Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

 Smithee. You own a restaurant/bar employing 40 people. You're allowed to open again during July, but social distancing and other restrictions mean you only need 20 staff. 

 

But good news, the furlough scheme means that you can keep all 40 staff on the payroll until October. You can introduce a rotation system, (within the rules) that takes into account individuals work life balance and decide who will furlough and who will work.And those who are furloughed can continue to train and develop, should they wish.

 

Fingers crossed that by October, your business has fully recovered and you have work for all your 40 employees.

 

How is your system better at keeping your business open for your staff and give them a better chance of returning to full employment?

How would it be worse? What I'd like to see is basically the same except everyone qualifies and there's much much less admin at all levels, making it much more cost effective.

 

9 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

So unpaid leave with a basic income from the government...sounds like people would be a lot worse off rather than better off. Also how would pension contributions and income tax work in that scenario?

 

I'd rather we just supported those that aren't covered by furlough by providing them with whatever it is they need. 

Furlough with basic income, yes. That way everyone's covered, surely that's the priority. There are hurdles, of course, but keeping current wealth ratios is less of a priority than making sure we get everyone. None of the hurdles are insurmountable, this and other governments have steamrollered over worse, but the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Smithee

[coconut doug]

9 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

None of the examples I've read are for the reason you state though as far as I can see. I mean how is it's current set up left it more open to fraud and abuse?

 

 

The do get a higher subsidy up to the 2.5k cap, but they also pay a lot more tax normally. That said, I'm all for a narrowing of the wage gap, I'm one of the the biggest supporters of that, now isn't the time to be focusing on that though, we need to change that forever, not for a few months. In this instance though who's more disproportionately favoured, someone who normally takes home 5k a month now taking 2.5k or someone taking home 2k instead of 2.5k? One is a 50% drop, one is 20%? 

 

 

So you want less spending, not more? Of course it is too expensive to maintain, hence why it has an end date to it. The short but deep cost of furlough will outweigh the costs of not doing it in imo, and I'd guess the Chancellor's opinion too. 

 

I'msure any scheme would be abused by some too. Those abusing the furlough scheme should be punished heavily. 

 

 

We didn't address the other issues which have existed long prior to Covid-19. It's not because we can't afford to, it's because we choose not to. That's shameful but to conflate wider issues to being the fault of the furlough scheme is folly. As I pointed out above, imo as someone on the scheme, UBI would be much, much worse for me than furlough. Should we help those not covered by it? Yes, but removal of the furlough scheme isn't the answer.

 

Anyway, that's just my take on it. I imagine our ideal world's are probably quite similar as I'm very much in the reduce the wealth gap and increase universal support for all. I'm just of the opinion that we live in a capitalist society, with a Tory government in a time of crisis and compared to what I thought we'd get, the furlough scheme is bloody good and deserves praise despite all their other short comings.

 

I wasn't aware that i gave any reason for fraud merely that it exists and there is a lot of it.

 

It doesn't matter that those who normally pay more tax are losing more from their bottom line. Their bottom line is still bigger and everybody has to eat and pay bills. Those at the bottom are struggling for survival, 2.5K per month is comfortable. I hear it's not that easy trying to live off 80% of living wage.

 

i don't want less spending. I want it targeted where it is most needed and directed at individuals rather than companies many of which will no longer be viable and so the money will be lost. Giving the money to people will ensure it is spent in the community and directed at the businesses most likely to survive and not just spaffed away companies that don't have a future.

 

Casual and non contract workers are getting nothing. In normal times they get some work. Their circumstances have changed why is there no furlough scheme to help them? You might be personally better of with furlough but as you don't know the level of universal basic income some people at least cannot be sure. You might have a good employer others do not and are being exploited through the furlough scheme.

 

TBH the furlough scheme is much more than i expected from the Tories and i am suspicious of it. I am struggling to see how it can ever be paid back without absolutely draconian austerity inflicted on the poor. 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

How would it be worse? What I'd like to see is basically the same except everyone qualifies and there's much much less admin at all levels, making it much more cost effective.

 

Furlough with basic income, yes. That way everyone's covered, surely that's the priority. There are hurdles, of course, but keeping current wealth ratios is less of a priority than making sure we get everyone. None of the hurdles are insurmountable, this and other governments have steamrollered over worse, but the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

 

 

Edit: I'm glad it's not you making that decision so let's just agree to disagree.

[Taffin]

23 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Edit: I'm glad it's not you making that decision so let's just agree to disagree.

 

Quoting myself as I read that back and I didn't mean it to sound like your idea is stupid (its far from it) and I'm therefore glad you're not making that decision. I mean it in the literal sense as in I'm glad you're not...because I'd quite possibly lose my house in that scenario and therefore you won't convince me that it would be better so there's no point in me continuing to debate it.👍

Edited May 14, 2020 by Taffin

[Cade]

UBi would be better as if you want to jump-start the economy, making sure everyone has at least some disposable income is a key factor.

 

It's the multiplication effect.

Government gives one person some money, who then spends it somewhere, who then in turn spend it on ordering more stock, who's supplier then spends it on more raw materials.

The initial injection of cash goes through several hands with a profit margin being retained at each stage, so it benefits far more people than just the person that received it in the first place.

 

When economists are worried about a deflation spiral, encouraging people to spend is a must.

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

UBi would be better as if you want to jump-start the economy, making sure everyone has at least some disposable income is a key factor.

 

It's the multiplication effect.

Government gives one person some money, who then spends it somewhere, who then in turn spend it on ordering more stock, who's supplier then spends it on more raw materials.

The initial injection of cash goes through several hands with a profit margin being retained at each stage, so it benefits far more people than just the person that received it in the first place.

 

When economists are worried about a deflation spiral, encouraging people to spend is a must.

I'm with you, I'd like to see trickle-up economics given a try, just once.

[JamboDrew]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Furlough is absolutely essential to avoid millions of job losses.

It doesn't quite go far enough, and the most vulnerable are being hammered even more than usual.

A proper Universal Basic Income would be even better than the Furlough scheme and only blind dogma and conservative ideology is preventing them from doing that.

Everyone on the dole?

 

Yeah....that's a recipe for success

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, JamboDrew said:

Everyone on the dole?

 

Yeah....that's a recipe for success

Why not furlough with UBI so it's a temporary measure? Why is it so awful if everyone has the ability to ride this out?

[JamboDrew]

5 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

She is always clear with generalisations but rarely specifics. Boris has given clear timescales, dates and plans for which businesses will open and when. Sturgeon seems to be content to just kerp the population in lockdown while working out what to do. She is now under pressure to do what Boris has done.

p

That's because Sturgeon would love this lockdown to last forever.

 

She craves power.

 

Loves to order the plebs about.

[JamboDrew]

Just now, Smithee said:

Why not furlough with UBI so it's a temporary measure? Why is it so awful if everyone has the ability to ride this out?

You do realise what the U stands for in UBI?

 

Yes, in this period of "lockdown", the government is commendably covering folks wages.

 

"Lockdown" doesn't last forever. Ir's coming to an end, people need to get back to work.

[Unknown user]

25 minutes ago, JamboDrew said:

You do realise what the U stands for in UBI?

 

Yes, in this period of "lockdown", the government is commendably covering folks wages.

 

"Lockdown" doesn't last forever. Ir's coming to an end, people need to get back to work.

The government is commendably covering some folks wages but plenty are slipping through the paid furlough cracks, and yes I'm aware what U stands for ffs.

Unpaid furlough with UBI has all the benefits of what's on offer now plus massive savings in administration, efficiency and costs, and making sure many more people are covered.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, JamboDrew said:

You do realise what the U stands for in UBI?

 

Yes, in this period of "lockdown", the government is commendably covering folks wages.

 

"Lockdown" doesn't last forever. Ir's coming to an end, people need to get back to work.

How's Trump getting on? His handcuffs must be tightening. Tick Tock!

[ri Alban]

Just watching a couple of bellends on QT. Barclay and some other tit(Pizza express?)Deciding who should live or die so they can make money.

 

Tell you what, The people should go back to work, as soon as the House of commons is full.

Edited May 15, 2020 by ri Alban

[pablo]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

The government is commendably covering some folks wages but plenty are slipping through the paid furlough cracks, and yes I'm aware what U stands for ffs.

Unpaid furlough with UBI has all the benefits of what's on offer now plus massive savings in administration, efficiency and costs, and making sure many more people are covered.

 

So in the middle of all this, you expect the Government to completely overhaul the welfare system to introduce UBI? Then after the benchmark for the minimum amount of money a person requires to survive each month is agreed, pay this to everyone, including the wealthy. Allow millions of businesses to go to the wall, in the hope they start back up again and have the suppliers and customers still in business to do so? 

 

Maybe UBI is an idea worth pursuing. I'd agree it's definitely worth consideration. The welfare system does need looked and made fit for purpose, totally.

 

But right now when the government's efforts has to be fighting the virus, and not putting millions of people out of work. The Furlough scheme has put a considerable amount of the economy into hibernation to allow that to happen. That's why it's been generally speaking welcomed by most as a positive, even those who don't find themselves in agreement with a Conservative government very often.

 

 

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, pablo said:

 

So in the middle of all this, you expect the Government to completely overhaul the welfare system to introduce UBI? Then after the benchmark for the minimum amount of money a person requires to survive each month is agreed, pay this to everyone, including the wealthy. Allow millions of businesses to go to the wall, in the hope they start back up again and have the suppliers and customers still in business to do so? 

 

Maybe UBI is an idea worth pursuing. I'd agree it's definitely worth consideration. The welfare system does need looked and made fit for purpose, totally.

 

But right now when the government's efforts has to be fighting the virus, and not putting millions of people out of work. The Furlough scheme has put a considerable amount of the economy into hibernation to allow that to happen. That's why it's been generally speaking welcomed by most as a positive, even those who don't find themselves in agreement with a Conservative government very often.

 

 

If they didn't people would just have not stopped working.

A fair few on furlough will be unemployed come October.

[pablo]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

If they didn't people would just have not stopped working.

A fair few on furlough will be unemployed come October.

 

It's bought some time and reassured a lot of people. Coupled with the business loans and other measures, the Government has handled this well, surprisingly so.

 

All of the UK government's plans for fighting the virus in term of the health and well-being of our people, not handled so well. Putting it mildly.

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, JamboDrew said:

p

That's because Sturgeon would love this lockdown to last forever.

 

She craves power.

 

Loves to order the plebs about.

Agreed. She certainly doesn't trust the people and seems to think that they need to be told by the state what to do at every turn.  As people head back to work, using their common sense to stay as safe as possible will be the way forward. There is no govt safety manual that can cover every workplace and every journey to work. 

[Unknown user]

49 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

So in the middle of all this, you expect the Government to completely overhaul the welfare system to introduce UBI? Then after the benchmark for the minimum amount of money a person requires to survive each month is agreed, pay this to everyone, including the wealthy. Allow millions of businesses to go to the wall, in the hope they start back up again and have the suppliers and customers still in business to do so? 

 

Maybe UBI is an idea worth pursuing. I'd agree it's definitely worth consideration. The welfare system does need looked and made fit for purpose, totally.

 

But right now when the government's efforts has to be fighting the virus, and not putting millions of people out of work. The Furlough scheme has put a considerable amount of the economy into hibernation to allow that to happen. That's why it's been generally speaking welcomed by most as a positive, even those who don't find themselves in agreement with a Conservative government very often.

 

 

I didnt say I expect any of that pablo, I'm just saying I think there was a better way, and then I expanded on it when asked. 

 

The hurdles you mention are just that, hurdles, not barriers, no different to hurdles that had to be jumped with the current scheme that's left many without and a massive upsurge in those seeking welfare.

[XB52]

8 hours ago, pablo said:

 

And that it true from both sides, equally in my opinion.

 

Also, the poster I quoted comes from the small pool of posters you refer to. Maybe he agrees with the generally held view that the furlough scheme is a positive, maybe he doesn't and will explain why? I don't think he's stated where he stands yet. Let's wait and see.

 

I think the furlough scheme is indeed a positive and I've been impressed by chancellor overall, unlike his boss who has been pathetic imo. I've not got a great memory but I can't remember attacking the tories over their covid19 performance as this whole disaster should be above politics. I have been consistent in attacking the inane anti-SNP comments by our resident britnats and I make no apology for that 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I think the furlough scheme is indeed a positive and I've been impressed by chancellor overall, unlike his boss who has been pathetic imo. I've not got a great memory but I can't remember attacking the tories over their covid19 performance as this whole disaster should be above politics. I have been consistent in attacking the inane anti-SNP comments by our resident britnats and I make no apology for that 

FWIW I was a bit surprised at the accusation, you have your views but you don't come across as a career sniper

[kila]

I’m in agreement UBI is the way forward. 
 

I think it would help businesses as their employees have a safety net. Could combine UBI with zero hour contracts.

 

While some might happily sit at home doing nothing getting their UBI, it won’t cause a shift to the masses not wanting to work. There is the desire to get richer, have more luxuries... UBI isn’t going to do that, so the motivation to work is still there.
 

While the UK won’t do that anytime soon, other progressive socialist countries will. As highlighted by others, if citizens in a country have money to spend, the economy will start moving again. 
 

Downside to UBI is the banks will start to lose out. Less reliance on loans, overdrafts etc. But the purpose of UBI is to help redistribute wealth instead of the top getting more cake. Trillionaires will be a thing soon. Mental, what a broken system. 

[felix]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

I don’t want to come across insensitive, as  all deaths are a tragedy, however, I’m beginning to struggle with the continuation of lockdown, with no real sign of easing off. 
It looks like we will have be locked up for at least 10 weeks, a fifth of a year. I’m beginning to struggle with the logic of it all.
 

If we have been at this for 10 weeks and still aren’t where we need to be. Is it actually doing what is designed to do? 
 

More deaths are occurring in a care home setting. If the current trends continue the deaths in care homes will be double that in general population in the very near future 
 

Why the care home situation has been taken to one side and addressed with a separate policy, to enable the majority to get back to some normality seems is beyond me. 
Also suspect that govts failure to get testing and tracing in place, is a major factor we continue to be living an incredibly restricted life. 

 

Tend to agree. The contributor who's been making most sense in this imo is Devi Sridhar.

Her column on Tues explains the mixed tactics employed, stating we need to replace lockdown with mass testing, border control and phased relaxation of social distancing, without which the lockdown period will have been pointless :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/12/tories-lockdown-social-distancing-testing-second-wave-coronavirus

[Taffin]

7 hours ago, Cade said:

UBi would be better as if you want to jump-start the economy, making sure everyone has at least some disposable income is a key factor.

 

It's the multiplication effect.

Government gives one person some money, who then spends it somewhere, who then in turn spend it on ordering more stock, who's supplier then spends it on more raw materials.

The initial injection of cash goes through several hands with a profit margin being retained at each stage, so it benefits far more people than just the person that received it in the first place.

 

When economists are worried about a deflation spiral, encouraging people to spend is a must.

 

How much do you think this UBI would be given we'd be paying it to 40 odd million people?  

I can't see it being anywhere near enough to be more than the 80% those not working just now are getting.

 

So the outcome would be, you give more money to those who already have disposable income because they're still working on full salary whilst taking it away from those 6 million odd people on furlough and instead leaving them with just enough to get by at a push? All you'd be doing is reducing the number of people who have some disposable income. 

Sure, give people with money more if you want to stimulate the economy once people start going back to work in greater numbers as a separate scheme. To suggest it would have resulted in more disposable spending money by in having taken the place of furlough seems very unlikely, unless we're talking a UBI of a pretty substantial amount...which would then risk people deciding not to go back to work and would be far, far more expensive to find.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Taffin

[The Real Maroonblood]

5 hours ago, JamboDrew said:

p

That's because Sturgeon would love this lockdown to last forever.

 

She craves power.

 

Loves to order the plebs about.

Just like Trump.

[vegas-voss]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

I don’t want to come across insensitive, as  all deaths are a tragedy, however, I’m beginning to struggle with the continuation of lockdown, with no real sign of easing off. 
 

It looks like we will have be locked up for at least 10 weeks, a fifth of a year. I’m beginning to struggle with the logic of it all.
 

If we have been at this for 10 weeks and still aren’t where we need to be. Is it actually doing what is designed to do? 
 

More deaths are occurring in a care home setting. If the current trends continue the deaths in care homes will be double that in general population in the very near future 
 

Why the care home situation has been taken to one side and addressed with a separate policy, to enable the majority to get back to some normality seems is beyond me. 

Also suspect that govts failure to get testing and tracing in place, is a major factor we continue to be living an incredibly restricted life. 

 

I think you will be seeing a gradual easing over the next two months unless there is a big spike in hospital admission or deaths.Next couple of weeks should tell how things are going and Scotland will no doubt be easing restrictions as well by then.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

I think you will be seeing a gradual easing over the next two months unless there is a big spike in hospital admission or deaths.Next couple of weeks should tell how things are going and Scotland will no doubt be easing restrictions as well by then.

I don’t think you’ll be far of the mark.

[Taffin]

26 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Why would you lose your house? There are mortgage holidays available.

 

I might not, I said quite possibly. The mortgage holidays are only for 3 months so if you ended up only on the proposed UBI for more than 3 months you'd find yourself not only having to now cover your mortgage and service charges from whatever small amount that was but also whatever amounts you deferred during the 3 month holiday. I'd struggle to make those payments on what I imagine the UBI amounts to be...fair enough if people have some idea that it would be a substantial amount, but i think that's unrealistic. 

 

Even if I did manage, I'd still be in quite serious financial peril and therefore what they've actually done, would have been better for me. Meanwhile all those still working on full pay (the majority of workers) would be receiving additional government money at a time when others are faced with a nightmare. It just doesn't seem a good use of money.

 

I'm all for UBI as a concept in future and I sincerely hope we go down a route like that when we are through this crisis and can vote for change. Now isn't the time for it though and as a short term solution to the problem posed by coronavirus (not other issues that we've always needed to address) Furlough has been a good solution. We should also be ensuring workers not covered by it are seen right too though.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Taffin

[pablo]

1 minute ago, XB52 said:

I think the furlough scheme is indeed a positive and I've been impressed by chancellor overall, unlike his boss who has been pathetic imo. I've not got a great memory but I can't remember attacking the tories over their covid19 performance as this whole disaster should be above politics. I have been consistent in attacking the inane anti-SNP comments by our resident britnats and I make no apology for that 

 

Fair enough. Don't disagree with that. On my part, I've been impressed by the FM's leadership qualities and communication style during this crisis. Consistent across the Government and all the devolved administrations, PPE and testing hasn't been very good. But all in all, I genuinely think that they've all tried their best in a difficult situation. I also agree with you about the Chancellor's performance, it's like someone has forgotten to tell him he's in a Tory government. 

[The Mighty Thor]

5 hours ago, JamboDrew said:

p

That's because Sturgeon would love this lockdown to last forever.

 

She craves power.

 

Loves to order the plebs about.

Sweet Jesus we've unearthed another one. 

[AlimOzturk]

Did the Tories not pretty much hit copy and paste from the labour manifesto when it comes to the furlough scheme? Or did i dream that up.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

Sweet Jesus we've unearthed another one. 

[The Mighty Thor]

Narrative update from the Tory rags:

 

'Hero' teachers are being prevented from going to work by 'militant unions' 

 

Police officers are raking in thousands in overtime while people die.

 

Add to 'lazy furlough scroungers' and one can see the direction of travel of Dom and the boys. 

 

One would think that there must be something the government are trying to distract attention from

[milky_26]

14 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Sweet Jesus we've unearthed another one. 

check his posts on the trump thread

[manaliveits105]

25 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Sweet Jesus we've unearthed another one. 

They are many and increasing 

[The Mighty Thor]

14 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

They are many and increasing 

What the old saying?

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

 

Keeps it entertaining 👍

[The Real Maroonblood]

45 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I see their are a number of anti lockdown protests happening this weekend.

 

Can’t imagine they will get much traction but I do sense people are becoming less convinced of the merits of lockdown. 

They’re saying the lockdown is against the law.

No because you’ll be breaking the law.

[The Real Maroonblood]

11 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

What the old saying?

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

 

Keeps it entertaining 👍

[ri Alban]

27 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

They are many and increasing 

Boris voting, Trump loving, Brexiters, careful you don't kick your wife in the face. On second thoughts, I don't think many of said trinitists would have any women. Incels to a man.

 

Anyway, looks like the building sites will be shut til June the 1st, at least.

[jack D and coke]

51 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I see their are a number of anti lockdown protests happening this weekend.

 

Can’t imagine they will get much traction but I do sense people are becoming less convinced of the merits of lockdown. 

Have you seen who’s behind them? 
Britain First. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Have you seen who’s behind them? 
Britain First. 

[milky_26]

5 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Have you seen who’s behind them? 
Britain First. 

if they get their way they can change their name to britain first with a second wave

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Have you seen who’s behind them? 
Britain First. 

Didn't see them take up the jobs those Romanian folk had to be flown in to do.

 

It'll rain on Saturday and they'll not turn up. 

I might nip past Barshaw for a laugh.

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Didn't see them take up the jobs those Romanian folk had to be flown in to do.

 

It'll rain on Saturday and they'll not turn up. 

I might nip past Barshaw for a laugh.

There’ll be at least 2 on here who will probably attend.

😃

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

I see their are a number of anti lockdown protests happening this weekend.

 

Can’t imagine they will get much traction but I do sense people are becoming less convinced of the merits of lockdown. 

Again quite happy for people to take part in these things. It is their right to do so.

 

They should all fill in one of these 'do not resuscitate' type forms in the event they catch Covid-19 they get told to boost by the NHS👍

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Again quite happy for people to take part in these things. It is their right to do so.

 

They should all fill in one of these 'do not resuscitate' type forms in the event they catch Covid-19 they get told to boost by the NHS👍

So it’s their right to break the law?

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Again quite happy for people to take part in these things. It is their right to do so.

 

They should all fill in one of these 'do not resuscitate' type forms in the event they catch Covid-19 they get told to boost by the NHS👍

 

It really isn't.

[TheOak88]

8 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

So it’s their right to break the law?

 

Taking away people’s right to peaceful protest is quite worrying. Feels very Russia/China.

 

Technically you are probably right tho. 

[The Mighty Thor]

4 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

So it’s their right to break the law?

 

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

It really isn't.

You are both, of course, correct. 

 

I'm still for letting them crack on with it. 

 

Darwinian principles at work. 👍

 

[Francis Albert]

Shopping in Boots yesterday for a few essentials I was walking down an aisle looking for something on the shelf when I glanced up and saw a woman walking towards me. I was still 2m away but had been moving in her direction. She literally leapt back, a look of sheer terror on her face (before someone makes the crack it is not how people normally react to me … but another few weeks without a haircut and it may become the new normal).

Anyway two things.

 

First it brought home the "Stay Alert" message which has been derided and some including the FM claim not to understand. When staying home it wasn't something you had to worry about  - indeed my alertness steadily declined, as I discovered after driving for the first time in weeks. But with the need for social distancing particularly as places get more crowded, staying alert is probably the most important thing to do and the most difficult.

 

Second some people are going to be seriously psychologically damaged by the levels of fear that have been instilled, often based on no evidence of significant risk. The chances of getting the virus simply by passing someone in the street or even in the aisle of a shop is minimal - infinitesimal really. Yet I have seen people leap into the road to face speeding oncoming traffic, or scuttle up a side street to avoid passing someone walking on the other side of the pavement.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Francis Albert

[jack D and coke]

30 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I read it was a bunch of antivaxers.

 

No doubt be some mismash of fringe groups. 

Possibly aye. 
Registered by Jayda Fransen though.