I think that kind of sums up where the real problems layed, not with going out and doing your normal things, it was close contact with dodgy places and people, instead of restricting move ment outside which was basically good for everyone.
Except @KT53 they have people paid to do such disaster recovery studies and make recommendations and successive governments have chosen not to follow those guideline and not to invest in recovery measures.
I thought Sars was handled correctly and not with exaggerated and useless measures on the general population?
I remember during a discussion on Jeremy Vines radio programme where the setup was essentially trying to turn the ppe fiasco on the government, with regards to care homes. The first caller said they were a ppe and cleaning product supplier for care homes and stated that they never bought more than a week in advance and would always buy the cheapest stuff possible. Jeremy seemed a little taken a back by this but the next caller had the same job and the exact same experience and I believe someone else said the same thing. It might have been hard to provide ppe at times but it seems that the priority of the care homes was at odds with what was needed in a pandemic anyway.
I never even knew Sars was happening, I think it just pretty much was contained in the far East,, wasn't it. Or is that what you mean, they should have kept covid in China.
Worked for a few months at the onset of the covid scare, had to wear a mask, but took it off in my office. Retired that July. We did car shows with crowds of people, never caught anything.
There were about confirmed 8,500 cases, the majority in the Far East, but Canada had about 250, and many countries had some, though only a handful. Canada was the 3rd or 4th most affected place,
Nope, and yes. Someone visiting from Asia brought it to Toronto and then spread it around a bit. They shut some large hospitals but let the rest of us go about our business as usual. And yes, Asia (that time India/China), keep your diseases in your country please!
I have been busy watching the tennis, so, mercifully, normal "news" has been passing me by. However, it seems Rachel Reeves was tearful at PMQs. I don't agree with her decisions or the premise (growth, growth, growth, at any cost to society, to appease the very wealthy) she bases these upon, but there's no denying it is a full-on job being Chancellor and she has aged hugely in the last yr. I feel quite sympathetic towards her.
@ViewAhead I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy to somebody who is destroying the economy and removing support for pensioners. At least it proves women can multitask. By contrast Starmer can't do anything properly.
What happened to the old saying, if you cant stand the heat get out of the Kitchen, not sure why she was crying, they say it was personal. I dont think she will go the distance and I do think she is taking some of the flak for Starmer, he seems unfazed by any of the things that are going on. PMQs is just a joke anyway, it reminds me of the muppet show TBH. Growth growth growth, I'm not sure where that fits in, its mostly spend spend spend and to hell with the consequences the little people will pick up the bill.
Now this is an interesting story. Judges order 'robust' inquiry into MI5 false evidence exposed by BBC Bet the shredders and incinerators at MI5 are working overtime. Moral: do not piss the judiciary off by telling porkies.
