- Tuesday 3rd March 2020, 9:43pm [Edited]
- United Kingdom
- 7,068 posts
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd March 2020, 5:51 PM
That's incorrect. It can live for several days on surfaces.
Oh well thanks for the clarification which proves that wildly different information on every aspect is coming from different places. We should just have the BBC. I suppose we are supposed to take note of the WHO stuff more than any other but as I said in my Icke post WHO is at the very heart of the lizard race. Consequently it has more than two hands in the political reframing. Not that there is anything logical in the current application of that angle. I will comment on that a bit later.
More practically, it seems to me from what you have said - and if that WHO lizardry is to be believed - that the point I made about compulsory gloves wearing is even stronger. Why is no one telling people they must wear gloves when they go out and then wash them with washing powder every night? Best to have seven pairs of them actually. That way you don't have to worry about wearing them wet. And I still maintain that my cotton hanky thing is right. A simple thing that in the 1970s we all had and humbly kept in our pocket. What they are saying tonight is that those without a tissue should just use their sleeve which proves how barking everyone has become in recent decades, including health professionals.
As I said, a lot of this still doesn't ring true. I will confess that I found the UK Government's two senior advisers today reasonably impressive overall. In contrast, I genuinely wasn't sure what to make of Johnson but then I never am. I have done risk assessments and know that the worst case scenarios for anything are deliberately ridiculous, ie the worst case scenario for building a high speed train link to Birmingham could be written down as "NOBODY would use it as the cost of tickets would be too prohibitive" when that is clearly not the case. So, yes, I can see what they are about here, sort of.
But they claimed that they were in a phase re coronavirus of "contain and delay" with the view that the delay part will cleverly shift pressures on the NHS to the time of year when it is least under strain. This part wasn't contrived. It is how they are genuinely thinking - delay it until summer - but I doubt that it is in any way rational. My rational brain - yes there is one and it sits in me alongside all manner of madness - tells me that they would be doing "a delay thing" anyway.
For why would you not try to contain it at anytime, irrespective of the NHS loads at any time of the year, so as to effectively delay it out of existence? I mean, are they seriously saying that if they get to August and the figures are still surprisingly very low that they are going to get people to deliberately pass it on quickly? That is, so the NHS can deal with it all in September rather than during the flu season in December? I think not - unless they are even madder than I feared.