Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would you like him to be “made accountable”?" Well, in the corporate world there are "manslaughter charges" and "collective negligence". Whether these exist politically, I don't know. But I do feel there should be no sweeping general political immunity for any public servant regardless of office held. Indeed, the PM should be held to the highest standards possible and probity should be the mandatory standard of the role. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would you like him to be “made accountable”? Well, in the corporate world there are "manslaughter charges" and "collective negligence". Whether these exist politically, I don't know. But I do feel there should be no sweeping general political immunity for any public servant regardless of office held. Indeed, the PM should be held to the highest standards possible and probity should be the mandatory standard of the role." So should these extend to the other political parties and leaders/politicians who supported the government’s action? What about the “scientists” and civil servants? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would you like him to be “made accountable”?" Would like him never to be able to hold any Government position for starters. The relatives of the covid victims to bring a civil action against him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So should these extend to the other political parties and leaders/politicians who supported the government’s action? What about the “scientists” and civil servants?" I'm not a Barrister, so I cannot answer that. Ask a Barrister. The buck has to end somewhere however, otherwise where is the accountability ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place." I mean, they were needed, for the people you mentioned who didn't die. Trashing the economy was just a bonus for the Tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would you like him to be “made accountable”? Would like him never to be able to hold any Government position for starters. The relatives of the covid victims to bring a civil action against him. " How about people who lost their jobs due to lockdowns, businesses that were closed down, people who couldn’t get health treatment for non Covid issues, people who had adverse reactions to vaccinations, people whose schooling and university education was destroyed? Should they all sue Johnson too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place." Indeed and we continue to pay the price with humongous government debt, high interest rates, inflation, no healthcare, and ongoing excess deaths, which oddly the government and media don’t seem particularly interested in talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watched the car crash yesterday and still wondering how on Earth he got to be PM. Lies after lies after lies. Will go down as one of the worse PM ever. Still more of this idiots version of events and lies today. Hope some way he is held accountable." .any particular points? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place." There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion." Why? It is a perfectly valid statement. Covid could have killed or maimed any of us, but the likelihood was low amd it seems that genetics played a part as well as age. If we'd not locked down it would have been far less damaging to society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would you like him to be “made accountable”? Well, in the corporate world there are "manslaughter charges" and "collective negligence". Whether these exist politically, I don't know. But I do feel there should be no sweeping general political immunity for any public servant regardless of office held. Indeed, the PM should be held to the highest standards possible and probity should be the mandatory standard of the role. So should these extend to the other political parties and leaders/politicians who supported the government’s action? What about the “scientists” and civil servants?" Only the decision makers should be held accountable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place." And if one of you two were amongst that larger number? OR children or other lives ones? Your sentiment is simply too awful for words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. And if one of you two were amongst that larger number? OR children or other lives ones? Your sentiment is simply too awful for words." Ooops, other loved ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Outstanding that some blame him for all that happened. Covid was not nice but as pandemics go it was a pussy cat of a pandemic. Some in the UK need to get over this accountability and blame culture regarding regardig Covid, the next pandemic could kill over 50% of the population, rendering goverment and civil structure useless, what then blame someone because the death pits were not dug deep enough to bury the dead. It was a pandemic, people died (not that many) end of story until the next pandemic." Where do you even start with that statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion." Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary" Absolutely correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct " Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement." Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true "If that's what you take from that then that is your choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true
If that's what you take from that then that is your choice."Is there any other way to take it? Did Sweden have less deaths per capita than the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true
If that's what you take from that then that is your choice.
Is there any other way to take it?
Did Sweden have less deaths per capita than the UK?"The point is you are not comparing apples with apples. Sweden has twice the land mass of the UK (roughly) with seventh of the population, therefore for a transmitable disease it is harder for the bugger to go from host to host. Perhaps you are thinking my argument is binary, one right way one wrong way. My argument is not binary, my argument is that no lock down may have worked for Sweden however the reasoning they took that decision can not be transferable to the UK or similar highly populated countries. There is no right or wrong across the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true
If that's what you take from that then that is your choice.
Is there any other way to take it?
Did Sweden have less deaths per capita than the UK?
The point is you are not comparing apples with apples.
Sweden has twice the land mass of the UK (roughly) with seventh of the population, therefore for a transmitable disease it is harder for the bugger to go from host to host.
Perhaps you are thinking my argument is binary, one right way one wrong way.
My argument is not binary, my argument is that no lock down may have worked for Sweden however the reasoning they took that decision can not be transferable to the UK or similar highly populated countries.
There is no right or wrong across the world."I am not comparing anything. I'm simply stating that according to your math and my own. Sweden had fewer deaths. The poster made a statement that was correct. When you speak about landmass, you also need to consider concentration. For instance the population density in Stockholm isn't too dissimilar to London. As I stated previously, there are barely any 'lockdown advocates' who want to use your nuance when they speak of 'UK have one of the highest covid deaths'. It seems like it's a case of not comparing apples with apples. When it suits of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true
If that's what you take from that then that is your choice.
Is there any other way to take it?
Did Sweden have less deaths per capita than the UK?
The point is you are not comparing apples with apples.
Sweden has twice the land mass of the UK (roughly) with seventh of the population, therefore for a transmitable disease it is harder for the bugger to go from host to host.
Perhaps you are thinking my argument is binary, one right way one wrong way.
My argument is not binary, my argument is that no lock down may have worked for Sweden however the reasoning they took that decision can not be transferable to the UK or similar highly populated countries.
There is no right or wrong across the world.
I am not comparing anything.
I'm simply stating that according to your math and my own. Sweden had fewer deaths. The poster made a statement that was correct.
When you speak about landmass, you also need to consider concentration. For instance the population density in Stockholm isn't too dissimilar to London.
As I stated previously, there are barely any 'lockdown advocates' who want to use your nuance when they speak of 'UK have one of the highest covid deaths'.
It seems like it's a case of not comparing apples with apples. When it suits of course. "Happy to consider concentration therefore almost 50% of Swedend population is rural, again harder for a transmissible disease to transmit. 9 of the 13 highest regions of deaths where around Stockholm. More people more transmition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place." So what you are saying is basically. As long as your ok it doesn't matter how many people died? I'm sure those people who lost loved one's wholeheartedly agree 
Just to remind you it's an enquiry not a trial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true
If that's what you take from that then that is your choice.
Is there any other way to take it?
Did Sweden have less deaths per capita than the UK?
The point is you are not comparing apples with apples.
Sweden has twice the land mass of the UK (roughly) with seventh of the population, therefore for a transmitable disease it is harder for the bugger to go from host to host.
Perhaps you are thinking my argument is binary, one right way one wrong way.
My argument is not binary, my argument is that no lock down may have worked for Sweden however the reasoning they took that decision can not be transferable to the UK or similar highly populated countries.
There is no right or wrong across the world.
I am not comparing anything.
I'm simply stating that according to your math and my own. Sweden had fewer deaths. The poster made a statement that was correct.
When you speak about landmass, you also need to consider concentration. For instance the population density in Stockholm isn't too dissimilar to London.
As I stated previously, there are barely any 'lockdown advocates' who want to use your nuance when they speak of 'UK have one of the highest covid deaths'.
It seems like it's a case of not comparing apples with apples. When it suits of course.
Happy to consider concentration therefore almost 50% of Swedend population is rural, again harder for a transmissible disease to transmit.
9 of the 13 highest regions of deaths where around Stockholm. More people more transmition. "Now unless we're saying all covid deaths in Sweden happened in Stockholm, we can say that London fared worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he is still peddling the line that lockdowns were necessary. In hindsight, they weren't needed at all. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy and the survivors would have been in a much better place. There would have been 2 or 3 times the number of deaths but it would not have trashed the economy Someday someone will remind you, you wrote that. I only hope in the interim you have a chance to reflect and change your opion. Sweden highlights that lockdowns weren't necessary Absolutely correct Eh not quite Sweden has 10 million of a population with 25k in deaths Uk has 70k so 7×25=175k in deaths. Roughly 50k behind the 250k reported. However you have to factor in quite a few anomalies. 1. Geography of population 2. Age profile 3. Healthcare 4. Age of population 5. General fitness of population pre-covid So whilst at first glance your statement has merit, a deeper dive throws scorn on the flash statement. Its crazy you know. These 5 points are never taken into consideration whenever someone wants to talk about the 'massive' amount of deaths the UK faced. However, using your calculations Sweden are still quite far behind the UK. You kinda proved the statement true
If that's what you take from that then that is your choice.
Is there any other way to take it?
Did Sweden have less deaths per capita than the UK?
The point is you are not comparing apples with apples.
Sweden has twice the land mass of the UK (roughly) with seventh of the population, therefore for a transmitable disease it is harder for the bugger to go from host to host.
Perhaps you are thinking my argument is binary, one right way one wrong way.
My argument is not binary, my argument is that no lock down may have worked for Sweden however the reasoning they took that decision can not be transferable to the UK or similar highly populated countries.
There is no right or wrong across the world.
I am not comparing anything.
I'm simply stating that according to your math and my own. Sweden had fewer deaths. The poster made a statement that was correct.
When you speak about landmass, you also need to consider concentration. For instance the population density in Stockholm isn't too dissimilar to London.
As I stated previously, there are barely any 'lockdown advocates' who want to use your nuance when they speak of 'UK have one of the highest covid deaths'.
It seems like it's a case of not comparing apples with apples. When it suits of course.
Happy to consider concentration therefore almost 50% of Swedend population is rural, again harder for a transmissible disease to transmit.
9 of the 13 highest regions of deaths where around Stockholm. More people more transmition.
Now unless we're saying all covid deaths in Sweden happened in Stockholm, we can say that London fared worse.
"This could be a long long day  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
