- This topic has 81 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Also someone at work thinks football could be off for longer as he points out to me, even under closed doors the sport is a contact sport.
Tend to agree although if all players are tested before each match as along as the result is negative then can they not play?
To finish this season though may not happen as they cannot even agree how to do it. Neutral venues or not etc?
Just because the lefty’s and snowflakes didn’t like the fact Cheltenham went ahead, doesn’t make it a wrong decision, I’m glad it went ahead.
As for Ascot heath, should be fine as entry to it is controlled on race days anyway.Not wishing to burst any bubbles, but the sport of racing may pay for the now considered mistake that was Cheltenham.
Not sure if we can really blame Cheltenham here. It was our government that mishandled the situation initially. Cheltenham started on 10th March and Boris said to British Public then life must go on as normal, remember? So Cheltenham like any other business went on normally. I myself went to a pub after work packed with people on 12th March. Only the week after Govt panicked and asked for lockdown, but it was too late already.
Yes of course the BHA were going to go ahead with Cheltenham if the Government let it. At the time I did have slight doubts as the festival neared mainly due to what was happening in Italy. The government with their scientific advisers had a lot more information than me and gave the go ahead so why shouldn’t it. A fairly huge mistake in a mounting plethora of mistakes. It’s funny (well no it’s not) how the two countries/leaders who took the pig-headed attitude of it won’t happen to us have had the highest death tolls.
I was another here sat in pubs four afternoons solid watching this meeting. Luckily (well not to my knowledge) I did not contact anything.
Just because the lefty’s and snowflakes didn’t like the fact Cheltenham went ahead, doesn’t make it a wrong decision, I’m glad it went ahead.
I think 32,000ish and their families will tend to disagree. In other words more than the four day attendance of Cheltenham
Sounds as if you’re blaming the whole 32,000+ on Cheltenham now, homer.
Value Is EverythingI was another here sat in pubs four afternoons solid watching this meeting.
OMG
So someone so vociferous in their criticism of Boris and co – that they should’ve known Cheltenham should not have gone ahead etc… Was – at that exact same time – quite happy to sit in a pub for four days solid.
Value Is EverythingI could be mistaken here, but Cheltenham went ahead, because Boris went to some Rugby match. The scientific advice support such activities but with politicians guiding the advice was it completely neutral?
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.Sounds as if you’re blaming the whole 32,000+ on Cheltenham now, homer.
No the government who let Cheltenham and other events take place at a time when they probably should have known better.
So someone so vociferous in their criticism of Boris and co – that they should’ve known Cheltenham should not have gone ahead etc… Was – at that exact same time – quite happy to sit in a pub for four days solid
Like I say above I was fairly undecided at this stage, still in the category that the festival should go ahead with spectators. The advice from the government was to carry on as normal and wash hands regularly which I did. The government had still not advised for you not to visit bars, restaurants etc at this time. I was not party to the Cobra meetings (although neither was Boris for some of the early ones apparently) but if I had been my view may have changed.
…You blame the government for allowing Cheltenham to go ahead and yet you yourself were at that exact same time spending “four days solid” in a pub – putting yourself at at least as much risk.
Also:
If just Cheltenham and other sporting events were (at that time the alternative) held behind closed doors, then far more people would’ve been in pubs catching the virus. ie If shutting Cheltenham and other events were to have done any good at all then AT THE SAME TIME they’d have to shut the pubs down too.
If the government should’ve known better… then what were you doing in the pub?
Or is it just a hindsight thing?Value Is EverythingThe scientific advice support such activities but with politicians guiding the advice was it completely neutral?
The government have mainly ignored consultants for years anyway. Back in 2016 the advice was to prepare for a pandemic like this. The government swept it under the carpet as the results of the exercise for a similar scenario to what is happening now were too horrific to think about.
My last post sent before I saw your last post… ditto again.
Hmmmm. So the government should’ve known to shut down Cheltenham… Because you’re sure you’d have listened to the COBRA advice and come to a different conclusion than Boris and Co… despite you not knowing what was said by those scientists and experts.
…If your response “may” have been different to Boris, then your vociferous criticism of the Government for letting Cheltenham continue, should not be criticism at all – because you don’t know.
You’re not another lefty that’s letting their previous opinions of the Tories rule what they think, by any chance?
Value Is EverythingAs I have said I was following government advice. They said they were listening to the scientists. It seems they should have shut the pubs earlier. The following Monday Boris told us not to go the pubs/restaurants – he did not shut them down. Even his own father said he would continue to go. So yes he should have shut them down earlier. It took him another 4 days to decide on closure. We now have the highest death toll in Europe (OK they are saying International comparisons are difficult to make due to how these are counted in the various countries) but we had two weeks start on places like Italy and Spain. WHO said test, test, test. We didn’t. Germany locked down before us despite less deaths but a higher infection rate due to more testing.
The government said if we come away with less than 20,000 deaths we will have done well. This figure is not now mentioned. The figure of 500K is if we had done nothing. It’s as if they are now saying at least it isn’t 500,000. And now we are told to “stay alert”
If the government had prepared for a pandemic then it would probably not have been one like this.
Preparing for something which has never happened before is impossible. ie Had they prepared for a pandemic very different then things might have been even worse.Besides,
Preparing for something that has NEVER happened before is one thing when money is comparitively easy to come by (under Labour/the great Alan Johnson). Preparing for something that had NEVER happened before when the economy is still recovering (by Boris Johnson) I suspect would’ve been met with calls (without hindsight) from Labour of “wasting money”. But may be that’s my prejudices coming out.
Value Is EverythingI myself still under the opinion of early July before restrictions ease on racing, but an article on Racing Post suggests early June.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.