Weston Super Saint

Doesn't that stem back to the original decision of the Government though - if they had decided to lock down the entire country from Day 1, not let anyone in or anyone out (like North Korea), then yes, you could claim 'unlucky'. We didn't, we chose to allow the virus to spread - and that is still the current goal as far as I'm aware - but control it to the point that the health service does not become over run. You also need to add in the fact that the vast majority of cases that we have had in England - and by extrapolation the largest number of deaths - have been in London. There aren't many other countries that have a similar sized 'super city' and those that do, even less can be considered an 'international hub' for travelling. By it's very nature, London attracts more people from more countries every day than most other countries, which is why the virus spread so quickly. Yes, we had more time to prepare as you mention, but prepare for what? You are talking about deaths from a virus that has no known cure. The preparation was spent ensuring that medical facilities were available for everyone that needed them - there has been nothing to say this was not succesful and at no point did the NHS become overwhelmed to deny people the treatment they needed. Not sure what else could have been prepared for, even with the benefit of hindsight. What 'bad luck' would you like to lay blame for at the Government's door?

The claim was quite clear that Government policies caused people to die. Still not had anything posted that clarifies which government policy caused the deaths. Feel free to post something constructive.

NHS England advice on maintaining cancer treatment dated 30th March 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/C0119-_Maintaining-cancer-services-_-letter-to-trusts.pdf

A valid point - was it a Government policy or something put in place by the NHS trust?

Which patients are the ones that die, the 'sickest' or patients not in that category? Again, nobody was denied treatment that caused them to die - the claim made earlier was that Government Policy caused people to die. Nobody has posted any evidence of this claim yet....

that 'spiritual home' will have to live without them again

lol, what a shame

no he isn't

Nothing in there that disputes my point that not one person was denied the treatment they needed - in fact it states that the sickest patients were admitted for hospital treatment.

Is that why not one single patient has been denied the treatment they needed during this epidemic?

1-1 - but the mongs in the car park are truly disturbing.

Perhaps we could. Did we have the same facilities as those countries to use the same roadmaps?

Really? You appreciate that between the two 'polar options' are an almost infinite number of options that exist in an almost infinite number of combinations. I'd love to see the roadmap you created for dealing with the virus in March which would have been absolutely perfect and couldn't have a single criticism made about it! After all, that seems to be your perspective of how the Government should have handled the situation!

And yet, you seem to find it inconceivable that on here people can have their own opinions on what that means and how to achieve it and that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion on how that should happen are 'old and white' and 'racist' 'right wingers'.

Wasn't called either. Wasn't me that 'made it out'.

'Juanita'?

I assume you missed the bit about two 'polar options'.

Yes

1. Was that really a 'Government policy'? 2. Have you any evidence whatsoever that links the lack of community testing to more people dying?

The Government had two polar options : 1. Do nothing. Virus will spread, people will die, herd immunity will eventually kick in. End result life carries on as usual for the vast majority of people. 2. Lock everyone up from day 1 to ensure the virus doesn't spread (people are stupid so it would still get around to a lesser degree) until a vaccine is developed, then start a full immunisation programme. End result is economic ruination without a doubt, plus most likely huge civil unrest half way through once people realise their economic lives had been ruined! Essentially the Government was stuck between a rock and a hard place - as any UK government would have been - so chose some sort of hybrid half way house. End result is that anyone can pick holes in what they did or didn't do with the benefit of hindsight, especially given the unknown nature of the virus which meant that policies had to be made up 'on the fly'.

Does that count though? Even the Guardian are calling him a 'black lives matter protester' in the title of their article. Surely it should be a 'George Floyd protester'?

The Government policy was to ensure that the NHS had sufficient capacity to deal with the outbreak of the virus, thus ensuring that enough ventilators were available for patients who needed them. Despite a seemingly 'shaky' start to that, I do not believe that there was one single patient that DIDN'T receive the care and equipment that they needed during the first outbreak. Indeed, a number of 'temporary' wards were constructed around the country providing thousands of extra beds, very few of which were ever utilised. So, as a direct result of Government policy I would say 'no'. I am, however, more than happy to look at any evidence you have that contradicts that and proves that more people died as a direct result of Government policy.

Sorry, who's being obtuse? The Premier League has invented its own Black Lives Matter campaign (it even says so in the link you posted). That is not the one that organised protest marches in London.

Not any more! The new line is that there were NO BLM marches, they were George Floyd marches / protests. Give it another couple of weeks and BLM will probably be classed as fake news that the racists invented.

I may have missed it, where is the white power sign?