Coronavirus

[Drummond]

Well that is one way to reduce numbers. If everyone is 'essential' then there isn't a real pause.

Bear in mind that the reduction in train numbers reduces the ability of passengers to usefully travel. If you looked at the photo, all you'll have seen is a picture that's typical of a rush hour where, normally, far more trains would be in the system. Under normal travel conditions, and normal numbers travelling, the rush hour would itself ensure that distancing was impossible. The point is that since far fewer people ARE travelling, putting more trains on, WOULD allow for distancing, where in normal times, it wouldn't.

[Kathianne]

Bear in mind that the reduction in train numbers reduces the ability of passengers to usefully travel. If you looked at the photo, all you'll have seen is a picture that's typical of a rush hour where, normally, far more trains would be in the system. Under normal travel conditions, and normal numbers travelling, the rush hour would itself ensure that distancing was impossible. The point is that since far fewer people ARE travelling, putting more trains on, WOULD allow for distancing, where in normal times, it wouldn't.

I live in a state that isn't truly adhering to the stay at home. The schools and government offices are shuttered, but not most businesses with the exception of sit down restaurant service. National chains have closed in some cases, shuttering the malls for the most part, though they weren't the gathering places they used to be.

My daughter-in-law, a domestic cases attorney is working at home. Judges are too. The only in person meetings are when violence is involved and a party needs to be incarcerated. Even then, the DIL does not go to court, but is skyping. The judge and cops are there, as well as the defendant.

IL is serious about the stay at home, they are weeks behind NY.

[NightTrain]

Bear in mind that the reduction in train numbers reduces the ability of passengers to usefully travel. If you looked at the photo, all you'll have seen is a picture that's typical of a rush hour where, normally, far more trains would be in the system. Under normal travel conditions, and normal numbers travelling, the rush hour would itself ensure that distancing was impossible. The point is that since far fewer people ARE travelling, putting more trains on, WOULD allow for distancing, where in normal times, it wouldn't.

I can think of few things more foolhardy than having a Muslim in charge of safety for a large modern western city.

He doesn't need to strap on the old vest. He can achieve a better result by forcing you all into crowded public transportation. Legally.

[Drummond]

I live in a state that isn't truly adhering to the stay at home. The schools and government offices are shuttered, but not most businesses with the exception of sit down restaurant service. National chains have closed in some cases, shuttering the malls for the most part, though they weren't the gathering places they used to be.

My daughter-in-law, a domestic cases attorney is working at home. Judges are too. The only in person meetings are when violence is involved and a party needs to be incarcerated. Even then, the DIL does not go to court, but is skyping. The judge and cops are there, as well as the defendant.

IL is serious about the stay at home, they are weeks behind NY.

As you know, I was a supporter of our Government's 'Generate a herd immunity' approach. Scientifically, it might've been sound ... but, it would have been expensive in terms of lives lost. I accept that.

So, I'm a convert to the 'lockdown ... starve the virus of carriers' approach, now, instead.

The more comprehensive the terms of lockdown, the more they're kept to (to the extent it's possible) .. the better.

[Drummond]

I can think of few things more foolhardy than having a Muslim in charge of safety for a large modern western city.

He doesn't need to strap on the old vest. He can achieve a better result by forcing you all into crowded public transportation. Legally.

I believe I can provide you with unquestionable proof of what you say !! This was Khan's attitude, earlier this month. See:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/coron...FrKt7rnsJLEVi4

Sadiq Khan has said there is ‘no risk’ of people catching coronavirus while travelling on buses or trains in the capital. The Mayor of London has urged people to continue to use the Tube and go to concerts despite the outbreak of the disease.

So far in the UK, 39 people have tested positive to the virus. Mr Khan said it is ‘important we don’t spread panic or alarm’ and urged politicians to ‘reply upon the best advice we have from the public health experts and from the chief medical officer’. He told Good Morning Britain today: ‘There is no risk in using the Tube or buses or other forms of public transport or going to a concert.’

It comes as a City Hall source said the mayor was unhappy to have been excluded from the government’s emergency Cobra meeting to discuss coronavirus yesterday. The source said people might think it was ‘a bit strange’ he was not invited, given the size of London, its status as a global travel hub, its large transport network and its sport and entertainment venues.

Mr Khan is due to meet senior officials and health specialists from across the capital to review preparations for dealing with the outbreak, but said: ‘I want to reassure Londoners that although the risk of coronavirus to individuals remains low, we are not complacent. ‘I’m in regular contact with Public Health England to ensure we have the latest advice and to monitor the impact on our city.’

Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan accused the London mayor of ‘spreading mixed messages’ over his relaxed tone. He interrupted Mr Khan and said: ‘No disrespect but how on earth can you say in a city of 12 million people there is no risk given that we know it’s here and it’s beginning to spread here?’ The Mayor of London answered: ‘Because I rely upon the advice I receive from Public Health England the chief medical officer and the advice is you’re not going to catch it if you’re washing your hands regularly. ‘On the Tube, on a daily basis, there are five million journeys and on our buses, six million. Many of the concert venues in London have crowds of between 5,000 and 20,000.

Khan has persisted with his 'relaxed' attitude to human life, evidently, by maintaining 'sardine tin' conditions on those trains still operating ... and refusing all criticism of his actions.

[NightTrain]

I believe I can provide you with unquestionable proof of what you say !! This was Khan's attitude, earlier this month. See:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/coron...FrKt7rnsJLEVi4



Khan has persisted with his 'relaxed' attitude to human life, evidently, by maintaining 'sardine tin' conditions on those trains still operating ... and refusing all criticism of his actions.

That's.... appalling.

You have a jihadist running the show. Has no one sounded the alarm?

Or is everyone in your media afraid of being labeled an Islamophobe?

[Drummond]

That's.... appalling.

You have a jihadist running the show. Has no one sounded the alarm?

Or is everyone in your media afraid of being labeled an Islamophobe?

They'd be afraid, but for good reason. No media outlet could possibly afford to be seen as taking a stance suggestive of outright anti-Islamic 'prejudice'. If such a charge were made, and if it could be made to stick ... that would be actionable in law. Public anti-Islamic stances, or statements made attributable from such a motivation, are illegal here.

All that can be done is to question Khan from a purely pragmatic stance, on a case-by-case basis.

[NightTrain]

They'd be afraid, but for good reason. No media outlet could possibly afford to be seen as taking a stance suggestive of outright anti-Islamic 'prejudice'. If such a charge were made, and if it could be made to stick ... that would be actionable in law. Public anti-Islamic stances, or statements made attributable from such a motivation, are illegal here.

All that can be done is to question Khan from a purely pragmatic stance, on a case-by-case basis.

You guys really need to adopt the equivalent of our 1st Amendment for yourselves.

It comes in real handy when you need to call a spade a spade.

[Drummond]

You guys really need to adopt the equivalent of our 1st Amendment for yourselves.

It comes in real handy when you need to call a spade a spade.

That's not exactly likely here ... any law or stricture carrying legal weight, surely couldn't be adopted, without first eradicating any law that would stand in its way ? That kind of action would create civil unrest, I'd think ... if anyone dared try it. Unfortunately, our politicians want votes. Any measure such as that would be a vote loser.

Civil unrest - in these, of all times, is the last thing we need (all you'd need was a crowd of protesters capable of breathing heavily ..).

I'm not even sure it'd work. Opponents would accuse anybody attacking anybody else on grounds having as their origin any form of religion, could be accused of doing so to promote their own, as 'superior' in essence to the one targeted .. which would surely defy the 1st Amendment, if we ever instituted it ourselves, since doesn't that Amendment guarantee parity of religions in the eyes of the law ?

With all due respect, if we ever did come up with our own first Amendment (not likely !) ... we'd have to frame it so that it wasn't open to that sort of challenge.

[NightTrain]

That's not exactly likely here ... any law or stricture carrying legal weight, surely couldn't be adopted, without first eradicating any law that would stand in its way ? That kind of action would create civil unrest, I'd think ... if anyone dared try it. Unfortunately, our politicians want votes. Any measure such as that would be a vote loser.

Civil unrest - in these, of all times, is the last thing we need (all you'd need was a crowd of protesters capable of breathing heavily ..).

I'm not even sure it'd work. Opponents would accuse anybody attacking anybody else on grounds having as their origin any form of religion, could be accused of doing so to promote their own, as 'superior' in essence to the one targeted .. which would surely defy the 1st Amendment, if we ever instituted it ourselves, since doesn't that Amendment guarantee parity of religions in the eyes of the law ?

With all due respect, if we ever did come up with our own first Amendment (not likely !) ... we'd have to frame it so that it wasn't open to that sort of challenge.

Oh, undoubtedly it would render many anti-free speech laws you have on the books invalid.

Honestly, it's such a natural thing for we Americans to say what we think that it's kind of mind boggling that other 'free' nations don't have that basic right.

I mean, there are limits to our Free Speech, such as yelling 'Fire!' in a theater or threatening the President's life or terrorist threats... but calling out the Mayor of London for being a Muslim bent on killing the very infidels he's supposed to be trying to protect would be perfectly legal.

Yeah, it would be a large undertaking for you, but I think it's the right thing to do.

Maybe now that you're free of the EU, you guys can discuss something like that.

[Drummond]

Oh, undoubtedly it would render many anti-free speech laws you have on the books invalid.

Honestly, it's such a natural thing for we Americans to say what we think that it's kind of mind boggling that other 'free' nations don't have that basic right.

I mean, there are limits to our Free Speech, such as yelling 'Fire!' in a theater or threatening the President's life or terrorist threats... but calling out the Mayor of London for being a Muslim bent on killing the very infidels he's supposed to be trying to protect would be perfectly legal.

Yeah, it would be a large undertaking for you, but I think it's the right thing to do.

Maybe now that you're free of the EU, you guys can discuss something like that.

A nice thought. Me, I'd be all in favour of it.

Unfortunately, being shot of the EU and its suffocating control-freakery still doesn't nullify our own laws. We'd still have to go through the process of making the necessary changes. Just trying would undoubtedly create the civil unrest I'm talking about. Just our own, 'home grown' Muslims (i.e those on our territory) would make sure of it (backed by every Leftie out there !).

A pack of aggravated heavy-breathing Muslims descending on peoples' neighbourhoods, is something we don't need right now.

Sadiq Khan wouldn't even need to pitch it on a religious level, anyway (he probably WOULD, for maximum effect ... he just wouldn't have to). All he'd need do is take out a civil action for defamation of character, putting his accuser in the position of proving that Mr Khan's motivations, whether misguided or not, were intentionally harmful, and not just poor judgment.

He wins that case (?) .. he gets a big payout !!

This is the UK. I promise you, we take slander, libel, very seriously here. Sadiq Khan might not only profit from taking his accuser to court, but end up ruining the reputation of the accuser, too. At minimum, our Lefties would villify the accuser in perpetuity.

[NightTrain]

A nice thought. Me, I'd be all in favour of it.

Unfortunately, being shot of the EU and its suffocating control-freakery still doesn't nullify our own laws. We'd still have to go through the process of making the necessary changes. Just trying would undoubtedly create the civil unrest I'm talking about. Just our own, 'home grown' Muslims (i.e those on our territory) would make sure of it (backed by every Leftie out there !).

A pack of aggravated heavy-breathing Muslims descending on peoples' neighbourhoods, is something we don't need right now.

Sadiq Khan wouldn't even need to pitch it on a religious level, anyway (he probably WOULD, for maximum effect ... he just wouldn't have to). All he'd need do is take out a civil action for defamation of character, putting his accuser in the position of proving that Mr Khan's motivations, whether misguided or not, were intentionally harmful, and not just poor judgment.

He wins that case (?) .. he gets a big payout !!

This is the UK. I promise you, we take slander, libel, very seriously here. Sadiq Khan might not only profit from taking his accuser to court, but end up ruining the reputation of the accuser, too. At minimum, our Lefties would villify the accuser in perpetuity.

Bleh.

I just thank my lucky stars that I was born an American.

[Drummond]

Bleh.

I just thank my lucky stars that I was born an American.

I don't blame you.

In fact, I envy you.

But there's a warning in all of this. We've had generation after generation of the Left exercising its power (if in Government) or influence (if not) in this place. The Muslims we have here would never have established the foothold they did, had our Left not been able to facilitate it all.

The warning is, simply: make SURE your Left never achieve the stranglehold over your society, as they have over here. Yours would absolutely love to turn the US into a clone of the UK ... they'd consider they'd won their ideological battle against the spirit of freedom that drives you.

Gun control could be one pivotal issue .. it'd cut against a fundamental right, and defy your Constitution. Once defied successfully ... the precedent to go further is set, ripe for exploitation. You'd be on the path to become as we are ... essentially weaponless, dependent on the almighty State, having your thoughts and attitudes crafted for you.

So don't take your freedoms for granted. Unless you somehow utterly discredit your Left, unless you can kill it off ... your freedoms remain under threat.

I promise you that I'm right.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

So, we went from 281 cases, to 357, and now 631, the vast bulk of which are over in Milwaukee, 333, but we're shooting up fast here in Wisconsin with 7 dead.

Have 1 case in my county finally, and 3 in the county just east of me. Our county is quite large, and hopefully the one case is way down in Platteville at the college or something, miles away from me. Still no reported cases in the county to my north.

But I think what's driving the numbers up here so fast is simply testing. We've had people walking around infected and didn't know it, and we're just finding out they were. Hopefully our "Safe At Home" lockdown is at least halting the spread now.

[Drummond]

So, we went from 281 cases, to 357, and now 631, the vast bulk of which are over in Milwaukee, 333, but we're shooting up fast here in Wisconsin with 7 dead.

Have 1 case in my county finally, and 3 in the county just east of me. Our county is quite large, and hopefully the one case is way down in Platteville at the college or something, miles away from me. Still no reported cases in the county to my north.

But I think what's driving the numbers up here so fast is simply testing. We've had people walking around infected and didn't know it, and we're just finding out they were. Hopefully our "Safe At Home" lockdown is at least halting the spread now.

Interesting in its way (- sort of ? -) is -- according to the article below -- that we in the UK think we've finally tracked down our 'patient zero' ... the very first person in the UK to be on UK territory and be infected by Covid-19.

Perhaps rather more interesting is just how long ago the infection existed within our borders. Turns out that this case is weeks earlier than the first recorded one. This goes back to MID January, throwing us back at least two weeks earlier for the first case than we thought was true.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...id=mailsignout

A family from East Sussex may have been Britain’s first coronavirus victims, catching the virus in mid-January after visiting an Austrian ski resort which is now under investigation for allegedly covering up the early outbreak.

If confirmed with official tests, it would mean the outbreak in Britain started more than a month earlier than currently thought.

As things stand, the first recorded UK case was January 31 and the earliest documented incidence of transmission within the UK occurred on February 28.

IT consultant Daren Bland, 50, was skiing in Ischgl, Austria from January 15 to 19 with three friends, two from Denmark and one from Minnesota in America.

All three men fell ill on their return with classic coronavirus symptoms and Mr Bland passed on the infection to his wife and children in Maresfield, east Sussex.

Note also the reference of the Minnesota man, who returned to America; again, back in January.

Back in mid-January, when, presumably, our infection-passing truly began, Covid-19 wasn't even a news item. Here, all our media could talk about was Brexit ! So far as I recall, there was no mention of this Coronavirus until into February, and by then, even though we weren't recording any at the time, cross-infection here must've been well underway; and from the nature of the lack of awareness of it, already unstoppable by then.

Perhaps your own, true, 'patient zero' was that Minnesota-based individual ?

Or, maybe it was being passed around from elsewhere in Austria, undetected for what it was (& unreported when observed, anyway !), and other returning American tourists brought their infection back even earlier than this ?