The Covid-19 serious chat thread

by **RDW** Mon 23 Mar - 8:50

First topic message reminder :

A thread set up to house the more serious chat relating to the global pandemic.

Nothing has changed in what we expect from discussions on here though:

- Please treat each other with respect
- Avoid hyperbole and fake news
- This thread shouldn't be used for a political soapbox, but political discussion will likely happen. See point 1!

A reminder that we have a community thread here for people to vent, look for help and all round support each other. https://www.606v2.com/t69506-the-covid-19-community-thread#3896653

by 123456789. Fri 27 Mar - 16:10

Ignoring Boris Johnson’s personal life, his professional life has hardly been a lesson in competency. Millions of pounds wasted on vanity projects as Mayor. You’ll have noticed you got a tad wet the last time you crossed the garden bridge. Sacked twice for lying. Managed to get an innocent woman imprisoned in Iran. Admittedly my view on his attitudes toward race are usually led by the media. Namely the articles he has written.

On Heseltine, seems a rather bizarre time and place to be discussing this his but here we are. Charles Moore, perhaps the leading Thatcher sycophant, has admitted to be shocked by how unreasonable she was over the Westland affair and that she had lied about it since. Thatcher, to be mildly childish, started it. Once she had turned on him he really owed her nothing. When William Wallace was put on trial by Edward I, presumably someone else you know personally who in reality simply suffers from a biased media, he asserted that he could never be a traitor to Edward for he “was never his subject”. Much the same applies here. Heseltine owed Thatcher nothing and by the end was evidently losing the plot. The poll tax was hardly the work of a brilliant political mind. If you think Heseltine was a snake for standing against Thatcher, I would suggest you don’t look into how she came to be Tory leader.

by beninho Fri 27 Mar - 16:41

Hood to see another person from Boris little slice of north west london. Though, not really one he cares about.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 17:10

Actions are the most important thing. Good 180 there for being pleased initially by personality.

by **BigGee** Fri 27 Mar - 20:22

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/nonchalant-boris-johnson-accused-of-covid-19-complacency

It seems to be rampant in upper government circles.

Do as I say, not what I do!

by lostinwales Fri 27 Mar - 22:08

(One of) The (many) problem(s) with BJ is that he's so divisive. Many people really hate him, including me, some more people see good in him. I have no idea how. But then those who see good in him can't seem to see all the evidence which is so obvious to me.

There are no half measures. Nobody is unsure about him and there seems to be no crossing the gulf between these two views.

by Duty281 Fri 27 Mar - 22:22

lostinwales wrote:(One of) The (many) problem(s) with BJ is that he's so divisive. Many people really hate him, including me, some more people see good in him. I have no idea how. But then those who see good in him can't seem to see all the evidence which is so obvious to me.

There are no half measures. Nobody is unsure about him and there seems to be no crossing the gulf between these two views.

Johnson's favourablity ratings are going up with YouGov. It was 43% favourable and 46% unfavourable on the 18th March - five days later it was 55-35 in the favourability stakes.

I'm not a fan or supporter of his - I find him to be a tedious careerist who puts himself front and centre, and he would probably abolish the monarchy if he thought it would win him an election - but I certainly don't hate him (I doubt many people do).

I am glad he's at the helm during this crisis and not Corbyn, though. Johnson probably views this crisis as his 'we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches' moment and that, at least, means his motivations and the country's best interests are firmly linked for once.

by Guest Fri 27 Mar - 23:43

I agree with the point about him being a bit ‘Marmite’. My parents popped round just before the lockdown and we got talking about the crisis and the government, etc. and my dad came out with ‘Hasn’t Johnson been great?’, commenting on the press conferences he’s given. I looked at him aghast, mouth open and could only mouth a horrified ‘No’! I’m not a socialist nor a Corbynite by any stretch. Didn’t vote labour recently in fact. But no, Dad, I don’t think he’s been great in this crisis at all! In fact, all I can think about is Johnson’s rallying call during Brexit to stop the ‘dither and delay’ yet in this crisis that’s all all he seems to be doing - dither and delay on all the measures that the other countries seem to have instigated much, much quicker than we have. Firstly the herd immunity approach based on science - how was our science so different to everyone else’s? No one else is going for that approach. Then the delay in locking everyone down. Then the mixed messages about social distancing that is leaving things open to interpretation (exercising and going out for walks is fine; cycling is fine; walk the dog is fine; tend your allotment is fine - going out overall seems to be fine then? But stay at home unless essential?) so people don’t really know what is OK. Then the dither over which members of society would get support. First the employed. Then a week later the self-employed. Soon perhaps the small business directors? Then the farce over the ventilators with the EU - ‘we didn’t get the email?’ Please! The the rumours (so pinch of salt) that he’s only acted due to pressure from other countries because he wasn’t taking things serious enough.

It’s not a politics thing for me (left v right). It’s personal. I just don’t see in him what others do unfortunately.

by 123456789. Sat 28 Mar - 0:50

I would agree on the Johnson vs Corbyn point. I do think Corbyn would have used this as an opportunity to nationalise everything and never ever let it go. The case in point being that he has declared this crisis as evidence that his economic theories are right. Which just goes to show how far wrong he is. There is a sense of deep unease in the country at the moment at the overarching control the government has, it is only tolerated because it is necessary and the times are extreme. Old Jezza is out there announcing this is how things should be. The fact is Corbyn would have been dreadful in this. The election in December was like a national plebiscite on whether you'd rather be probed by a pinkie or a thumb. I don't like Johnson. I quite often think to Churchill's description of Stanley Baldwin that "it would have been much better if he had never lived" with regard to a small number of people. Johnson is very much so part of that list. The world would be a better place had he never been born. However Corbyn took incompetence added a layer to it and somehow managed to make things worse from there. Boris Johnson's sense of morality came from the gutter and has never remotely moved very far from it. The history students of the future will take great pleasure comparing and contrasting the self-centred sociopath against the self-centred ideologue, or the man who sacrificed his family on the alter of his political career against, err, the man who sacrificed his family on the alter of his political career. They weren't so much peas in a pod as Poopie in a midden and we'll be well shot of both of them.

by **RDW** Sat 28 Mar - 2:29

My great aunt and uncle - who I love dearly and have been a huge part of my life - are in their mid 80s and have been staunch nationalists their entire lives, yet they voted for Boris in the last election and think the sun shines out his rear end. They also voted Brexit to 'protect the fish'. Mrs RDW and my sister in law are both heavily political and it took them a huge amount of restraint to not say anything when they heard those bombshells!

That probably sums up just how weird politics is just now in the UK!

by jimbopip Sat 28 Mar - 9:45

Aye, Johnson is a very Marmite politician.
There are things I try and keep in mind whenever I see him: he is a Classics scholar and a journalist. The journalist part is easy; he is very adept at using words to influence people. He is also very skilled at saying what people want to hear and basking in the approbation that ensues. As such he will say whatever he thinks his audience at that moment want to hear, regardless of whether it is true or not.

I think it was Soul Requiem who said that Johnson's personal morality should be kept separate from his political morality (I paraphrase here) but I think I must disagree here: private morality tells us everything about a person's character and that character will express itself in their actions.

Johnson was sacked from the Telegraph for dishonesty. A journalist sacked for dishonesty Shocked

You have to go some to seen as untrustworthy among journos. His editor was scathing when he left, saying Johnson's of personal morality that saying he had the morals of a tomcat would be to libel felines.

Then there was the chubby blonde pole dancer. (She resembled Johnson in drag: what level of narcissism what going on there?) Johnson's defence was that he was just stopping by her flat most days on his way home from the office for an hour or so for a friendly chat. Really? Think of the bloke you know in your neighbourhood; mid 50's, way too young haircut, history of divorces and kids he doesn't acknowledge, partner twenty odd years younger AND he tells you that he is regularly stopping off at a single woman's flat on his way home "for a chat". Would you believe him? Or would you think there was something quite seedy and sad about him? Of course, the pole dancer got £250 000 in grants from the taxpayer to set up a business while Johnson was Mayor. The point of this funding was to create jobs in London. How many people are employed as a result of that funding? None. Now Johnson's supporters will say there was no evidence that he pulled strings to get her those grants but that is not the point. That defence is just Arfur Daley's "It isn't technically illegal Terence, my son".
For me the constant womanising is problematic because of what it says about his character. What sort of person is incapable of maintaining a relationship with one person? Someone whose ego, or sense of self, is so fragile that they constantly need to be told that they are worthwhile? The strange thing about serial adulterers is that if they put in the hard work being a parent and partner they would receive all the affirmation they need but instead they sacrifice that for the "quick fix" of instant gratification.
As I said earlier Johnson is a successful politician because he is extremely adept at saying what his audience want to hear and being loved because he makes them feel reassured. Remember that one of the main differences between his Brexit Deal and May's was that he changed the status of Northern Ireland and there would/will be border checks between the province and the rest of the UK? What did he say when the NI version of the CBI asked him to his face if there would be border checks on goods between Ni and the rest of the UK? No checks, none at all, ever. Not because he had forgotten but because he has a deep need to be loved and will say whatever it takes at that moment.

As for his past as a Classics scholar; Tom Holland's book The Caesars is quite instructive here. Not just for the instruction manual in how to seize power but also in how emperors try to buy the approbation of the people. Claudius, the, seemingly, harmless clown who overthrew Caligula by some very devious plotting seems to be a template for a lot of Johnson's stage show. However, Claudius actually used his office to instigate some public expenditure programmes which were of long term economic benefit to Rome. His successor Nero, went in for much more flashy and immediate spending on large, flashy monuments; think Garden Bridge, floating airport in the Thames, bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland.

Boris Johnson knows how to win popularity contests. He also knows how to connive and scheme and climb the greasy pole. But other than large scale vanity projects I don't actually think he has any idea of what he wants to do as Prime Minister. I detested Margater Thatcher BUT she had a vision of what she wanted Britain to be like and she used the mechanisms of office to achieve that. The same can be said for Tony Blair. The most effective Prime Ministers are the ones who actually have a vision of what they want to achieve, and the political nous to make it happen. Johnson has lots of political cunning but his driving motivation is personal rather than political. Everything will be about short term popularity rather than long term benefits for the country.

by 123456789. Sat 28 Mar - 10:58

jimbopip wrote:Aye, Johnson is a very Marmite politician.
There are things I try and keep in mind whenever I see him: he is a Classics scholar and a journalist. The journalist part is easy; he is very adept at using words to influence people. He is also very skilled at saying what people want to hear and basking in the approbation that ensues. As such he will say whatever he thinks his audience at that moment want to hear, regardless of whether it is true or not.

I think it was Soul Requiem who said that Johnson's personal morality should be kept separate from his political morality (I paraphrase here) but I think I must disagree here: private morality tells us everything about a person's character and that character will express itself in their actions.

Johnson was sacked from the Telegraph for dishonesty. A journalist sacked for dishonesty You have to go some to seen as untrustworthy among journos. His editor was scathing when he left, saying Johnson's of personal morality that saying he had the morals of a tomcat would be to libel felines.

Then there was the chubby blonde pole dancer. (She resembled Johnson in drag: what level of narcissism what going on there?) Johnson's defence was that he was just stopping by her flat most days on his way home from the office for an hour or so for a friendly chat. Really? Think of the bloke you know in your neighbourhood; mid 50's, way too young haircut, history of divorces and kids he doesn't acknowledge, partner twenty odd years younger AND he tells you that he is regularly stopping off at a single woman's flat on his way home "for a chat". Would you believe him? Or would you think there was something quite seedy and sad about him? Of course, the pole dancer got £250 000 in grants from the taxpayer to set up a business while Johnson was Mayor. The point of this funding was to create jobs in London. How many people are employed as a result of that funding? None. Now Johnson's supporters will say there was no evidence that he pulled strings to get her those grants but that is not the point. That defence is just Arfur Daley's "It isn't technically illegal Terence, my son".
For me the constant womanising is problematic because of what it says about his character. What sort of person is incapable of maintaining a relationship with one person? Someone whose ego, or sense of self, is so fragile that they constantly need to be told that they are worthwhile? The strange thing about serial adulterers is that if they put in the hard work being a parent and partner they would receive all the affirmation they need but instead they sacrifice that for the "quick fix" of instant gratification.
As I said earlier Johnson is a successful politician because he is extremely adept at saying what his audience want to hear and being loved because he makes them feel reassured. Remember that one of the main differences between his Brexit Deal and May's was that he changed the status of Northern Ireland and there would/will be border checks between the province and the rest of the UK? What did he say when the NI version of the CBI asked him to his face if there would be border checks on goods between Ni and the rest of the UK? No checks, none at all, ever. Not because he had forgotten but because he has a deep need to be loved and will say whatever it takes at that moment.

As for his past as a Classics scholar; Tom Holland's book The Caesars is quite instructive here. Not just for the instruction manual in how to seize power but also in how emperors try to buy the approbation of the people. Claudius, the, seemingly, harmless clown who overthrew Caligula by some very devious plotting seems to be a template for a lot of Johnson's stage show. However, Claudius actually used his office to instigate some public expenditure programmes which were of long term economic benefit to Rome. His successor Nero, went in for much more flashy and immediate spending on large, flashy monuments; think Garden Bridge, floating airport in the Thames, bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland.

Boris Johnson knows how to win popularity contests. He also knows how to connive and scheme and climb the greasy pole. But other than large scale vanity projects I don't actually think he has any idea of what he wants to do as Prime Minister. I detested Margater Thatcher BUT she had a vision of what she wanted Britain to be like and she used the mechanisms of office to achieve that. The same can be said for Tony Blair. The most effective Prime Ministers are the ones who actually have a vision of what they want to achieve, and the political nous to make it happen. Johnson has lots of political cunning but his driving motivation is personal rather than political. Everything will be about short term popularity rather than long term benefits for the country.

That's a brilliant post.

by jimbopip Sat 28 Mar - 11:02

Numbers

It's amazing what boredom will make you do. Whistle

by **RDW** Sat 28 Mar - 11:12

Think I followed at least half of that! Laugh

by BamBam Sat 28 Mar - 12:16

Great post jimbo

Have a green bar to compensate for bootlicker red bars

by Duty281 Sat 28 Mar - 12:27

BamBam wrote:Great post jimbo

Have a green bar to compensate for bootlicker red bars

Please treat each other with respect as per the OP. No need for childish insults.

by lostinwales Sat 28 Mar - 12:40

Duty281 wrote:
BamBam wrote:Great post jimbo

Have a green bar to compensate for bootlicker red bars

Please treat each other with respect as per the OP. No need for childish insults.

To be fair it is very odd seeing a red bar for such a well thought out and written post. It is a purely negative act. Disapproval without any reason or alternative view given.

I can respect a 'you are wrong because of X Y and Z' but just a 'you are wrong'? It is meaningless.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 12:59

Johnson is a buffoon pure and simple.

by kwinigolfer Sat 28 Mar - 14:04

I shared on the golf board notes about the virus view from here, that there's a health/rehab/nursing home about 600 yards from here that has been the epicentre of contamination and fatalities (now up to 7 in this small town, "Bernie-ville" as it happens) in northern New England.

I didn't mention that a friend of mine has been "incarcerated" there, on a floor that is hopefully still "clean".

He wrote to our Mayor, Lt Governor and as many state and local elected official and media outlet that he had an email address for last weekend:
"How many of us have to die before you get us the FXXX out of this hell hole?"

He finally got his wish on Tuesday and has been transferred 3/4 mile down the road to the biggest hospital within 100 (US) miles, whereas he is now alleging that officials are trying to censor his complaints. Wouldn't doubt it.

The point is, as our friend "Shotrock" from Philadelphia noted, health care here is largely privately run by for-profit institutions and the nursing home business, in particular, tends to be dominated by yuuuuge corporations who care much more about the bottom line than tlc for their patients, "inmates". Not surprising then, that such nursing homes, which largely hold older people, have become as much petri dishes for epidemic-spread as cruise ships were a month or so ago.

Horrific for our small town, and indicative of what you might expect if GB&NI allows US health care companies to seep across the Atlantic.

MAGA

by dynamark Sat 28 Mar - 15:04

Hi Kwini what you doing over here on the dark side .You play in a team not on the team !
US health is I assume a definite private insurance matter whereas we UK have NHI at payday which should do the job for us .But I assume every US election time this is a big deal which gets an airing and hasn't been changed.
Ive long been a fan of a combination of both but private health care probably encourages self responsibility and leaves some in the cold as it were and public health encourages a slack attitude basically frauding the system.
Not sure where is best

by kwinigolfer Sat 28 Mar - 15:51

Hi dyna,
Yup, I agree with a mix of public/private also. Trouble is that so many people here have no health insurance or such limited coverage that you dare not get sick.
Imagine that's what's happening with the surge in fatalities in New Orleans.

by lostinwales Sat 28 Mar - 18:07

dynamark wrote:Hi Kwini what you doing over here on the dark side .You play in a team not on the team !
US health is I assume a definite private insurance matter whereas we UK have NHI at payday which should do the job for us .But I assume every US election time this is a big deal which gets an airing and hasn't been changed.
Ive long been a fan of a combination of both but private health care probably encourages self responsibility and leaves some in the cold as it were and public health encourages a slack attitude basically frauding the system.
Not sure where is best

Slack attitude? What like going to the doc with a minor twinge? The kind of thing that mostly is a waste of time but sometimes isnt - and catching the bad thing early means its treatable in an affordable way. 'Stitch in time saves nine' etc.

There just is no argument over this outside of American insurance companies and right wing nut jobs. US healthcare is significantly more expensive than here in the UK and offers worse outcomes and fails to cover chunks of US society. The best bits of US health care are of course fabulous, but not significantly better than anywhere else, just more expensive.

by 123456789. Sun 29 Mar - 0:44

There's a, potentially apocryphal, story that's gone round my family a few times. A comparably wealthy relative of ours and her husband were over from America staying with my Grandmother, for some reason they had to stay longer than planned so his prescription ran out and he arranged his appointment with the Doctor to get the drugs he needed to survive. The doctor managed to source what drugs he could on the NHS and said rather bluntly that if he had been British he would have been dead by that point. That shows the strength of the American system, that if you have the money then you can get the best that money can buy.
Equally, there tens of thousands of people who die in America every year because they don't have health insurance. There's a documentary on Netflix about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' election campaign, I can't say I'm a massive fan of hers but I was rather taken by another candidate's experience of her daughter's death. Her daughter exhibited the symptoms of a blood clot but because she didn't have the right health insurance she was turned away. She later died of an entirely avoidable pulmonary embolism. It struck me because years before I had ruptured my ACL when I was a student. My Dad's work covered Private Medical Insurance up to the age of 21 for his children, my knee went two weeks after my Birthday. Having had my surgery on the NHS I was given pretty clear instructions that if I exhibited any symptoms of a blood clot I should go to A&E immediately. Two days after my surgery my Calf was swollen and sore. This was potentially the sign of a bloodclot but probably not. On balance I decided to go to the hospital to get it checked. It turned out to be fine, I was quite embarrassed and apologised profusely to the Doctors for wasting their time. They told me I had done the right thing. In America I would not have gone to the hospital and I would have been fine, in Britain the girl would have gone to the hospital, been proscribed a routine course of drugs and probably lived a long and happy life.
In Britain we have reached a stage whereby access to an accepted level of healthcare is considered an inalienable right. I think that is a positive thing. Our healthcare system is not perfect, it's not particularly efficient, it creaks and it moans but more importantly it is indiscriminate. It does not matter how wealthy you are, how successful you are, your age, your country of birth, your religion or your race in our country if you fall ill there will always be help available. That's why I would not swap with the American system under any circumstances.

by Samo Sun 29 Mar - 7:49

by **RDW** Sun 29 Mar - 8:00

Genuine question - why are so many Americans against universal healthcare? I know Trump is against it because Obama was for it, but why the average American?

by jimbopip Sun 29 Mar - 9:14

Because they have been brought up in a culture which equates anything Left of centre with Stalinist totalitarianism. There's a book called Sapiens , author Yuval Noah Harari, which is an excellent history of the human race. The author argues that our ability to share myths or fantasies is one of the things that enabled us to survive and thrive in large groups. The USA has a shared fantasy that anything remotely Socialist in nature will lead to enslavement and Pol Pot style purges. They also believe that gun ownership keeps them safe and ensures their liberty.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun 29 Mar - 9:49

I read yesterday that more people than ever are applying for gun licenses and buying guns in the USA since Covid came along. I know a lot of the education system over there is not where it could be, but do they think they can shoot the virus.

Only being silly, they are really so distrusting of everyone that they think they will all be robbed and pillaged due to the lack of money around.

by lostinwales Sun 29 Mar - 12:31

The USA have already clocked more cases of CV19 than any other country, and it is only going to get worse. We are in for a very bumpy couple of weeks up to a couple of months, but there is always somewhere worse off and that is going to be our neighbours to the far west.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun 29 Mar - 13:21

I went out to do some shopping this morning, Tesco have seriously got it wrong! They are only allowing singles into the stores unless they are children with a single adult, I don't necessarily agree with that but can see the logic in that if you are limiting numbers it gives the most shoppers. However, they are blocking off one end of all aisles that do not have an open checkout, this means that shoppers have to walk down the aisle to find what they want and then walk back passed other shoppers, impossible to maintain 2 m. The aisles with the checkouts have long queues of stationary people in line for the checkout and shoppers having to go up, between and around all these people waiting to get to the checkout, they only have 2 checkouts open. Again they are forcing people to come into close proximity to each other to carry out their shopping. The self service ones are just as bad, long queues, which shoppers have to walk passed almost brushing shoulders.

They really need to think this through and get more checkouts open to limit the time people are being kept queuing in areas where they are having to break all guideline to carry out their shopping.

I took one look at what was happening and turned around and walked out, a number of others did too.

by **RDW** Sun 29 Mar - 22:01

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I went out to do some shopping this morning, Tesco have seriously got it wrong! They are only allowing singles into the stores unless they are children with a single adult, I don't necessarily agree with that but can see the logic in that if you are limiting numbers it gives the most shoppers. However, they are blocking off one end of all aisles that do not have an open checkout, this means that shoppers have to walk down the aisle to find what they want and then walk back passed other shoppers, impossible to maintain 2 m. The aisles with the checkouts have long queues of stationary people in line for the checkout and shoppers having to go up, between and around all these people waiting to get to the checkout, they only have 2 checkouts open. Again they are forcing people to come into close proximity to each other to carry out their shopping. The self service ones are just as bad, long queues, which shoppers have to walk passed almost brushing shoulders.

They really need to think this through and get more checkouts open to limit the time people are being kept queuing in areas where they are having to break all guideline to carry out their shopping.

I took one look at what was happening and turned around and walked out, a number of others did too.

If you're on Twitter it's worth dropping their main account a tweet voicing your concerns - can imagine they'll be taking this stuff pretty seriously!

I went to our supermarket at 7:45am on Sunday. It was pretty quiet and shelves were well stocked....except no bog roll of course.

by jimbopip Sun 29 Mar - 22:10

Flounder, don't the Aussie Sundays have lots of supplements?

by **RDW** Sun 29 Mar - 22:11

My work have put me up in a serviced apartment for 4 weeks - we move out this weekend into our own flat so I'm definitely going to siphon as much bog roll as I can before we leave.

by 123456789. Mon 30 Mar - 2:11

jimbopip wrote:Because they have been brought up in a culture which equates anything Left of centre with Stalinist totalitarianism. There's a book called Sapiens , author Yuval Noah Harari, which is an excellent history of the human race. The author argues that our ability to share myths or fantasies is one of the things that enabled us to survive and thrive in large groups. The USA has a shared fantasy that anything remotely Socialist in nature will lead to enslavement and Pol Pot style purges. They also believe that gun ownership keeps them safe and ensures their liberty.

I think in Britain we assume that the countries that speak English are all variations on the UK, with identical cultures and world outlook where countries that speak different languages are a whole other world. It's probably a small part of the reason leave ended up winning the referendum. In reality in Britain we consider healthcare to be a right. In the USA they consider it a right to own a gun, but a privilege to be treated for a gunshot wound.

by WELL-PAST-IT Mon 30 Mar - 8:53

RDW wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I went out to do some shopping this morning, Tesco have seriously got it wrong! They are only allowing singles into the stores unless they are children with a single adult, I don't necessarily agree with that but can see the logic in that if you are limiting numbers it gives the most shoppers. However, they are blocking off one end of all aisles that do not have an open checkout, this means that shoppers have to walk down the aisle to find what they want and then walk back passed other shoppers, impossible to maintain 2 m. The aisles with the checkouts have long queues of stationary people in line for the checkout and shoppers having to go up, between and around all these people waiting to get to the checkout, they only have 2 checkouts open. Again they are forcing people to come into close proximity to each other to carry out their shopping. The self service ones are just as bad, long queues, which shoppers have to walk passed almost brushing shoulders.

They really need to think this through and get more checkouts open to limit the time people are being kept queuing in areas where they are having to break all guideline to carry out their shopping.

I took one look at what was happening and turned around and walked out, a number of others did too.

If you're on Twitter it's worth dropping their main account a tweet voicing your concerns - can imagine they'll be taking this stuff pretty seriously!

I went to our supermarket at 7:45am on Sunday. It was pretty quiet and shelves were well stocked....except no bog roll of course.

RDW, this is about the only form of social media I belong to or use, my better half is on Facebook, I will get her to look on there. Hope your move goes well. We are in limbo, supposed to be moving in about 4 weeks, but cannot find out if the people in the house we are moving to, can get a removal company.

by lostinwales Mon 30 Mar - 9:47

123456789. wrote:
jimbopip wrote:Because they have been brought up in a culture which equates anything Left of centre with Stalinist totalitarianism. There's a book called Sapiens , author Yuval Noah Harari, which is an excellent history of the human race. The author argues that our ability to share myths or fantasies is one of the things that enabled us to survive and thrive in large groups. The USA has a shared fantasy that anything remotely Socialist in nature will lead to enslavement and Pol Pot style purges. They also believe that gun ownership keeps them safe and ensures their liberty.

I think in Britain we assume that the countries that speak English are all variations on the UK, with identical cultures and world outlook where countries that speak different languages are a whole other world. It's probably a small part of the reason leave ended up winning the referendum. In reality in Britain we consider healthcare to be a right. In the USA they consider it a right to own a gun, but a privilege to be treated for a gunshot wound.

I used to work with an American company and travel out there regularly (4 or 5 times a year for 10 years). Made me feel very European.

by dynamark Mon 30 Mar - 10:27

We do consider healthcare as a right cradle to grave and all that .When I mentioned slack attitude earlier it was really just that ill health needs can mean financial benefit in lots of cases which is always hard to manage fraud and challenge.
We all know people who do very little to help their own day to day health and use the GP like a social club but if you are genuine with a problem please make use.Personally I avoid the place its full of sick folk !
I have a neighbour who im convinced has been defrauding the system for at least 8 years and when this settles down Im minded to report him to whoever. Its resouces that could go elsewhere

by tigertattie Tue 31 Mar - 12:55

As with most things a balance and compromise seems to always be the best way to do things.

In 'merica, if you don’t have enough money, your health will be drastically compromised.
In blighty, if you have an ingrown toenail you can get a GP who spent years studying to cut your nail for you.

There needs to be a middle ground. Basic, fundamental, immediate health issues should be free at the point of need, but we should have to pay some form of top up if we are "abusing" the system. Even if that top up is only a £10 fine for not rocking up to a GP appointment.

I know a fella who has twice been to the doc and had scans on his nut to see if there's anything sinister going on. Thankfully both times he’s been fine, felt rather daft, but all the medical staff say he was right to have it checked. If in doubt, get it checked. On the other hand I've known people to take paracetamol on a docs prescription. Paracetamol cost you 30p for a pack from Tesco, absolutely no need to get a prescription and rock up to a pharmacist to dispense it to you.

Smokers and drinkers are already taxed on the products they consume but I think we need to increase that further, it’s a roundabout way of getting people to pay for the healthcare they'll need. But drunks who end up at A&E on a Sat night, folk with common colds who go to the doc for antibiotics (which won’t work) should be charged at least some form of time waster fee.

It will put a bit more money into the system but in time it will save us more money as a deterrent to timewasters and the NHS can focus on keeping Mildly Racist Uncle Dougie alive after his heart transplant, or get Jimbo up and about again really quickly after his hip replacement

by 123456789. Tue 31 Mar - 13:48

Issue with a time waster fee is it effectively a regressive tax. If you've got the money you can pop in whenever you like with all manner of trivial issues. If you have something that could be more serious but probably isn't and you're skint you may well just not bother at all. There are other points where it is just a tad silly though. In my first year at Uni I came back from a night out, fell asleep with my trousers on a crashed on my gentleman parts. Woke up in the morning a tad swollen and in agony. After a day I went to see the Doctor who gave me the once over concluded there was nothing serious. When I explained what had happened he worked it out straight away. I went away feeling a tad silly about it. I was prescribed the extra strong paracetamol for it and told to take two a day. I was given three of the most enormous boxes to take away. It was about two years before I actually had to buy some. If he'd told me to go and buy my own it would have cost me about 15p.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 31 Mar - 13:57

tigertattie wrote:
In blighty, if you have an ingrown toenail you can get a GP who spent years studying to cut your nail for you.

Chiropody services are almost non existent. I was diagnosed diabetic last summer (weight loss and diet management meant my December blood test was in normal bounds, sadly my recent one had to be cancelled due to you know what, which means that I am still a newly diagnosed diabetic rather than in remission). any way as such I am allowed regular chiropody visits to make sure all is ok (and yes cut nails) however the waiting list in my area is 18 months. Now this is a mess of my own making, and I am using the resources as little as possible (and trying to sort the problem out rather than be a burden etc) but I do feel that there are too many exagerations about the wasted time within our health service.

by super_realist Tue 31 Mar - 14:01

I wish people would stop waiting to referred and just go out and do it themselves.
I would wager almost everyone here can afford to get their own physio or chiropodist. They aren't ruinously expensive and they'll deal with you pretty much immediately.
If you are prepared to wait 18 months then your problem isn't that bad, or you're a skinflint.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 31 Mar - 14:12

super_realist wrote:I wish people would stop waiting to referred and just go out and do it themselves.
I would wager almost everyone here can afford to get their own physio or chiropodist. They aren't ruinously expensive and they'll deal with you pretty much immediately.
If you are prepared to wait 18 months then your problem isn't that bad, or you're a skinflint.

Is that aimed at me? If so, fair play - I am quite obviously a lazy, hypochondriac miser.

The checks on a diabetics feet are far more than cutting nails - but yes I do that myself. I have, as I said, taken action such that I should not need professional services such as chiropody (or amputation) or the ophthalmologists (though now I am in the system I will probably continue to receive annual checks for retinopathy, glaucoma etc). My point about the waiting list is that people with an ingrowing nail will not be priority.

For me depression led to overeating, led to low self worth, led to over-eating etc. Right now I am trying to sort myself out without using up scarce NHS resources. In part I feel as though I maybe overused them back when I broke my neck, then when I was having chemo two years ago.

by super_realist Tue 31 Mar - 14:17

Not necessarily aimed at you, but if someone told me I had to wait 18 months to deal with an ingrowing toenail I would arrange to have it dealt with myself.
Similarly if you go to a doctor for a sport injury and you get referred to a physio 2 or 3 months away, just book one yourself.

by 123456789. Tue 31 Mar - 16:24

I think we need to be a tad careful here because it seems wires have been crossed and it could get nasty. Probably best to move away from this and back to the massive, terrifying international pandemic currently unfolding.
There's been some interesting stuff coming out today. Hydroxychloroquine is now, apparently, the favoured drug of populists the world over. Trump announced it probably works, Bolsonaro has said it definitely works. Scientists are running tests. Obviously it hopefully works.
Apparently in Britain we haven't heard the statistics as fully as you would expect in terms of death rates and we will be told the true statistic soon. I have always suspected that the virus if far more widespread than we know. I know of three people who have had it. Italy looks like it's starting to come out the other side now. With any luck by the end of the week we'll see a fall in active cases.
I'm not sure if the expectation is that once we've seen off a spike of cases now that with a graduated return to life as normal we'll have seen off the worst of it. Or whether the plan is to have regular lockdown period so two out of every six weeks or something. Surely if this sprang from one person, then if just one person is infectious at the end of this then it will all kick off again.

by super_realist Tue 31 Mar - 16:39

It wasn't getting nasty at all. I simply suggested that if you can afford it, sort out your own chripodist ( like most people do) or sort your own physio out.

by 123456789. Tue 31 Mar - 16:45

super_realist wrote:It wasn't getting nasty at all. I simply suggested that if you can afford it, sort out your own chripodist ( like most people do) or sort your own physio out.

I wasn't actually suggesting you were getting nasty. The issue with internet forums is that intonation is missed and through no fault of your own, nor anybody else's, wires were in danger of being crossed.

by Soul Requiem Tue 31 Mar - 16:47

123456789. wrote:I think we need to be a tad careful here because it seems wires have been crossed and it could get nasty. Probably best to move away from this and back to the massive, terrifying international pandemic currently unfolding.
There's been some interesting stuff coming out today. Hydroxychloroquine is now, apparently, the favoured drug of populists the world over. Trump announced it probably works, Bolsonaro has said it definitely works. Scientists are running tests. Obviously it hopefully works.
Apparently in Britain we haven't heard the statistics as fully as you would expect in terms of death rates and we will be told the true statistic soon. I have always suspected that the virus if far more widespread than we know. I know of three people who have had it. Italy looks like it's starting to come out the other side now. With any luck by the end of the week we'll see a fall in active cases.
I'm not sure if the expectation is that once we've seen off a spike of cases now that with a graduated return to life as normal we'll have seen off the worst of it. Or whether the plan is to have regular lockdown period so two out of every six weeks or something. Surely if this sprang from one person, then if just one person is infectious at the end of this then it will all kick off again.

Bolsonaro and in particular Trump are creating problems that don't need to exist at the moment, I struggle to see what benefit it is to either of them to just lie about something like this.

by 123456789. Tue 31 Mar - 17:07

Soul Requiem wrote:
123456789. wrote:I think we need to be a tad careful here because it seems wires have been crossed and it could get nasty. Probably best to move away from this and back to the massive, terrifying international pandemic currently unfolding.
There's been some interesting stuff coming out today. Hydroxychloroquine is now, apparently, the favoured drug of populists the world over. Trump announced it probably works, Bolsonaro has said it definitely works. Scientists are running tests. Obviously it hopefully works.
Apparently in Britain we haven't heard the statistics as fully as you would expect in terms of death rates and we will be told the true statistic soon. I have always suspected that the virus if far more widespread than we know. I know of three people who have had it. Italy looks like it's starting to come out the other side now. With any luck by the end of the week we'll see a fall in active cases.
I'm not sure if the expectation is that once we've seen off a spike of cases now that with a graduated return to life as normal we'll have seen off the worst of it. Or whether the plan is to have regular lockdown period so two out of every six weeks or something. Surely if this sprang from one person, then if just one person is infectious at the end of this then it will all kick off again.

Bolsonaro and in particular Trump are creating problems that don't need to exist at the moment, I struggle to see what benefit it is to either of them to just lie about something like this.

I suppose there whole appeal is based on quick fixes to complex solutions. Trump effectively managed to announce the solution to globalisation and the consequential deindustrialisation ubiquitous across the west could be solved by building a wall. Both of them rely on the cult of the strongman. The idea that they get things done where experts and insiders waffle and dawdle. So something like Coronavirus which needs a complex answer with the help of experts threatens to undermine them. Trump has been desperate throughout the whole crisis for something to just get rid of it. First there was the whole it hangs around til April and then disappears. Now he's heard of anecdotal reports of a successful treatment as the miracle solution. The thing is that the drug might just work, there's plenty scientists that are prepared to try it. So if it does work you can expect to see Trump address the nation. He'll criticise the governors for anything that's gone wrong, he'll slag off the checks and balances required by the FDA as needless red-tape and he'll claim personal credit for the drug. The other thing is that if the drug works then by November Trump will be proclaiming himself as the conquering hero of Coronavirus. If we're reliant of a vaccine next year then it will probably be Joe Biden (if he's still alive) claiming the credit.

Out of interest, Soul Requiem, in America would you be voting for Trump, Biden or A N Other? I've always identified, politically, speaking with the left wing of the Tory party. People like Ken Clarke, Rory Stewart and (sorry) Michael Heseltine. I have little doubt that in America I would be an avowed Democrat, where here I am something of a swing voter.

by Soul Requiem Tue 31 Mar - 17:34

[quote="123456789."]

Soul Requiem wrote:

Out of interest, Soul Requiem, in America would you be voting for Trump, Biden or A N Other? I've always identified, politically, speaking with the left wing of the Tory party. People like Ken Clarke, Rory Stewart and (sorry) Michael Heseltine. I have little doubt that in America I would be an avowed Democrat, where here I am something of a swing voter.

I wouldn't consider Ken Clarke to be the left of the party to be honest, aside from Brexit i'd consider him on the right of the party, economically he's far removed from Stewart for instance.

I'd most likely abstain from voting in America if i'm honest, can't get on board with either party. If I had to probably the Dems based on the Reps gun control views.

by 123456789. Tue 31 Mar - 17:50

In Cameron's autobiography he confesses that he reckons he'd be a Democrat in America, Bernie Sanders is fairly indistinguishable from Corbyn. The fact they'd all be in one party borders on the insane.
I would disagree on Clarke being of the right, he's always been firmly in the free markets with a social conscience grouping. At the last few leadership elections hes always been in favour of the candidate on the left or the left candidate himself. As Chancellor his programme was centrist enough for Gordon Brown to adopt a lot of it himself.
I think if you put the Left-Right on a rather crude scale of 1-10 with our centre ground at 5, then the American centre ground is probably about three points to the right.

by 123456789. Tue 31 Mar - 17:50

In Cameron's autobiography he confesses that he reckons he'd be a Democrat in America, Bernie Sanders is fairly indistinguishable from Corbyn. The fact they'd all be in one party borders on the insane.
I would disagree on Clarke being of the right, he's always been firmly in the free markets with a social conscience grouping. At the last few leadership elections hes always been in favour of the candidate on the left or the left candidate himself. As Chancellor his programme was centrist enough for Gordon Brown to adopt a lot of it himself.
I think if you put the Left-Right on a rather crude scale of 1-10 with our centre ground at 5, then the American centre ground is probably about three points to the right.

by kwinigolfer Tue 31 Mar - 18:17

123456789. wrote:In Cameron's autobiography he confesses that he reckons he'd be a Democrat in America, Bernie Sanders is fairly indistinguishable from Corbyn. The fact they'd all be in one party borders on the insane.
I would disagree on Clarke being of the right, he's always been firmly in the free markets with a social conscience grouping. At the last few leadership elections hes always been in favour of the candidate on the left or the left candidate himself. As Chancellor his programme was centrist enough for Gordon Brown to adopt a lot of it himself.
I think if you put the Left-Right on a rather crude scale of 1-10 with our centre ground at 5, then the American centre ground is probably about three points to the right.

Bernie used to be our Mayor, he lives just up the road!
I can assure you that Bernie is nothing like Corbyn, much more of a consensus seeker, works well with many businesses (who endorsed him en bloc for his final mayoral run) and across the Congressional aisle.
He might style himself as a "Socialist" but sides with special interests when it suits him.

He's unelectable as president because his following has very little upsides, the floor and ceiling very close together, which also carries the risk that his cohort will abstain from voting for Biden in much the same way as they failed to turn out for Clinton.

(Coincidentally, I used to live in Corbyn's Islington!)

by Sponsored content