19-recovery. Still in lockdown by Xmas do you think?
|>>|| No. 27574
>Not a great day for COVID19-recovery. Still in lockdown by Xmas do you think?
If we plan on keeping the schools open, expect to see stricter measures for most of the winter. I think it's more likely than not that we'll have to close pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops again before the end of October.
If we can't get test, trace and isolate working properly in a serious hurry, the second wave could well be worse than the first.
|>>|| No. 27576
Still miles off, and besides we don't know how much/how long antibodies give immunity yet. Anybody's guess.
|>>|| No. 27578
>So Lockdown 2.0 sounds like it is about to be delivered - although it is curious they're giving us until next Monday.
It'll be one of those "if you don't start behaving we'll have no choice but to start imposing lockdown measures. Look what you're making us do."
|>>|| No. 27579
I wonder how many white van men who regularly complain about "benefits cheats" were ineligible for the SEISS grants due to incomplete bookwork and tax irregularities.
|>>|| No. 27582
Nobody has really moaned about benefits cheats for about ten years now lad, that was pre-Cameron stuff. Besides I suspect it goes a lot higher up the self employed ladder than just white van men.
There was a couple of weeks of complaining by middle class people who had to sign on for the first time, though, and suddenly found out how pitiably little they'd get. That was pretty cathartic for a while. They were doing things like phoning in to Radio 4's afternoon show saying they deserve more than that because after all, they've paid into the system their whole lives.
Imagine that eh.
|>>|| No. 27584
From what I could tell they weren't too shocked by how little the average person would get in benefits; it was more resentment that they'd worked hard all their lives and were only eligible for a pittance whereas people squeezing out loads of kids and choosing benefits as a lifestyle choice knew how to milk the system for loads.
|>>|| No. 27587
There's nothing stopping them squeezing out a few kids of their own, but unsurprisingly, they're just not willing to put in that kind of effort are they? They want it all handing to them on a plate without putting in the graft, typical.
Point is, it goes to show the disconnect between the reality of benefits, and the tabloid bullshit people had hungrily lapped up without a second thought beforehand. It was indignance because they thought it was their turn to live the life of all expenses paid benefit luxury that turned out not to exist. It suddenly mattered when it concerned them.
|>>|| No. 27588
About five years ago there was an incident on Question Time where a Tory voter started crying about tax credit cuts, with the inference that the cuts were only supposed to affect scroungers rather than people like her. I'm pretty sure the Mail did a couple of hit pieces on her business and her private life to make it come across that she's actually part of the underseving poor so she had got what was coming to her. She's now a Labour councillor.
|>>|| No. 27605
Got nothing to do with the fact they're the ones being forced to go out and risk their fucking lives stacking the shelves in Tesco and pull people's pints in fucking Wetherspoons has it.
I honestly have no words.
|>>|| No. 27606
>Go back to school and uni and your shit low wage jobs!
>NO! NOT LIKE THAT!
Let's just Jokerfy the Mail offices already.
|>>|| No. 27609
If they're too thick or ugly to get on OnlyFans, that's their problem.
|>>|| No. 27611
At this point they would be better off just telling the truth. We're all fucked until a vaccine arrives.
Calling it "moon-shot" is ridiculous.
|>>|| No. 27617
I really, really don't understand. The PM, a man I'm told goes by the absurd nom de plume "Boris Johnson", is saying everyone needs to get tested and he's going to spend one-hundred-billion-pounds to make it happen, a figure he surely announced while holding his pinky against his face like Dr Evil. However, there's this weird, pervy looking bloke who's supposedly the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and he's saying no fucker needs a test and thinking about giving nurses sticks to beat back anyone who asks. This second chap goes by "Matt Hancock", something of a carpet-bagger de plume, if you ask me.
|>>|| No. 27618
A rare case of the worldfilter fucking up a decent joke there, my condolences.
|>>|| No. 27635
Isn't that more or less the same thing in a market where house prices grow faster than wages? (which in Britain, is to say: "Grow")
|>>|| No. 27643
The current housing 'boom' is driven by homes with gardens as preferences change due to lockdown and we're looking at a release of pent-up demand. Those cost more money.
>the lower end of the market is drying up and first time buyers are being squeezed out
No, it's a pretty good time to be looking for a home if you're interested in a small flat in an urban area. Even better times are ahead if you can wait a few months.
|>>|| No. 27644
>it's a pretty good time to be looking for a home if you're interested in a small flat in an urban area
It's a really terrible time to get a mortgage as a first-time buyer.
|>>|| No. 27646
No. The boom is being driven by those with a lot of equity in their properties who don't need a relatively high mortgage to trade up, particularly due to the stamp duty holiday that's in place until next March. The number of sales agreed for £1million+ properties in August 2020 was 228% higher than in August 2019, primarily people moving from London to the Home Counties but there's people moving from cities to commuter towns across the board.
Lenders are pulling riskier mortgages and raising rates for ones still left. It's not a brilliant time to be a first time buyer unless you have a large deposit or a wealthy family.
|>>|| No. 27651
Not taking the piss lad, but I do have a large deposit. Well, like £50k (absolute max about £70k) and I'm looking for a £120k house up north.
Prices are higher than ever though, I feel like holding off until next year?
|>>|| No. 27652
The north is supposed to be some kind of haven of affordable houses, according to southerners, but it's still overpriced as fuck for anywhere within sensible reach of the main cities (Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, etc). People just have their perspective skewed by the That London market.
You can still find a bargain in Castleford or what have you, but you're still paying the sort of money that, in a sensible world, should allow you to live somewhere less reminiscent of the film Threads.
|>>|| No. 27655
I'm in Newcastle which is even cheaper still, but like you say, that still doesn't mean you're getting a good deal right now, you'd only be overpaying no matter where you bought at the minute.
Saying that, I have a flat in Leeds if you want to buy that. I'll give you .gs discount, I don't even care. Being a landlord is fucking soul crushing. To further illustrate the point, however, here is an identical unit on the market right now - look at the fucking price of the cunt.
|>>|| No. 27657
I'll give you £800, a CD/DVD drive and a I'll let you choose two of my shiny Pokemon cards and eight non-shinies for the flat.
|>>|| No. 27664
Yes, even Little Beeston is overpriced. Wakefield and Calder in general is a slowly gentrifying commuter hub for Leeds these days. Full o' blood offcome'duns who don't even remember buying Es from a scally in Players on a Friday night.
Of course, nobody has told the existing residents this.
|>>|| No. 27665
Is it true that the new coronavirus rules mean that the rozzers can force their way into your property without a warrant if they 'suspect' there's more than six non-residents there?
|>>|| No. 27666
> force their way into your property without a warrant
I wouldn't be surprised and totally fair enough.
Also, they need a warrant far less often than you think for a lot of crimes.
|>>|| No. 27667
I met 12 people today for a BBQ. There were kids and old people there too (extended relatives). I hope it was alright.
Will find out in a couple of weeks... I guess... Would be nice to have that app now...
|>>|| No. 27694
>The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals
Sounds like typical alt-right nonsense. Just because an "alternative" opinion is ruled as unlikely by the rest of the scientific community, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to suppress it.
The HIV virus, when it was first discovered and described outside sub-Saharan Africa, was also rumoured by some to be the result of genetic bioengineering, because it had some quite unusual characteristics, which also made it very difficult to cure or at least effectively suppress until fairly recently. Does that mean the virus was engineered? No, probably not. And that's not even addressing the fact that the technology just didn't exist in the 1970s. It's just testament to evolution being able to come up with quite astonishing designs, and that is probably also true for SARS-CoV-2, even if some tinfoil hats think it was created in a lab.
|>>|| No. 27695
Fact is, if you COULD bi-engineer a virus like this, you'd have a Nobel prize and be richer than Elon Musk, with every government and research company on the planet fighting to get their hands on you. Biological warfare is highly illegal by international law, so it's not even that- Some shady contractor might want to debble in it but they're not going to be able to pay what a medical company can to get you looking in to bacteriophages to combat anti-microbial resistance or what have you.
|>>|| No. 27696
Also, in the case of AIDS, the first accounts of it as a mysterious wasting disease long before it even got its name was from white explorers in the 1930s who ventured into the African jungles. It was noted as a peculiar terminal illness that was known to occasionally affect people who were hunting apes and monkeys for food. They probably got it from cutting themselves while handling the raw meat. At that time, the understanding of DNA and its biochemistry was rudimentary at best, and there was quite definitely no technology in existence to engineer the virus artificially.
There's a lot you can do nowadays in that area. Genetic engineering and the modification of naturally occurrnig DNA has come a long way. But again, there is no need for a government to secretly develop a nasty virus, because evolution has shown many times that it is capable of doing it all on its own. If you also look at organisms like yersinia pestis or clostridium botulinum, two of the most deadly bacteria known to man, they just randomly came into being, and centuries ago. So it's entirely probable that SARS-CoV-2 just one day suddenly evolved, most likely in a population of wild bats that were then sold for food at a Chinese wet market.
|>>|| No. 27697
Yes but the important thing is to focus on who is to blame, rather than doing anything about it.
|>>|| No. 27700
I don't recommend Jim Davidson's YouTube channel.
|>>|| No. 27717
Lockdown 2.0 starting in the "North East" from midnight Thursday.
ITZ HERE LADS. ACQUIRE BOG ROLLS. AGAIN.
|>>|| No. 27718
Ade Edmondson is guilt free in all of this shit.
What a load of utter bollocks though. Generation Game? I wonder what generation he's gaming.
|>>|| No. 27720
>Young people are bearing the brunt of rising unemployment, with 16-24 year olds losing more jobs than any other age group. Radio 1 Newsbeat has been speaking to some of them about how it feels when you're made redundant in a pandemic.
I don't know how to even react to this quote:
>"It's quite degrading, knowing I have to find a job for money, which I feel might bring me down a little bit but I'm going to try and keep positive," she says.
The full video is worse. If the new head of the BBC wants more right-wing comedians expect Davidson to get an entire series.
|>>|| No. 27721
>I don't know how to even react to this quote
It's almost like that quote was cherrypicked in order to distract from the legitimate point that younger people are facing a hard situation.
|>>|| No. 27722
They always do this, they pick the most spoiled middle class twits to misrepresent the whole age group as clueless entitled tossers.
|>>|| No. 27723
He knows the dog whistle he is blowing.
What blows my mind is he almost was out of fashion/business/a dinosaur - the Brexit discourse has made him seem relevant.
I loathe cancel culture, partly because it usually gets the wrong people - he deserves every bit of it. How the fuck is he still able to publish that bullshit on YouTube?
|>>|| No. 27724
I work for an NHS lab. We were already understaffed and underfunded, keeping the show running by some kind of miracle, and now we're being asked to somehow divide our staff by mitosis and cover a night shift so we can shoulder some of the work the private labs, in a turn of events that has surprised literally fucking nobody, can't keep on top of. Of course we're not getting more resources or equipment.
How much money has the government wasted on pisstake private contractors when they could have just expanded NHS lab capacity, with the benefit that we've been doing this shit for decades and know what the fuck we're doing.
Livid honestly lads.
|>>|| No. 27725
Even in a pandemic the Tories still don't give a shit about the NHS, even when it saved the prime ministers life. That should tell us all we need.
|>>|| No. 27727
>How the fuck is he still able to publish that bullshit on YouTube?
Because people watch it? His last few videos have all had 100k views and he's only been doing it for a month or so; there's clearly a market for it.
|>>|| No. 27728
I can sympathise. Fuck work and struggling to find even a call centre job during the Great Recession was double shit.
>Rather than look for a new job, he's going to take the redundancy cash and use it to go travelling around South East Asia.
Not entirely sure he's thought this one through.
|>>|| No. 27729
>I loathe cancel culture, partly because it usually gets the wrong people - he deserves every bit of it. How the fuck is he still able to publish that bullshit on YouTube?
Because some massive fanny has yet to report him for no-no thoughts.
|>>|| No. 27730
Various right-wing groups organise mass-reporting of left wing accounts on social media.
|>>|| No. 27731
I'm not a leftie in the slightest, but happy to join any mass reporting of him. I thought the lefties were usually more organised with this sort of thing? He fucking deserves it.
|>>|| No. 27733
>I thought the lefties were usually more organised
Ha, you really aren't a left-winger.
|>>|| No. 27734
Keep taking the knee and crying about dead Yank criminals you lefty melts, the overwhelming majority of the British public couldn't give a shit.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 27737
Stop idolizing violent meth-head Yank scumbag criminals and bringing US grievances over here to demonize our police who don't even carry guns. Thank god the Birmingham stabby cunt wasn't shot by armed police, or you lot would have burned the whole city down by now.
|>>|| No. 27740
I find it really weird. I mean, who would read those chans and think YEAH I CAN USE THIS IN THE UK AND NOBODY WILL NOTICE. >>27737 is scared of something.
|>>|| No. 27741
He must actually be a seppo, surely nobody from this country would spell 'idolising' with a z?
|>>|| No. 27744
Stop taking the bait on identity politics bullshit, you absolutely myopic bellends.
|>>|| No. 27746
Am I hallucinating the last dozen posts flipping out about some low grade /pol/ troll then?
You lot should know better.
|>>|| No. 27748
Nobody in this country follows the Concise Oxford English Dictionary? That's quite the claim.
|>>|| No. 27751
We weren't talking about identity politics or any of the lunacy that lad was going on about at all. Someone made an incredibly stupid post and were treated aptly.
|>>|| No. 27752
This post had better be some sort of reverse psychology meta-troll. Otherwise have a word with yourself.
|>>|| No. 27754
A clever scientist on the radio has just said that although covid hasn't died out in the summer like other similar viruses, there's evidence that there's a 10-15% difference in mortality in seasonal conditions.
I missed the bit about if that's higher in summer or winter, but I'm guessing the latter. Pack your rice lads.
|>>|| No. 27755
It feels like everyone is a bit too preoccupied with mortality rates. There should be more attention on how, even if you only have mild symptoms, it can damage your respiratory system.
|>>|| No. 27756
There really needs to be more of a focus on this and I think the lack thereof is why there's a decent percentage of those in their teens/early 20's walking around thinking they're untouchable, and if they do get sick, think they'll just recover and be fine. This thing can fuck you for years, regardless of your age.
|>>|| No. 27758
The big story of 2021 will be the outbreak of WWIII, but I get your point.
|>>|| No. 27759
Didn't we already go through this, alarmist-lads? A bad illness can damage your body but the odds are fairly insignificant. Hence why we don't care about the long-term effects of flu. We currently have no long-term data on Covid but it's not magic.
|>>|| No. 27760
> Hence why we don't care about the long-term effects of flu
Once again, this is not the flu and it's not alarmist, this has been downplayed enough and currently there is a huge undertaking to try and understand and mitigate these ongoing symptoms and lasting damage people are getting from covid.
They've already been tracking people for a few months now who had it and recovered, and the data coming out isn't resassuring. The best guess at the moment is the probability of developing ongoing symptoms/issues and taking longer to recover in general is 10% or a bit under, but given that there's at least 29 million cases right now, that's potentially a good 2900000 people, and the outcome for those people will be varied. On top of this we have evidence from previous corona strain outbreaks, such as SARS, that show the damage done can last for years. I really shouldn't have to point out the knock on effect this can have on health services too.
At any rate it is a valid concern that is being researched because you're right, it isn't magic, it's science.
|>>|| No. 27761
>A bad illness can damage your body but the odds are fairly insignificant. Hence why we don't care about the long-term effects of flu. We currently have no long-term data on Covid but it's not magic.
Young people who experience mild symptoms probably aren't going to experience significant long-term effects, but there are serious concerns about middle-aged people who suffer serious but non-life-threatening illness.
After the SARS outbreak, we saw serious long-term respiratory scarring in the majority of patients, with some people still suffering with substantially reduced lung function after a decade.
The big unknown with Covid-19 is the neurological effects. We're not sure whether it's due to hypoxia, inflammation or some combination, but a significant proportion of patients experience major neurological problems. Loss of smell and taste is common enough to be listed as a sign that you need a test, but we're also seeing patients suffer sight loss, neuralgia, muscle weakness and seizures.
We're also seeing a lot of patients with muscle damage (again, possibly hypoxia or inflammation) which can do massive damage to your kidneys via rhabdomyolysis.
We shouldn't be alarmist, nobody who feels fine now is suddenly going to keel over with Covid after-effects, but the fact that someone survived doesn't mean that they survived unscathed. Spending a couple of days in hospital with a bad bout of the 'rona might well come back to haunt you in old age if you ended up with a scarred heart and lungs.
|>>|| No. 27763
Stop scaring me lads. I think I might have a flu/cold. I have the sniffles, blocked nose, minor cough from smoking a lot, and just aches and pains... It feels like a cold/flu.
Every now and again, I keep taking my temperature, and spraying different deodorants on myself to see if I can smell it. I bought shit loads of sweets, to see if I can taste it as I go through it slowly.
So far, I can smell, taste, breathe normally, and have no fever. It's only day four. I hope it doesn't get worse.
In other news - it is close to impossible to book a Covid test. I kept trying yesterday and today, every hour. Nothing. Just a shitty message telling me there is nothing available.
Britain is being run like a useless local government council.
|>>|| No. 27764
It's totally normal for this time of year though - my kids went back to school a couple of weeks ago, and I've spent two days this week having the same kind of cold - happens most years. 100% sure I haven't got the 'rona but I can see why many people have been panicked into getting a test.
I actually had a sore throat, heightened sense of smell, many symptoms back at the start of August - got the test from gov.uk (delivered via Amazon), sent it in the post, results back next day - it was extremely efficient. It blows my mind in the space of a month they have fucked it all up completely, it was utterly predictable and typical of us as a nation.
I'm sure you're fine lad.
|>>|| No. 27765
I developed Fibromyalgia and live with chronic post-viral fatigue because of pneumonia. I was told this is fairly common with viral pneumonia.
Covid just so happens to cause pneumonia at a far higher rate than the the flu does.
|>>|| No. 27767
But what about Pret a Manger? That's what the UK economy is held up by, or so the media tells us.
|>>|| No. 27768
>In other news - it is close to impossible to book a Covid test. I kept trying yesterday and today, every hour. Nothing. Just a shitty message telling me there is nothing available.
Look, I insist that our testing system is the best in the world, despite any evidence otherwise. Will you povvos just stop carping on about it?
|>>|| No. 27770
I think the current advice on comparing the flu/a cold to covid is that you rarely sneeze and have a runny nose with covid, you're more likely to develop a harsher continous cough or keep having coughing fits and I think the loss of taste/smell is rather sudden too. As the other lad says, you're probably fine, sounds more like a cold.
|>>|| No. 27771
Someone I work with had it and the only side effect is that they feel a bit funny if they go down the chilled aisles in a supermarket.
|>>|| No. 27773
Eerily predictable full-lockdown coming.
Should I go and buy some more pasta?
|>>|| No. 27774
God. He is so annoying. Why do people vote for him? I don't understand any more.
I don't feel too bad. I haven't self isolated because I think it is a cold. Although, when I woke up this morning, my ability to smell has somewhat been dulled.
|>>|| No. 27776
The Telegraph - the letter K in their house typeface (Austin New) is very distinctive.
|>>|| No. 27778
>NHS is overwhelmed and hospitals are full
We've been in lockdown since 1948?
|>>|| No. 27779
That was before the discovery mid-May or so, that we actually need the economy more than we had previously thought in order to avoid running out of money, and thereby becoming poor (a fate worse than death.)
We are also governed by a farcical set of Spitting Image caricatures so delusional, they thought we'd be treated fairly by the fucking USA of all places, post-Brexit.
|>>|| No. 27782
It's better than my pre-lockdown panic shopping, which currently consists of 10kg of Haribo and 50 bottles of electric fag liquid. I am scum.
|>>|| No. 27783
>10kg of Haribo and 50 bottles of electric fag liquid
It's not the worst survivial kit I've heard off - can I isolate with you if I run out of liquid?
|>>|| No. 27784
My local Asda has Tilda basmati rice 75p for 1kg and quite a few supermarkets have recently heavily reduced things like beans and chopped tomatoes after stocking too much once the panic buying died down. It's actually the perfect time to stockpile.
|>>|| No. 27785
Bags of rice are still £13/5kg in Tesco near me. I live in London, so I assume demand did not let up but to be fair there has only been a shortage of luxury goods and basics never ran out.
|>>|| No. 27787
You live in London m8, what on earth are you doing buying rice from Tesco? You can't be more than five minutes walk from an Asian food store with huge bags of rice and spices, a vaguely upsetting freezer full of mystery animal parts and big buckets of KTC PURE BUTTER GHEE.
|>>|| No. 27788
>I live in London, so I assume demand did not let up but to be fair there has only been a shortage of luxury goods and basics never ran out.
Don't know what area you were shopping in but I had to spend two weeks eating whatever was left on the shelves. This meant combining artisan bread with cheap frozen burger patties and learning to appreciate shellfish. Were I a softer man I would've been visibly upset that after a hard day at work I was struggling to find complete meals because of absolute shithouses.
I'm sure it'll be complete pandemonium when a vaccine is ready. Do you reckon I should register with my local GP now or will they distribute it in other ways?
|>>|| No. 27792
You should definitely register with a GP regardless. A lot of areas are suffering from severe shortages of GPs, so it's worth getting registered at a decent surgery now rather than waiting until you're ill. You can search for local surgeries and see patient satisfaction data at the link below.
|>>|| No. 27797
Am I misremembering or have food prices gone up already?
|>>|| No. 27800
A standard piece of salmon at Tesco is now almost a fiver, I'm sure they were about three quid before.
|>>|| No. 27801
Of course they have - everyone is preparing for the lockdown and the clearing of shelves, so raising prices is a pretty reasonable way of deterring that.
|>>|| No. 27804
Not to be a braggart lads but I did say in the ITZ thread that keeping the R number below 1 is a completely futile aim, even in semi-lockdown.
|>>|| No. 27806
I mean how did people who look like that end up on that kind of march. I actually feel sorry for Bill Gates.
In other news, it turns out that "Q" is actually the dude who now owns 8chan. I am not in the least bit surprised but how did a troll like that end up with people like that clashing with the police in London. It genuinely does my head in.
|>>|| No. 27807
Could it be that they are eastern European pornstars paid to protest? That's what they look like.
The QAnon stuff will go down in history as the greatest troll effort.
|>>|| No. 27808
Apparently he's handing it over to the guy who did the whole Cicada thing soon.
>how did a troll like that end up with people like that clashing with the police in London
It got into the facebook mum's groups, a lot of the "deep state" shit was played down and the Satanic panic child-molester stuff played up. Facebook, as usual, failed to do anything about it until far too little too late. A significant amount of the earlier Qanon are a bit put off by it as they don't feel it represents them properly, or that it's getting out of their control.
|>>|| No. 27809
For cult behavior they've hit upon the ideal gimmick really, who will dare say that SAVING THE KIDS isn't a valid thing?
|>>|| No. 27810
Couldn't make it up. A whole movement based around DEM CELEB BABY EATERS, masterminded by a dude who runs a carpet-bagger haven.
|>>|| No. 27811
>who will dare say that SAVING THE KIDS isn't a valid thing?
Some of the actual, effective Save-the-children charities have put out statements disavowing it, but others seem to be intimitated and afraid of speaking out.
|>>|| No. 27812
They aren't attractive enough to be eastern European pornstars.
Donald Trump may never have won the Republican primaries without the efforts of 4chan and /r/The_Donald. Could he be the only head of state whose election was a punchline to someone else's joke?
|>>|| No. 27813
>Could he be the only head of state whose election was a punchline to someone else's joke?
The thing is that part of the story will likely never be told - but it was obvious at the time. I recall a few years before the joke/con was on with all the RAND PAUL stuff.
|>>|| No. 27814
I keep a detailed record of my spending and can reveal that costs have remained static for at least this year. I've ended up with some egg on my face for this as I budgeted for price rises.
|>>|| No. 27815
>They aren't attractive enough to be eastern European pornstars.
Mate, you have not been on the same sites.
Anyhow "are human rights" is a bit of a giveaway.
|>>|| No. 27816
Not trying to bring environmental stuff into this thread but this article about how oil companies pushed misinformation
Has some parallels with what's going on here.
>The ICE campaign identified two groups which would be most susceptible to its messaging. The first was "older, lesser educated males from larger households who are not typically information seekers".
>The second group was "younger, low-income women," who could be targeted with bespoke adverts which would liken those who talked about climate change to a hysterical doom-saying cartoon chicken.
|>>|| No. 27817
I know this is barely COVID related, but it's great to see the mass adoption of conspiracy-theory-soup in this country. I've had too many late night kitchen chats with people who thought Pearl Harbour was an inside job or the Moon landings didn't happen; let's get this shite in the open. More seriously though the conspiracy theories around the events I mentioned are actually on a different level. You've got all this evidence and stuff you can point to with regards to what actually happened, whereas the COVID theories there are approximately four-hundred different ones and they seem to rely on much more superstitious modes of thought. You might be talking to a white nationalist who's using it as a veil to "sissify" people, it could be a young mum who thinks the carpet-baggers are after her kiddies or just someone who's gone full Tweet-brain.
I would really love a redo for the past twenty years, both personally and in a wider sense. God, imagine if the Yanks had simply cut diplomatic ties with Saudi and imposed sanctions after 9/11 instead of all this shite. Oh, well, now who's indulging in magical thinking?
|>>|| No. 27818
>God, imagine if the Yanks had simply cut diplomatic ties with Saudi and imposed sanctions after 9/11 instead of all this shite. Oh, well, now who's indulging in magical thinking?
Sometimes you lads really do hit where it hurts. It's not that hard to imagine things beingngg very different. Perhaps that's the nature of history; at all points there's a scope of possibilities, and where you land within that scope determines how sane the next set of possibilities are, ad infinitum.
This is comforting, as it gives me the sense that even small sane actions now might be positively influencing the future.
|>>|| No. 27823
It's just madness that we're back at almost 4000 cases a day. About a month ago we were all celebrating almost zero cases a day; a few weeks ago, the government was telling us we all had to go back to work as it was safe, else we would lose our jobs - was it ten days ago they were promising the moonshot, spending £100bn on a testing plan to see all of us tested, and now we're back here about 48 hours from another national lockdown and as many cases per day as in April.
How long until we start seriously considering the herd immunity plan again? There doesn't seem to be any other credible option.
|>>|| No. 27824
>There doesn't seem to be any other credible option
You wot. There is, but this government and Boris in particular cannot lead and also don't give a shit about any of us. On top of that there's a decent enough percentage of the British public who are absolute thickos. If it gets to the point of herd immunity then we're fucked as a country anyway, and all because the government couldn't take a firm stance on lockdown and failed across the board to listen to all advice, or even just follow the lead of other countries, and people couldn't be fucked to stay inside a little bit longer.
|>>|| No. 27825
Herd immunity isn't a plan. It's what happens when like 60% of the population have been infected or immunised. Without a vaccine, it just means that hundreds of thousands of people have to die whilst the country carries on as normal.
|>>|| No. 27826
>On top of that there's a decent enough percentage of the British public who are absolute thickos.
But that is the country we live in - the countries who are getting on top of this have much more obedient citizens who are prepared to follow rules for a common good; we're a feral land of people who don't like being told what to do, and as you say, the government are frightened to lead us because of how it might play out in the press.
I want to believe a vaccine is coming, but I can't see it this year and it will be middle of next before it is available in quantity. I don't see how to resolve that. I agree that herd immunity isn't a plan, a poor choice of word - but it's hobsons choice at the moment.
|>>|| No. 27828
>How long until we start seriously considering the herd immunity plan again? There doesn't seem to be any other credible option.
There are and were many credible options, Torylad. This incompetent government isn't capable of delivering them. How long ago was the track and trace app promised? Testing? How are schools and universities meant to be open without anything in place regarding testing and tracing, etc?
I am not too sure about the fatality rates of under 40s, but I am sure a lot more old people will be dead before we get any sort of herd immunity, even if that is something possible - considering there have been reports of reinfections, etc. Maybe 70% of the population infected, and half a million dead? Does that sound alright, lad?
|>>|| No. 27829
>we're a feral land of people who don't like being told what to do, and as you say, the government are frightened to lead us because of how it might play out in the press.
This would be true if you take it in good faith that the government is making the best possible decisions.
Had to believe when they put Baroness Dido Harding in charge of track and trace. The same person who left TalkTalk essentially in disgrace after the huge hack where she demonstrated complete ignorance of what was going on in the company she was in charge of.
As head of track and trace she's handed out cushy jobs to a load of people from places like JLR and the banking industry, the whole top management at test and trace includes only one person with experience in the medical sector. She's handed out vastly expensive contracts to
Borises Matesprivate providers who've sold more testing capacity while they actually have while ignoring offers from Universities to contribute their lab capacity. She's handed out contracts to Borises Matesprivate providers to fill call centres with untrained people while ignoring offers of help from local health authorities.
To reward her for leading this world beating service she's now been offered a job at the new national institute for health protection. (Which is being formed due to the need to scapegoat PHE for the government failing to do anything meaningful enough early in the crisis.)
|>>|| No. 27830
The government were offered access to top-notch tracing tech for free and turned it down.
I don't want to speculate as to their motives for not building an app based on that but instead trying to build one with centralised data, but I will mention that in the US police have been using contact tracing data to crack down on protestors.
|>>|| No. 27831
>using contact tracing data to crack down on protestors.
Either that, or they want to hand over a multimillion pound contract to a company "friendly" to them.
|>>|| No. 27832
> it just means that hundreds of thousands of people have to die whilst the country carries on as normal.
It'll be worse than that though, for things to get that bad means there will be a massive strain on health services, which will have its own knock on effect. I doubt the country would be carrying on as normal.
|>>|| No. 27833
Incidentally, the government's idea of making sure arrivals from Europe are self-isolating is to give them a phone call two days after they've arrived, to ask.
|>>|| No. 27834
How do they think that this is okay? This is a joke. Seems like everything is shite, on purpose.
|>>|| No. 27835
They make you give them a landline number, they wont accept mobiles. And just being in the shower when they call lands you with a fine in the post.
|>>|| No. 27836
I know most people these days won't remember back in the ancient days of the late 90s when people actually bothered to do it; but I'm sure it's still quite easy to divert a landline to your mobile.
|>>|| No. 27838
>They make you give them a landline number, they wont accept mobiles.
Wrong on both counts.
Speaking to my friend who arrived from Belgium five days ago, they rang her yesterday on the mobile number she gave them when she crossed the border and so far that's all they've done.
|>>|| No. 27839
My VOIP line (from sipgate) looks like a landline, costs zero to run and diverts to my mobile if not answered. Highly recommended if you feel the need. I ported my old number to it when I moved house, just be aware that you need to do things in the right order or you can lose your number.
|>>|| No. 27841
The UK’s biggest Covid-19 testing laboratory is prioritising Premiership Rugby players and travellers to Dubai while failing to meet government targets for the public, according to company insiders.
Randox Laboratories, based in Co Antrim, Northern Ireland, won a £133m testing contract unopposed in March. It is responsible for a quarter of community tests in the UK.
However, leaked documents marked “sensitive” reveal that it regularly fails to provide test results within the official 24-hour target. On September 9, Randox completed fewer than one in 10 tests on time. It has also “voided” more tests than any laboratory — meaning the number it throws away because of errors.
|>>|| No. 27842
Can't really blame them. It is a private company, and unless the terms of the contract specify things like prioritising work, etc, then there is nobody to blame but the central government.
Would be lovely to see what their tender/bidder response was, and what the terms of the contract are.
This is what privatisation gets you lads.
|>>|| No. 27843
>Can't really blame them. It is a private company, and unless the terms of the contract specify things like prioritising work, etc, then there is nobody to blame but the central government.
Both they and (this) central government are motivated by the same greed.
|>>|| No. 27844
>This is what privatisation gets you lads.
If they're too dim to draw up a sensible contract, I'm not optimistic about their ability to commission services in-house.
|>>|| No. 27850
No one is looking to commission ANYTHING in-house anymore. Even Labour councils in bum-fucking nowhere don't do it. In fact, a few councils started "downsizing" and started a major privatisation work. Not sure if it was directed by central government because councils were begging for money because of Covid, but that's how it turned out.
The juice is all about contracts to the private sector. I work in commissioning, procurement and finance, and I let out, since March, contracts worth £600 million for both central government and local government. I am not even a senior officer. It's all direct awards, variations, such nonsense.
The best part is "Emergency - Covid", because you can bypass EU procurement regulations too.
Sorry lads, I'm too drunk. I hope Boris doesn't get me.
|>>|| No. 27851
>The best part is "Emergency - Covid", because you can bypass EU procurement regulations too.
This is it. Next year when the "public inquiries" start, it won't be the number of people who died that is the scandal, it will be the millions that we've pissed away on fake furlough, the millions (!) of fake meals we pissed away on eat-out-to-help-out and other schemes, and how many of the contracts being hurriedly signed right now bypassed all the normal procurement rules.
This will be the scandal of the past six months that will haunt taxpayers for years to come and will cause a change of government.
|>>|| No. 27852
My girlfriend's mum works in adult day care services for a Labour run council. A lot of the services have been outsourced in recent years to private companies, who charge the council more than it cost to run them in-house, but they've cherry picked all of the 'cheap' disabilities and left the council to still look after the most expensive users. Then again, when it was all in-house it was also a massive shitshow.
|>>|| No. 27853
>the millions (!) of fake meals we pissed away on eat-out-to-help-out and other schemes
I have one foot still in the restaurant game and it really is that bad, because it's so fucking easy to do - there is quite literally no way to prove or disprove how many meals you've sold in a day. I'm sure some tiny hole in the walls will get done for selling four thousand burgers a day, but otherwise everyone will quietly double or triple their sales and get away with it. And why not, it's not like the scheme was that useful anyway - it just caused backlogs.
|>>|| No. 27854
The main reasons for Eat Out to Help Out were:
- To allow the restaurant trade to boost their coffers before we go into second lockdown.
- To normalise going out so that people can be pushed towards going back to work.
- To spread the virus around. They want the second wave before the weather gets too bad.
|>>|| No. 27855
>will get done for selling four thousand burgers a day
I don't really blame anyone for rinsing the system when their business is in a desperate situation - and it will have genuinely boosted some peoples business for the better, but it was obvious that the numbers were being gamed.
|>>|| No. 27859
It's impossible to view EOTHO as anything other than a deliberate attempt to kill the public. It made no economic sense at all.
|>>|| No. 27861
It's impossible to view EOTHO as anything other than a deliberate attempt to kill the poor. Of course those that wouldn't normally be able to afford to treat themselves are going to jump at the chance to do it for half off. The upper crust fucking about at some independent pseudo-pub in the exclusive villages of rural Hampshire aren't going to be as much at risk as Sharon and Jason Bloggs going down the local inner-city curry house of an evening.
|>>|| No. 27870
Almost 4400 cases today - looks to me like we'll have surpassed the original peak by the end of this week.
|>>|| No. 27872
The Joint Biosecurity Centre has recommended that the Covid-19 alert level should move from level 3 (a Covid-19 epidemic is in general circulation) to level 4 (a Covid-19 epidemic is in general circulation; transmission is high or rising exponentially).
The CMOs for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have reviewed the evidence and recommend all four nations of the UK should move to Level 4.
Well, there it is. We're back to officially working from home and everything shuts. Tomorrow will be interesting.
brb going down Costco for a FITE.
|>>|| No. 27874
I wonder if Jezza is embarassed by his brother.
(also, University of Woo & Windchimes is excellent).
|>>|| No. 27879
Look at them with their ties and ironed shirts. It makes me sick.
Has the prof been wearing eye-liner? I get a Pirates of the Caribbean vibe at times.
|>>|| No. 27883
They're both wearing badly cut off-the-rack suits and haven't even bothered to get the length altered. It's not their job to look dapper, but a decent tailor could do miracles for either of them.
|>>|| No. 27886
I mean they're not even wearing good shirts, which is even more of a crime and much cheaper to solve.
Come ON Mr Vallance, I trust your science but I DO NOT trust your button-down shirt one bit. Chris Witty is a secret fat lad and bought his suit from Next.
|>>|| No. 27888
All this talk of suits reminds me that I don't actually own one. The last time I had to wear one was several years ago when my sister got married, but as part of the core party I was given the suit. Before that, I've typically just rented one, because I literally have no need for one otherwise.
|>>|| No. 27890
I own 3 suits for work bought off the rack that haven't been tailored, help cover up that I never iron my work shirts and probably stink of fags - nobody gives a fuck. I bought 2 of them together about 8 years ago so I've gotten my moneys worth and its more convenient than coming in with normal clothes until the day I can wear joggers. Even wore them for successful job interviews (not all at once, that would be absurd).
If I had to address the country as part of my job I'd wear one then as well. People would probably whinge if I came on looking like a car salesman, you want your experts to be scruffy gits.
|>>|| No. 27893
>nobody gives a fuck
That's almost certainly true, but it doesn't mean you wouldn't look loads better if you'd spent about forty quid on a seamstress to have them fitted.
I'm certainly no suit ponce, I wear a polo shirt and cargo pants to work, but I do think it's worth the money to get fitted suits (and shirts).
|>>|| No. 27894
This came up before as a chat in /poof/.
Made to measure is rather pointless unless you are a odd shape the bigger problem is people wearing suits that don't really fit them. Either because they wouldn't know a well fitting suit if it bit them on the arse, or because they are fooling themselves as to what size and shape they are.
You should only get a suit customised if you are willing to go full bespoke with a note of flamboyance. If these things are worth doing they are worth doing properly and you are wasting your money if you are getting a suit that looks like what every other bastard is wearing.
|>>|| No. 27896
I don't think anyone here is suggesting a bespoke made to measure suit for basically anything.
A marks and sparks hundred quid suit will still look great if it's altered to fit; I would say it's worth the effort, it takes years off you.
|>>|| No. 27898
Dog Woe 2.jpg
Some of my friends are concerned this 22:00 pub closing time will turn into a curfew. It's easy to imagine "Well they must want everyone off the streets", but in practise the government appears to have relied on peoples sensibility more than harsh rule - wear masks unless exempt; leave your house only once per day except essential shops, excersise and everything else.
There's the whole slippery slope thing but the last i heard that's a logical fallacy.
I'm wondering some kind of hypernormalisation thing is going on where the government supports both sides in an effort to keep people malleably confused - But i'm inclined toward the conspiracy kind of ideas so perhaps not.
|>>|| No. 27899
>I'm wondering some kind of hypernormalisation thing is going on where the government supports both sides in an effort to keep people malleably confused - But i'm inclined toward the conspiracy kind of ideas so perhaps not.
The government response for several months has been to float an idea, wait for the press to pick up on it and then proceed depending on whether it seems popular or not.
The overall message has been unclear, but I can't decide whether it's because they're just plain incompetent or to give themselves enough room to shift blame to the general public or elsewhere. It's probably both.
|>>|| No. 27900
A friendly local nutjob reckons it's being done ever so softly so that when things fall apart over winter they can blame the general public.
|>>|| No. 27901
The government intentionally issuing confusing instructions in order to blame the public when it goes wrong isn't really a nutjob opinion, it's mainstream.
|>>|| No. 27902
The government can't actually tell the truth about it without upsetting someone; we don't have a cure (yet), a bunch of people are going to get ill, a load will die and that's about it.
I don't see a conspiracy at all - there are a bunch of cockups that they can't admit, but I'm not sure they would make any material difference to the outcome. There are sure to be some corruption in the awarding of contracts and people taking the piss with the various schemes, but again, not going to make any big difference to how many people get sick. They're genuinely damned if they do and damned if they don't.
|>>|| No. 27904
Yes, it's a shame that we don't have the resources to manage this in the same way that richer, more developed countries like Vietnam do.
|>>|| No. 27906
Are the other Ossett lads alright? There's been an outbreak linked to the Little Bull pub due the landlady having it and not telling staff or punters about it.
|>>|| No. 27908
Things would definitely have been better if we had simply acted faster. We could have shut down air travel in February and given NHS labs a bit more money for the supplies they needed to increase the capacity for PCR testing on the cases we did have, plus allowed the existing contact tracing organisations to do their job under a less apocalyptic workload.
Of course it's all very well to say this in hindsight, yes; but the fact is we didn't need hindsight. The evidence was right there to begin with and our government was basically clamping its hands over its ears, selectively listening to the kind of advice they wanted to hear. We could have played it safe and taken the precaution to see how things turned out; but instead we waited until it was already a clear and obvious disaster in Spain and Italy to even think about any kind of serious response.
|>>|| No. 27912
>We could have shut down air travel in February and given NHS labs a bit more money for the supplies they needed
We'll all probably argue forever that things could have been handled differently at the start of the pandemic. But six months in, what do we do now?
|>>|| No. 27914
Part of me thinks that most people just don't know infectious this disease is. It's spread by inhaling another's exhale if they have the virus. That's it. You could be 2m away from someone but if the room you're in is small with no ventilation, you're going to catch it.
The impression I get from the general public is they still seem to think it only spreads through coughing or sneezing like a cold or the flu. Sadly, this just isn't the case.
|>>|| No. 27915
The main shortcoming in our response is the "trace" part of test and trace. We have a shitload of testing capacity, but most of that capacity is being wasted because it's not being used as part of a strategic approach to controlling the virus.
Testing is just a tool that allows us to reduce the transmission of the virus. That tool is only useful if the information changes how we behave. If you're living in a household with someone who has COVID symptoms, you don't need a test - you need to isolate for 14 days regardless of whether you've got the virus now, because you're likely to catch the virus anyway. If one of your colleagues has gone into self-isolation with COVID symptoms you do need a test, as does everyone you work with; you need the results pronto to prevent one case from turning into a cluster.
It's all about speed - you need to jump on cases quickly and act to trace and isolate people to prevent the spread of the disease. You need test results within hours and contacts traced within hours, otherwise you might as well not bother; the whole point of test-and-trace is to identify asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carriers before they have a chance to infect their friends and colleagues.
|>>|| No. 27917
Also, if people have symptoms and they get tested to find out that it's just a common cold, we should be telling people that they should still self-isolate, in order to not put other people in a position where they're going to use up even more testing capacity.
Don't be the guy at work who comes in looking like death warmed up going "nah it's ok, I dont have a temperature so can't be the rona".
|>>|| No. 27919
>You need test results within hours and contacts traced within hours, otherwise you might as well not bother
Thing is even on cutting edge machinery it takes a good four hours to run the type of test that identifies covid, not including the preparation work, in a lab that's handling hundreds of these things per hour. Then you have to take the time out of your day to run controls and quality assurance. Testing in microbiology is often misunderstood, even by medics, who will often ring up asking if there's anything you can do to "speed it up". At the end of the day it all relies on actual biological processes.
The official target was thirteen hours or something but in reality, most of that is wasted transporting the swab to where it needs to end up. The fact is, relying on testing in the way we (by which I mean the government) have been, as some kind of silver bullet that will allow us vital intelligence in the war against this disease, is just impractical. All the actions you should be taking need to be taken at first suspicion of an infection, and all the test does is provide an all clear if the suspicion turns out to be false. Which of course is of great import, because then those individuals can all get back to work.
In reality, I suspect testing has only been pushed so heavily so they they knew when they could get away with opening the shops again.
|>>|| No. 27923
>The main shortcoming in our response is the "trace" part of test and trace.
I don't really get how the trace part, as proposed so far would work - for instance, I don't even answer the phone to unknown numbers, so if one of these tracing staff was calling me I probably wouldn't answer. If someone I knew or was in contact with had the virus, it would be dependent on them remembering I had seen them and telling me.
There are obviously better possible technological things we could do, despite being a privacy zealot, I can see how something around mobile phone/proximity could give you more of that information, but it would be a fairly blunt tool given the granularity of the data around (say) mobile phone towers; I don't see how anything around the proposals using Bluetooth could work (leave it switched off most of the time). But again, privacy, so I'm not sure I would/could opt-in. I believe the only country that made this work was South Korea, and I recall reading that they didn't give the slightest fuck about the privacy aspects, so there is that.
So you use technical solutions and bust everyones privacy, giving very granular data to the authorities on movements. Or you rely on each case remembering all the people they had seen in the last N days, and all those people answering the phone.
Neither is great. How else could you do it?
|>>|| No. 27924
In South Korea or Singapore, someone would come and knock on your door if necessary. Technology helps a bit, but good contact tracing is mostly just old-fashioned detective work - a lot of hours and a lot of shoe leather. Our government has the legal authority to use mobile phone location data or card transactions for contact tracing under RIPA, but it's convenient for them to pretend that the law is a barrier to effective tracing.
You can do a rapid antigen test, get a preliminary result within a few minutes, use that to get the ball rolling but confirm via PCR. No prizes for guessing what South Korea, Singapore and China have been doing. You're right that most of the time delay is logistics rather than lab processing, but you can do a heck of a lot to improve that time. The government set targets, but they didn't build any logistics infrastructure.
|>>|| No. 27925
I don't at all subscribe to the conspiracies that the rona is a way to control or track us more, but at the same time I don't think implementing a granular/accurate tracing system is a bell that could be unrung - once the government/serco/whoever the fuck could track you and all your interactions, that's never going away.
And particularly now that you can be fined 10 grand for breaching quarantine rules, running parallel to very fuzzy guidance on anything covid related from the government, it just simply does not make sense for me to give my real details for any sort of pen and paper track and trace system, let alone submit to being tracked via my mobile.
|>>|| No. 27927
>I don't really get how the trace part, as proposed so far would work - for instance, I don't even answer the phone to unknown numbers, so if one of these tracing staff was calling me I probably wouldn't answer. If someone I knew or was in contact with had the virus, it would be dependent on them remembering I had seen them and telling me.
I know a few tinfoil types who keep giving false details for test and trace when asked.
|>>|| No. 27928
>I know a few tinfoil types who keep giving false details for test and trace when asked.
Particularly if people think they're going to have to stay in / miss work or get some huge fine for leaving the house.
|>>|| No. 27930
From day 1, the message was that restrictions would come and go as infection rates changed. Pandemic 101.
While our handling of this has been a shitshow (and can I just say Dido Fucking Harding), whining about U-turns is the mark of a cretin.
|>>|| No. 27931
I don't follow how that makes someone a "cretin". It seems entirely reasonable to want the government to produce clear messages on what to do while the threat of pandemic looms large. Given it was only two or three weeks ago folk were being told they "must" return to the office, and make sure to stop for a sandwich and a coffee on the way, this is a rather rapid turn around even by the standards of a Tory government so enthralled to the right-wing print media an especially rough Mail on Sunday write-up can change policy overnight.
|>>|| No. 27934
>>27931 The government could (but is too inept to) produce clear messages. What it can't do is produce unchanging messages, and whining that the message changes, is to be cretinous.
The situation changes, so should (y)our actions. (Unless you're either 'shut down everything forever' or 'let it run its course unchecked' - both of which I think are unhelpful)
The government being in thrall to the fucking Mail isn't what's stopping them producing one clear unchanging message.
|>>|| No. 27946
What's the angle with this? Asking because it's probably a horrid right wing paper I don't want to justify with clicks.
|>>|| No. 27950
Younger women 'bearing brunt' of second wave of Covid in UK
Younger women are “bearing the brunt” of the UK’s second wave of coronavirus infections, according to a fresh analysis of hospital admissions prepared by government science advisers.
Hospital records reveal a substantial rise in the number of women aged 20 to 40 admitted for serious coronavirus infections since the beginning of August, a country-wide trend that suggests younger women are now more exposed to the virus.
Women most likely to have children of school age are catching the virus in greater numbers when schools reopen shocker.
|>>|| No. 27952
I blame eyebrow threading. Jabbing a needle reapeatedly into some bird's face is going to carry a risk of coming into contact with some blood.
|>>|| No. 27954
Well fuck 'em, it's not like you hear women offering much sympathy for all them men who die in the dangerous jobs men almost exclusively do (because we're great big sexists who won't let women do those jobs.)
Only being slightly facetious, this is a genuine double standard that any good fisherperson should be interested in calling out too.
|>>|| No. 27955
Ironically, being a fisherperson is a) the most dangerous job in Britain and b) almost exclusively male.
|>>|| No. 27956
Hairdressing is an interesting one as men and women have a preference for their own gender, at least to the degree that a woman is unlikely to use a barber. Similarly outside of 'old Italian place' and maybe 'laddish Turkish place' people will use their own race just because of how hair and facial structure differs.
Would be interesting to see how the covid rate differs.
Don't be daft, it's obviously farming that is the most dangerous.
|>>|| No. 27960
The app is out now. I expect this will be a bloody nightmare with my bluetooth headphones.
|>>|| No. 27962
I mean if your company has some work/business, this shares the hours around a little; not sure I get it really either.
|>>|| No. 27963
They really would have just saved themselves hassle if they implemented a temporary UBI. It's only ideological stubbornness preventing them, because hurr scroungers- By any reckoning it would be better for the economy.
This looks like it will be a disastrous cock up.
|>>|| No. 27965
You work 1/3 of your hours. For the other 2/3 the government and employer pay 1/3 normal rate.
Total pay = 1/3 + (2/3)/3 = 1/3 + 2/9 = 5/9 = 55.555555555555%
Where does the 77% come from?
|>>|| No. 27966
The scheme isn't a substitute for benefits and isn't primarily intended to prevent redundancies. It's a macroeconomic intervention, not welfare. It's targeted at the subset of workers whose jobs are marginally viable now, but will be fully viable when things get back to normal.
Furlough was only ever intended as a temporary measure, based on the assumption that we could get back to some semblance of normality after a period of lockdown. It has already been extended once which was punishingly expensive; there's simply no way we can keep it going for another six or twelve months. We don't want mass unemployment, but a long-term furlough is just a very expensive way of delaying the inevitable and it's deeply unfair to those who fall outside of the furlough scheme.
If furloughed workers facing redundancy are wondering how they could possibly feed their family on Universal Credit, then maybe they should have thought about that before.
|>>|| No. 27967
0.66 x 0.66 = 0.44, paid 0.22 by employer and 0.22 by the government.
0.44 plus the 0.33 actually worked = 0.77.
|>>|| No. 27968
The government and employer pay a third of the unearned wages each, not a third in total.
1/3 + (1/3 * 2/3) + (1/3 * 2/3) = 1/3 + 2/9 + 2/9 = 7/9 ≈ 77%
|>>|| No. 27970
>if they implemented a temporary UBI
There is no such thing as temporary in this context. It wouldn't be good for the economy and would just cause inflation.
>It's targeted at the subset of workers whose jobs are marginally viable now, but will be fully viable when things get back to normal.
That's actually a really good way to describe it.
|>>|| No. 27973
Will many employers actually pay 55% of someone's salary for 33% of their contracted hours?
If you have the option of paying someone contracted for 35 hours per week for 19.25 hours of work when they've actually only done 11.67 hours of work why wouldn't you just sack them and hire someone on a part-time contract for those hours?
|>>|| No. 27974
There are presumably labour laws in effect that prevent this sort of thing.
I bet employers would LOVE to do it though.
|>>|| No. 27975
You take on 3 jobs, work each one 1/3 of the time and earn 233% normal wage.
|>>|| No. 27976
>I bet employers would LOVE to do it though.
Of course they would. No employer is going to want to pay someone for more than they've worked. What would you do in this scenario:-
- Have three employees working the equivalent of one full-time employee costing you 1.65 times the salary of one full-time employee.
- Sack two of them and have one full-time employee being paid the salary of a full-time employee.
|>>|| No. 27979
Good in theory but these are salaried positions (I think, I don't know, is minimum wage covered by this?) which I presume would require more from the individual than just turning up, clocking in then clocking out.
Well of course the latter option but what if those employees have been working for the company for 20 years? Loyalty and ethics and that.
|>>|| No. 27985
1. You need excess capacity for a sudden lifting of lockdown - at the macro-level this is all about maintaining economic capacity.
2. Staff that are trained, tested and not pains in the arse are worth retaining where possible.
Best of luck finding a decent employee looking for a third of the hours (without two-timing you) and whose lifestyle paradoxically allows them to move to full-time in the near future. I don't think I've yet seen which industries are being picked for this but we're not looking at your local paperboy. The paperboy is making enough shoving multiple copies of commuter papers in my fucking letterbox at the moment.
|>>|| No. 27988
>Loyalty and ethics and that.
I'm not sure there was much of that to go around before the pandemic if I'm honest - right now? Nothing, zero, almost every company is in survival mode.
|>>|| No. 27989
6634 cases today - it's official, more people than recorded on any day at the peak in Spring.
I can't help but feel a bit more despondent about the situation than earlier in the year. I have never seen a quick end to the pandemic, but it does feel like everywhere is going backwards. And we're just starting Autumn.
|>>|| No. 27996
The thing is, when coronavirus first emerged, a lot of the science behind it wasn't known. It could have been an apocalyptic scenario as the first lockdown speech made by BoJo felt like at times because we just didn't know what it was capable of.
|>>|| No. 28001
We had a fairly good idea of the science by the time we decided to lock down. China had completely flattened the curve several weeks earlier and we had a reasonable idea of the R and CFR. The big unknown then and now is the trade-off between lives and livelihoods - we knew that we could suppress the virus, but we didn't fully understand what that would mean for the economy and we still don't know what the long-term repercussions will look like.
|>>|| No. 28002
Going to be a massive rise in unemployment from this. Expect closer union between the jobcentre and skivvy-work recruitment agencies.
|>>|| No. 28007
This is going to be a properly grim, bleak winter isn't it.
I normally get a bit of moderate SAD when the days start getting shorter and the weather starts to feel that bit more hostile; except that this year I haven't even had much of an uplift from the summer. I haven't socialised with any of my friends face to face since February.
The January blues are going to be especially severe, looking down the barrel of another write-off of a year. People of my generation were only just starting to get on our feet after a decade of post-08 austerity, now we're looking at at least another to pay off the bill for all this. There's not much to live for right now is there.
|>>|| No. 28008
If you want to be depressed then I'm sure you would find a reason anyway. We're at least half-way in now, the current furlough measures match what has worked on the continent and winter is the perfect time to be stuck inside.
We're all used to a much worse lockdown and I'm sure you can find a lonely lass in time for Christmas. If not we can make a D&D thread here and have a cunt-off about elves.
|>>|| No. 28009
I've already got a perfectly serviceable girlfriend m8, but there's only so many sexual positions and new toys you can order off Love Honey before you just start getting sick of the sight of each other. I've already had a couple of mates go through the whole lockdown divorce ordeal (in fairness at least one of them was fairly obviously ill suited to the bird he unwisely wed) so I know my relationship is actually pretty stable and well matched by comparison, but the cracks are starting to show, at least from my perspective.
She's the type of bird who wholeheartedly endorses ideas like poisonous manliness, so of course she thinks I should talk more freely about my feelings and all that; but the reality of the matter is she's lucky I'm capable of such astonishing stoicism, because she's horrible at emotional support and it would have ended in tears a long time ago if not. Her brain being infested with woke worms is the sort of thing one simply knows better than to waste time arguing about.
|>>|| No. 28014
>there's only so many sexual positions and new toys you can order off Love Honey before you just start getting sick of the sight of each other
I don't know what's worse, the prospects for the pandemic, or the bleak relationships some of you seem to be in.
|>>|| No. 28017
I'm willing to bet you haven't had to spend the last six months shut in with one person.
No matter how perfectly a couple are matched, cabin fever is bound to set in.
|>>|| No. 28021
From the pub trade side of things, it's going to get worse. Had to bark at people as they come in "Where's your mask mate?" or "Mask?!?" at regulars, flouting the new rules. Mask on one second, mask off the next.
One set of cunts of a young age group across the country is going to see some pubs penalised massively and some pubs simply shut down for good.
|>>|| No. 28022
The worst of it, they hadn't taken in what I said the night before about new laws and the potential massive fine for me. I explained it and they said they would comply.
I slapped down as much bleach as would stay on flat surfaces, even as it dried they continued to be cunts, wiped my hand sideways, saw powders.
Play by the rules or get the fuck out.
|>>|| No. 28024
People are such wankers; I don't know how you do it.
You just have to be a "cunt" back about it and fuck them - that's what the new laws are designed to do.
|>>|| No. 28030
>Online shoppers are being urged to buy early for Christmas this year over fears gifts may not arrive in time. With three months to go before the big day, the online retail industry is gearing up for a huge surge in demand. It's warning that firms may struggle to cope if we leave all our festive shopping until the last minute.
Looks like gift cards for everyone or Christmas might be ruined.
|>>|| No. 28035
I'm not entirely sure we're going to have to see people this year so it might not matter. A quiet Christmas doesn't sound too bad if you can catch up with old friends on zoom.
I think all blokes like Family Guy thanks to the content being tailor made for us. It's our 'Live, Laugh, Love'.
|>>|| No. 28036
Is this all being done to protect old people?...
|>>|| No. 28038
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. Why the hell do I care? We should be virus bombing these people.
|>>|| No. 28039
Thank you... I guess... Wtf was the point of voting LibDems.
|>>|| No. 28040
Same as it always has been. Spoiling your ballot without going to the trouble of drawing a dick on it.
|>>|| No. 28042
I do wonder when I'll make the transition to old tory voter. By all rights I should be already, I have money, property, a business, a job in an environmentally irresponsible industry, and I own two gilets. But as far as I can tell, I'm still somewhere on the left.
|>>|| No. 28043
>as far as I can tell, I'm still somewhere on the left.
What is seen as the left now may not be viewed as a left position in 20/30 years. You could see yourself ostracised and seen as backwards like the TERFs are these days.
Also, I reckon the reason the proportion of pensioners voting Tory is so high is because the ones voting Labour will be more likely to die off earlier and have a lower life expectancy.
|>>|| No. 28044
>You could see yourself ostracised and seen as backwards like the TERFs are these days.
What, like Judith Butler is?
|>>|| No. 28046
I really can't imagine being anything but an old, annoying socialist, but I accept that it happens. And you're right, maybe saying corporations are bad will one day be seen as offensive job-shaming.
|>>|| No. 28047
I personally won't be marrying my robot fuckpig but back when I was a lad, some german woman married a rollercoaster so whatever.
|>>|| No. 28048
Fucking hell, we're apparently one of the better ones at the moment. I thought that at least the Dutch would have us.
Why is .gs so eager to make this biting social commentary? We get it, Labour preys on children and voting boils down to tribalism rather than informed decision making.
I don't see a Labour minority government doing any better at the moment. It would be party implosions over EU-Scottish referendums, funky grandpa's manifesto being binned and the scandal of Labour fucking up local lockdowns because its beholden to local interest groups in urban areas. We'd still have a shambolic covid response.
Because the Labour and Conservative parties are shit and tend to steal their most sensible ideas from the Lib Dems. If you want to be a demographics lad then you will notice that Lib Dem voters tend to be better educated and middle class - exactly the kind of people who should be in charge rather than reimposing aristocracy or a glorified mafia.
|>>|| No. 28049
>Because the Labour and Conservative parties are shit and tend to steal their most sensible ideas from the Lib Dems
If this was actually true we'd be living in the SDP-Liberal alliance miracle world of Keynesianism buttressed by incomes policy and proportional representation instead of the thatcherite tumorworld we're actually living in.
Wait, wait, no for the love of god don't print that, it's boring, I've got a pithier one:
You mean like a REAL referendum on Europe?
|>>|| No. 28050
>We'd still have a shambolic covid response
Based on what? I'm not sure I would have predicted the current government's inaction and careless responses to the crisis, despite not particularly having much faith in them, I assumed they'd have done better than they have.
To say Labour would have done just as poorly based on nothing is just disingenuous.
|>>|| No. 28051
>Because the Labour and Conservative parties are shit and tend to steal their most sensible ideas from the Lib Dems.
And maybe one day they'll actually implement those top class ideas when given the chance, instead of shitting the bed and doing the exact opposite of what they pledged, pissing off everyone but the most dull-witted centrist blowhards who fetishise compromise as an end in itself.
|>>|| No. 28052
>If this was actually true we'd be living in the SDP-Liberal alliance miracle world of Keynesianism buttressed by incomes policy and proportional representation instead of the thatcherite tumorworld we're actually living in.
People vote shit parties. I'm not sure anyone would argue against that.
There would still be inadequate testing capacity, a bloom in covid cases owing to the way our society is structured on-top of a Labour administration not known for its competence and trying to force through radical changes. That's just reality, we'd have been in difficult economic circumstances before Covid even hit.
|>>|| No. 28053
People may vote for shit parties, but that wouldn't be an issue if they stole sensible policies from the lib-dems.
It seems much more plausible that once or twice they've implemented a policy broadly similar to something the Lib-Dems had also adopted within the prior 4 years, and then that's generalised out to the idea that this happens routinely or that it's totally implausible that two parties might just come up with very similar ideas from different angles.
On the really important things the Lib Dems tend to be about as shit as the major parties. They'd much rather be "moderate" and "sensible" than be right, which gives them the option of fudging the issue (How about a tiny tax increase?) or adopting clear policies safe in the knowledge they won't have to implement them (Tuition fees).
|>>|| No. 28054
Do you believe labour would have delayed their action as long as the tories did? Do you believe our airports would have remained open and with no screening for about two months after the italians were in crisis? Do you believe a labour government would have botched the track and trace app quite as severely?
In the interest of balance I'm not entirely sure a labour government would have been quite so decisive with a furlough scheme, so there's that.
|>>|| No. 28056
Considering the numbers of people attending 'illegal raves' (tm daily mail) I suspect not
|>>|| No. 28058
It's the sign in the bottom right that got me. I misread 'muggers' many times in my head.
|>>|| No. 28060
>middle-aged people particularly susceptible
Yes they are I believe - perhaps you get to the point in your life where you're looking/desperate for answers on why your life and the world has turned out so shit, and some of these conspiracy ideas are a handy cop-out/structure to blame it on. They are often a handy way to absolve you of any of your own responsibility for it.
|>>|| No. 28061
I always put it down to them not being very internet-literate. They just don't have the mental filters that go "Ah yes this looks rather timecube" and take any old meme as a source of truth.
|>>|| No. 28062
They don't even understand what trolling is.
It's like those flags people have at Glastonbury so that they can find their mates, but for left-wing loons.
|>>|| No. 28064
For some value of "left wing", yes. The only real common factors in the anti-lockdown movement are suggestibility, a paranoid mistrust of institutions and spending too much time on the internet.
You've got the middle-aged women in floaty skirts who spend too much time on CiF and natural health groups on Facebook, the chavvy anti-vaxxer mums getting a constant trickle of third-hand bullshit on WhatsApp, the alt-right lads who spend too much time watching YouTube rants by yanks, black and brown people who watch religious nutters on foreign satellite channels and the old guard of Ickean conspiracy loons. It's a glorious melting pot of subclinical mental illness.
These protests may well be the most diverse in the history of British politics, precisely because they're apolitical in motivation - they're advancing no agenda other than paranoia.
|>>|| No. 28065
Apparently Icke Himself got arrested.
Surely they can't lock up the Son of God?
|>>|| No. 28067
As far as I can tell it's only an unsubstantiated rumour that Icke got arrested, but all the people who were supporting the anti-lockdown, anti-social distancing protests are up in arms about the double standards of the policing being unfair as less than five of them were arrested compared to 600 people from XR being arrested and a BLM crowd being charged by police horses, so they're being picked on for their protest where they were intentionally not social distancing despite that being the law they were intentionally breaking. Maybe that sentence is unclear but it's hard to keep up with the clowns doing gymnastics.
|>>|| No. 28068
Possibly a decision to just let the daft twats spread it amongst themselves. Perhaps no the Great Awakening they had in mind.
|>>|| No. 28069
I'm almost looking forward to seeing how Covid will be represented on bonfire night. Or rather, the inevitable BBC picture article on the topic that I will read on a slow afternoon.
Will they opt for those virus teddy-bears or have a go at burning a box of tissues? Is Batman close enough?
>It's a glorious melting pot of subclinical mental illness
It's almost laudable how they've also brought the rest of society together in this difficult time.
|>>|| No. 28070
Perfomative protesting. It'll do his brand/relevance the world of good, and think of the videos he'll be able to make as a result. See also: Piers Corbyn.
|>>|| No. 28100
Just been announced - all of you lot in the North East have to stay indoors (forever) now, or Boris will come round and arrest you.
|>>|| No. 28102
I am on a hilarious/tragic conference call right now listening to everyone trying to work out what the statement meant and whether we're closing again. It's very much a sense of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
My back up is my own business but that's in hospitality so I'm double fucked.
|>>|| No. 28103
My parents live in area under local lockdown (not North East), but still expect me to come up to visit in a month as that's what we had planned before the second wave. They said they don't give a shit about the restrictions, but I feel very uncomfortable flouting rules.
|>>|| No. 28105
It's the same up here. People are quite clearly sick of following rules that change constantly and are flouted by others anyway. Rightly or wrongly, stuff like the Barnard Castle escapade has eroded what little sense of compliance to authority the neglected mining towns of the north had.
|>>|| No. 28106
>stuff like the Barnard Castle escapade
This is just bollocks. I don't believe a single (young) person who is flouting the lockdown is citing Dom's trip. If you're going out and fucking around the rules, you're just selfish.
It's like driving at 100 miles per hour; sure, there will be a few selfish pricks who follow suit when that guy zooms past, but most/the rest of us aren't going to follow, just because you saw that guy get away with something stupid.
|>>|| No. 28107
Nah, more than likely the (young) people flouting the rules are doing it because of all the maungy (old) cunts who refuse to follow the rules, even thought it's for their protection above anyone else.
There are exceptions in every group, but by and large young people have been the most calm, stoic, reasonable and responsible throughout the course of this entire affair. Even when they've been the ones still going out to work in shops and bars and what have you, bearing the full brunt of everyone else's stupidity, they haven't been the ones kicking up a fuss. They've been getting on with it.
This pandemic has entirely put paid to the old stereotype about the entitled millennials. It's been quite clearly the older generation chucking their sippy mugs on the floor because they don't like being told they've got to finish their mains before they're allowed any pudding.
|>>|| No. 28108
To hell with the young folk and your mealy-mouthed excuses for licking windows in the North East. If you act like a cunt because other people act like cunts then you're still a cunt - I think Gandhi said that.
>bearing the full brunt of everyone else's stupidity
I think you will find that is the elderly and other vulnerable groups.
|>>|| No. 28109
We're talking about a few thousand twats going out on the piss, versus millions who won't wear masks and don't know what two metres looks like.
|>>|| No. 28110
Who's acting like a cunt, though? It's probably no coincidence that areas that rely more heavily on service or manual jobs are doing worse than areas where WFH is a more realistic option.
|>>|| No. 28112
I find it wild that university halls were even allowed top open, an obvious disaster in the making.
|>>|| No. 28113
Thousands of young people travelling across the country to live in cramped shared housing, file into packed lecture halls and go out on the piss? What could possibly go wrong.
Seriously, this incident has really highlighted how the post-Blair marketised Higher Education sector has become utterly exploitative of young people. Everyone knew that a second wave was coming, everyone knew that most of this academic year would be based around online learning, but students were mis-sold a "university experience" that was never going to happen. Universities have knowingly lured teenagers into what are effectively £150/wk prison cells with utter disregard for their mental wellbeing. It's the sort of behaviour you'd expect from a shady package tour operator, not a supposedly august institution of learning.
|>>|| No. 28114
Well, whatever grandad. I'm not going to try persuade you that you're wrong because ultimately, you're going to die sooner than I am either way.
|>>|| No. 28121
Not if I destroy the Earth first. Now post your OnlyFans so I can make you dance for my perverse amusement.
|>>|| No. 28125
Some people really want to make the Barnard Castle trip into a bigger deal than it was.
Half my friends/family never bothered following guidance/restrictions in the first place and the rest of us gave up end of April, none of which was to do with Dom.
Same with everyone else who started having BBQs and what not, they gave up because they realised they'd been conned, not because Dom went for a drive.
The amount of fear this whole debacle has put into people and the willingness they have to bend over and get fucked by the government is astonishing.
Just get on with your life before it comes crashing down and we have real problems to deal with.
|>>|| No. 28128
>they'd been conned
>get fucked by the government
What sort of con do you believe is being perpetrated? Who stands to gain from this con?
|>>|| No. 28129
Hang on, does no one give a shit or are we all jumping at shadows, which is it?
|>>|| No. 28130
You are utterly deluded. I hope you and your family/friends get the virus as it's the only way you're going to learn.
|>>|| No. 28136
He's going to come back with the classic phrase do your own research isn't he?
|>>|| No. 28174
Results from swab tests carried out by more than 80,000 people out of a total of 150,000, taken between 18th and 26th September, show that infections have increased substantially across all age groups and areas of the country.
The research, led by Imperial College London, estimated that over 1 in 200 people across England have the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or 0.55% of the population, compared to 0.13% in the previous round of testing.
This is the sort of mass/random/blind testing I trust the most.
|>>|| No. 28175
Had them turn up on my doorstep yesterday. They were going down the road handing out testing kits then coming back to pick them up.
I leave my house once a week to go shopping and even that is around 7am to avoid people. I wonder if they're going to tell me I have it.
|>>|| No. 28179
I have two Simpsons-related images in my image folder and just posted one of them. Repeat images are flagged on .gs.
|>>|| No. 28182
It's not limited to Simpsons either. We just hate shitty reaction images - about 99% of them are fucking awful.
|>>|| No. 28183
I don't even know where this snobbery came from. If you look in the archive it isn't uncommon to see reaction images in threads from c. 10 years ago. It's as if at some point we decided to be super serious to prove that we're more mature than 4chan and a lot of the fun and fooling around has been stamped out along the way.
|>>|| No. 28184
There was that time when we had that "I used to be with it!" grandpa meme posted about four times in the space of a couple of months.
It was relevant each time, and it's always relatable, but it got a bit daft considering this place moves slow enough that it's hard to miss a post if you catch up on /*/ once or twice a day.
|>>|| No. 28185
Everyone was more fun ten years ago. But you're right, maybe we should all lighten up.
|>>|| No. 28188
I found a 4chan folder form about 15 years ago earlier.
A time machine of sorts.
|>>|| No. 28192
It has been pointed out that he has plenty of ways to avoid debates, ones that don't make him look as 'weak' as this.
|>>|| No. 28194
I think Trump's caring less and less about how he looks. Anyway he'll be getting the best medical attention as president, just hoping, if it's true, that the fact he's mordbidly obese, in the elderly age bracket and has a drug addiction helps him shuffle the fuck off.
|>>|| No. 28195
I'm guessing he'll be asymptomatic, it's just the way everything else has gone this year.
|>>|| No. 28199
Presumably Trump's name would still be on the ballot and you might want to factor that in. I wouldn't put it past the Americans to elect a dead president - it might even help the polling numbers.
At least we'll start 2021 with a clean slate. That smug coronavirus will certainly be in for a shock when humanity sets itself on fire - almost as big a shock as the LGBT community will experience in November.
|>>|| No. 28201
Would be funnier if he is asymptomatic and plays down the seriousness of the CHINA virus.
|>>|| No. 28202
His supporters heads must be spinning. The virus isn't real, but Trump has it.
|>>|| No. 28204
>The virus isn't real, but Trump has it
They'll still have their cake and eat it. If Trump doesn't get seriously ill, they will see it as proof that the virus is harmless.
I'm kind of half tempted to see it as a big PR stunt by Trump in a desperate bid to get votes. In any case, if he comes out of it fine, he will keep telling everybody that he is proof that the virus isn't as serious as it's cracked up to be.
Never underestimate Tump's determination to lure in the idiot vote. That's how he won four years ago.
|>>|| No. 28205
>In any case, if he comes out of it fine, he will keep telling everybody that he is proof that the virus isn't as serious as it's cracked up to be.
Of course he'll spin it this way, whatever happens. But as an obese 74 year old with a poor diet...
|>>|| No. 28207
I'm determined not to immediately jump to the conclusion it's some kind of hoax publicity stunt with an agenda behind it, because that would make a complete hypocrite of me for criticising and mocking Trump supporters for their conspiracy theorising about the origins and severity of the virus itself.
But self awareness does not seem to be a strong point for most of the internet, who are completely willing to make themselves look like freshly registered r/conspiracy shitposters just because it's Bad Orange Man in question this time.
I truly despair.
|>>|| No. 28208
The President of the United States will have the best healthcare available to anyone in the country. The BBC says even with someone as old as him, the death rate is about 3%, and that probably isn't accounting for variability of healthcare. I'm pretty sure he'll pull through.
|>>|| No. 28209
The number of people openly gloating and hoping he dies are a bit concerning. If nothing else, it's bad optics.
|>>|| No. 28211
Funnily enough that's one of the things I don't expect to be repeated in paralell to the time Are Bozza got it. Even sworn enemies of the Tories on my social media etc were falling over themselves to forecast the shipping of how they hope he's alright and only mean nasty people wanted him to die.
I think the Yanks are more honest about their feelings. I hope he dies, don't you? I certainly hoped Bozza was going to die. Not because they're evil right wingers, just because they're bellend and I've never met them nor will I ever meet them, so they're not real. They're characters to me. It'd be funny if they died and frankly they're cunts anyway.
|>>|| No. 28212
>I think the Yanks are more honest about their feelings.
Isn't wishing death on the President a crime or something?
|>>|| No. 28213
I think Trump's death would probably be a net good in terms of making people understand that it's real and that their actions could save lives. Your reasoning seems fairly sociopathic.
|>>|| No. 28214
>I think the Yanks are more honest about their feelings. I hope he dies, don't you?
Agreed, I think the thing a lot of people are missing is the negative impact the Trump administration has had on a lot of peoples lives. The damage this prick has done so far is just tragic, and it hasn't been solely to the US. The world would be better off without him in it.
|>>|| No. 28215
I thought saying you will harm the president was a crime, not wishing him dead.
|>>|| No. 28216
Yes, for example it's very illegal to say "The best place to fire a mortar launcher at the White House would be from the roof of Rockefeller-Hewitt building because of minimal security and you have a clear line of sight to the president's bedroom".
|>>|| No. 28217
I actually think he is going to die from this. He is in a far worse health position than Boris was. We won't know for days after it has happened, and America will meltdown as a result, but it's literally the ending to 2020 we all deserve.
|>>|| No. 28218
Nah, you don't even have to be that much of a melt. He's just fairly obviously not a good person, so his death would scarcely be a tragedy.
Regardless of what he has and hasn't done as a politician (because if you ask me most of it would have happened anyway, it's America) his presence and impact on the worldwide state of political discourse is just... Ugh. I really wouldn't mind just having rid of him.
|>>|| No. 28219
Wow. You lot are out for blood. What has he done to you? I understand wishing Pol Pot had died, but Trump? Come on lads.