jimlad48

Keano Thats precisely my point - we do need to ask these questions because we do, at some point, need to end lockdown. But we do need to think carefully around how and when we do this - relying on a set of emotive responses doesnt solve the longer term issues we face.

For whats its worth, my view on the situation is that lockdown is becoming increasingly untenable. I don?t doubt Corona is a horrible virus/bug/thing and it can be truly awful for some people, but we need to have a national conversation around the risk we want to take here. I?m concerned that we have potentially overplayed the fatality figures by adding Corona as a cause of death, not as the sole cause of death unlike other countries. For example you could have terminal cancer in its final stages, and very mild corona symptoms, but if you died, you?d be recorded as a corona victim ? even if you only had it in the mildest of ways. While there is no suggestion that having it is not a factor in these deaths, it makes people assume that its perhaps more lethal than may actually be the case compared to other reporting rates. There is some good work done on this by the Guardian around how nations record fatalities in very different ways. The next question is how many who have died of Corona would have died anyway, probably in fairly short order? It?s a blunt question but when you listen to accounts of people in their late 90s dying (or in one case I heard a 105 year old) then you need to ask if we?re overemphasing the impact its having. Many of those impacted would almost certainly have had underlying health conditions that probably played a very significant part here ? not COVID itself. The other question to ask, particularly of care homes is how many of those whose cause of death was listed as COVID related would have passed on anyway? I have a relative who spent their career working in social care and they said the long held view was that the majority of people sent into care homes (not all, but a majority) usually died within 3 months of moving ? we have to have the awkward conversation around if many of those in care homes would have died. The next question we have to ask is ?what is an acceptable COVID death rate?? We accept that even with a vaccine, each year thousands of people will die of flu, yet continue business as usual. What is the number we are prepared to accept for COVID and how do we decide that 19,999 is fine, 20,001 is a disaster? Ultimately this will drive all other measures? The final view we have to take is what matters more -COVID or the economy? I?ve got friends who?ve lost jobs and businesses that were doing well, because they?ve been impacted so badly by this. How many more will be, and how long will we need to pay the bill for the lockdown ? years, decades, centuries and do we accept that there will need to be huge spending cuts in essential services to pay for this ? the longer this goes on, the more damage is being done to the ability to raise funds to pay for the NHS and other essential services in the future. For whats its worth I think the time has come to treat people like grown ups and let them decide. I would advise those in high risk categories to remain indoors and isolate, but for those who are not, let them get on with their lives again because the long term costs are far too grave to warrant the price we are paying. My local postcode has, last time I checked, 6 deaths linked to COVID-19 ? how many people have died in car crashes, of smoking, drugs, violence and other issues in the same time frame ? probably a lot more. At some point we need to return to normalcy, and the sooner the better in my book.

I think we are overreacting. There arew plenty of bad bugs out there, and in time we will agree a death rate that is acceptable including this one. The harm it is doing is to our economy and community and the sooner we stop hiding away and going back to work, the more likely it is we will survive. I absolutely agree vulnerable people should shield, as they should for any nasty bug/virus - but this is getting silly now.

I've spoken to enough doctors I know socially and professionally to hear that many feel the threat is not as bad as some people make it out to be. Its hitting people who are either on their way out anyway, or its hitting people who are made worse by very poor lifestyle choices. I'm sorry, I know its a nasty illness, but lets be clear, its mainly hitting people who are already at risk of infection anyway due to underlying conditions. Haven't you noticed how many of the death figures contain thewords 'all but X had underlying health conditions' -thats the thing, it was a factor, it was not the sole factor. I genuinely think we're overreacting here and my worry is the medium term ability to pay for an NHS to cope for future outbreaks is at risk. The sooner we relax the restrictions the better, and get on with our lives.

And tens of thousands have died from other illness too. Its a nasty bug, but lets be clear, the way cause of death is recorded in the UK is where COVID-19 may have played a part, not the sole reason for death. Flu kills tens of thousands every year, but we don't react with panic. My honest view is that we've significantly over reacted here relative to the actual threat, which seems to be of risk to certain groups. I don't think the price we've paid of utterly destroying our economy is worth it, given many of those who died would quite possibly have passed on this year anyway. I'm sorry to sound harsh but I just think the response is too much, for too long and I think its not worth paying. dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When you eventually catch CV 19, can't breath and > subsequently die, don't moan, because you didn't > follow the guidance. > > The guidance wasn't published for fun, theirs a > very good reason why it's been put out. > > AS of TODAY, 28,000+ people in the UK have died > from covid 19. > > Stay at Home, Protect the NHS and Save Lives. It's > really not difficult to understand.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ll good post. Providing seating encourages and > legitimises people breaking our current > regulations. They're not regulations, they are advice and guidance. An important distinction.

Well you're a miserable person. Perhaps you should stay indoors and accept that if people are following guidelines, or trying to, there isn't that much of an issue. Sorry, but if you're going to moan about people being outside, you need to accept that by going outside you are part of the problem. lindylou Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had enough now. I started this thread about the > people sitting on the benches outside the > Palmerston on Lordship Lane. Once again, I had to > go to Lloyds pharmacy on North Ross Road to > collect a prescription. 3.20om, every bench > outside the pub was taken up by luvvies with their > takeaway coffees, 3 or 4 at each table, enjoying > the sun. Not at all bothered. Well Palmerston pub, > your benches might be fixed to the ground but > there's no excuse. Enjoy your fine. Reporting you.

Kidkruger As noted, at the one specific spot, it was not possible to enter or safely run in the road. The 4 people were walking line abreast, blocking the entire pavement for anyone - not just runners. I do my best to be as considerate as possible, I would have appreciated it if these people had done likewise.

LAst week I was running down a pavement towards four people, all 20 somethings, walking abreast across the width of the pavement next to each other - they refused change formation to allow others past, and didnt narrow up even though it wasnt possible to get in road at that spot - I politely called out 'social distancing please' to them as they refused to make room for others and they said 'but we all live together' as I was channelled to run right past them. They refused to move for anyone - very selfish. As a runner I proactively get in the road at the earliest opportunity when I see people, and I always say thank you to those who wait for me unexpectedly - but please pedestrians, you have responsibilities too...

I'd say there are plenty of side roads and quiet victorian streets that are very peaceful - I'm running most days and going nowhere near a park.

I'm running at the moment and am whereever possible trying to get into the road when I see people ahead of me. When runners or pedestrians get to close, despite my efforts, I stick my arms out to build space to force them away from me. works a treat!

I'm a regular runner and have tried to get onto the road whereever it is safe to do so. Was not impressed atthe runner this morning who was coming towards me, and told me to fuck off when I called out 'social distancing' as she passed with less than 30cm gap.

Speaking to a friend in a remote part of the country, Londoners are causing significant upset by turning up to their second homes (meaning people in the high risk age bracket) and emptying local stores of stocks in order to stockpile, creating shortages where none previously existed. A lot of local stores now refusing to sell unless you are a full time local resident.

And please don't ride on the pavements or go through red lights on pedestrian crossings - I know its scary at times, but please remember those of us on foot too!

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lidl was pretty quiet yesterday, plenty of stuff > on the shelves and no stressed shoppers or staff. > > My other half even went there on Saturday (first > time ever). He said it was busy (but it always is > on Saturday) and came home with lots of random > stuff (three months worth of mouth wash and a pile > of paracetamol, a ton of veg and enough meat to do > a BBQ to feed all of Australia! So your other half is a selfish stockpiler? You should be ashamed of him for making the problem worse.

We went to sainsburys today at 1130 to do a normal weekly shop. There was no pasta or loo paper - apparently a queue of 50 people had formed outside at 1030 and were running across store and stripped it bare in 10 minutes when it opened according to the till assistant. I am genuinely disgusted at people buying more than one pack of loo paper - there is just no need and frankly they deserve to be publicly shamed for their selfishness.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lewisham has just raised its ?120 a year charge > for residents parking to ?140 (in a year). > Southwark won't be far behind, I'm sure, as > parking charges are not covered by any central > controls. Those who voted for CPZs have just > signed blank cheques in the council's name. And > not just on their behalfs. If I recall correctly Southwarks parking charge has gone up by a total of ?5 in the last 15 years or so. As a former Lewisham Resident, in the same time frame their parking charge has almost doubled and is raised far more frequently.

You'll need to either change times, put your hands in your pockets and pay for her parking or she needs to use public transport.

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From what I understand from the communication from > the borough, when residents were asked if they > wanted a CPZ, the overwelming said no, but when > residents were asked if they would consider a CPZ > if there was a CPZ a few streets by, residents > said yes, and it was the second datat that was > used to secure the CPZ - very crafty I can understand why this question is asked - a lot of the consultations in last few years that have seen 'no' votes initially quickly turned to 'yes' votes when a CPZ was introduced nearby. Southwark found a lot of pressure to then introduce CPZs from residents who'd previously been opposed when the impact hit them. now I think they know that partial introduction often leads to quick demands for wider ones, so to save money in ther long run they try to see if support would be there in those circumstances. Sensible use of public money to be honest, rather than paying twice to ask the same question.

Parking is super simple. Register for a Southwark Parking account, pay for your tickets there then when you have a visitor, just go online and enter their details in (e.g. reg no) and its all done electronically. Takes me about 30 seconds on average when we have a visitor - not remotely hard or stressful.

How is criminal damage sticking it to the man? Oh wait its not, its a pathetic overreaction to a perfectly legitimate change.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > > > I do though feel that there was a range of > options open to the OP > > that could safely and approriately handled the > > situation and got trained professionals to > assess > > the risks and take action. > > you think that they should've got trained > professionals in? really? who? > > > > > a case of blatantly sexist > > discrimination against someone who has done > > nothing wrong > > but you don't know what they have or haven't done? > and the persons suffered no detriment > > > and is now being described on the internet in > the language that strongly implies > > they are a pervert. > > which language are you talking about that strongly > implies anything? > > > If I recognised myself in that v description and > knew I'd been present for innocent > > reasons, I would be taking legal advice now with > a view to suing. > > they'd tell you that you're wasting your time and > money and that you don't understand what slander > is I'd say that if they were concerned enough to want to report someone online, they should have been concerned enough to raise it with the police if they felt there was a genuine safety issue. The police do listen and report these incidents, and if others have been reported may have useful information or perspective that others do not. They would have been the right point of call, either as a 999 in the case of clear offences, such as filming, masturbating or acting in a manner that implied grooming (for instance), or 112 if they felt worried for other reasons. The whole point here is someone has decided that something doesnt pass the 'I need to get professionals involved' test, but does pass the 'I can make a post warning about someone' on the internet test. If it was a problem they should have taken the right steps to seek help, not just slander an innocent passer by minding his own business online. As noted above, there are plenty of perfectly innocent and legitimate reasons for an adult to be alone in a playground.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > jimlad48 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > The OP wasn't prepared to > > > > take action, but was prepared to post > without > > a > > > > shred of evidence a post that strongly > hinted > > > at > > > > dodgy behaviour for the crime of standing > by > > > > oneself. It was utterly clear what they > were > > > > hinting at. > > > > > > the OP said: > > > > > > "I was with my baby and didn't feel confident > > > questioning him, although i now regret that" > > > > > > "I know it seems over the top but i felt > > > uncomfortable" > > > > > > you're all for coming up with reasons that > some > > > one might hang out in a play area in breach > of > > the > > > bye laws, but you're not prepared to come up > > with > > > any reasons why a parent of a baby might be > > > uncomfortable or lack confidence? > > > > > > that's odd to me > > > > > > Simple - the parent could have rung the police > > then, or on their return. If its that serious > then > > do something about it - don't just log onto EDF > > and cast aspersions on another person minding > > their own business. > > so you know the identity of the other person? > > and that they were just minding their business? > > I guess you do as you're accusing someone of > slander (wrongly) > > I read it for what it said, a parent feeling > uncomfortable I don't know the other person. I do though feel that there was a range of options open to the OP that could safely and approriately handled the situation and got trained professionals to assess the risks and take action. Posting 'something doesnt feel right' around a person, on the face of it, doing nothing other than minding their own business is a totally innapropriate response. As noted in my original posts, there would be indicators that would absolutely warrant concern (and a 999 call), but as none of these seem to have happened, this just seems to be a case of blatantly sexist discrimination against someone who has done nothing wrong and is now being described on the internet in the language that strongly implies they are a pervert. If I recognised myself in that description and knew I'd been present for innocent reasons, I would be taking legal advice now with a view to suing.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The OP wasn't prepared to > > take action, but was prepared to post without a > > shred of evidence a post that strongly hinted > at > > dodgy behaviour for the crime of standing by > > oneself. It was utterly clear what they were > > hinting at. > > the OP said: > > "I was with my baby and didn't feel confident > questioning him, although i now regret that" > > "I know it seems over the top but i felt > uncomfortable" > > you're all for coming up with reasons that some > one might hang out in a play area in breach of the > bye laws, but you're not prepared to come up with > any reasons why a parent of a baby might be > uncomfortable or lack confidence? > > that's odd to me Simple - the parent could have rung the police then, or on their return. If its that serious then do something about it - don't just log onto EDF and cast aspersions on another person minding their own business.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as a parent, I think that it is right to be > cautious of people hanging around a playground > without children (in breach of bye laws) > > as I would advise caution if someone is e.g. > hanging around a toilet block (or in a toilet > block!) without any apparent reason > > to suggest that someone has been slanderously > identified as a paedo is stupidly OTT and to > criticise someone for not phoning the police or > 'appropriately challenging' him is obvs BS The fact is that you wouldnt do this for a woman. There are plenty of very innocuous reasons to be at the site by yourself. The OP wasn't prepared to take action, but was prepared to post without a shred of evidence a post that strongly hinted at dodgy behaviour for the crime of standing by oneself. It was utterly clear what they were hinting at.