Okie dokie, here is a conundrum.
London, Bojo says please go back to work, dont use public transport.
Tube, Buses Rail, bad idea for social distancing.
Drive to work clearly safest way.
TFL needs more money because no-one can use it, so congestion charge comes in with a bang and an increase to pay for a tube no-one should be using / safest option penalised
This is not joined up thinking is it?
|
Nothing this government has done about CV represents joined up thinking.
Any houswife would have had this sorted in five minutes. Identified who was vulnerable and put them to bed. Anyone else - go out and play in the sunshine and don't come home until teatime.
Totally illogical regulations, ignoring the science coming out of numerous institutions of scientific research.
The young (under 30) should use public transport. It gets cars off the road, the transport systems get money, few if any get ill and less than 0.001% die.
|
>> The young (under 30) should use public transport. It gets cars off the road, the
>> transport systems get money, few if any get ill and less than 0.001% die.
>>
You seem to totally misunderstand the reasoning. It is not just about the risk to an individual. Those travelling on a packed train are far more likely to get the virus than those cycling,walking or in a car. They in turn are likely to infect family friends, work colleagues and other contacts. Some will be vulnerable and die. Before long the ability of the NHS to cope is threatened once more.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 15 May 20 at 14:13
|
My understanding is that the young are far less likely to pass it on to others. Plenty of scientific research indicates that no adult has been infected by a child. The report this morning of a UK government scientist saying that teachers are far more likely to get the virus in the staff room than in a classroom of 30 children.
In the meantime, we will have no NHS if people insist on not working. The NUT must think money growns on trees.
Lockdown was always there to spread the virus out over time, not stop it. We have done that; time to reopen the economy, reopen schools and yes, more people will get the virus, but you won't have the peak as the dead in the main have been elderly catching it in close proximity to other elderly people. If the elderly isolate the yound can rebuild the economy.
It is not rocket science, merely logic. Something most scientists forgot in the desire to 'do something'.
|
>> Plenty of scientific research indicates that no adult has been infected by a child.
Really? got an authoritative source for that?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 May 20 at 14:33
|
>> My understanding is that the young are far less likely to pass it on to
>> others. Plenty of scientific research indicates that no adult has been infected by a child.
Can you link to research that says children don't act as incubators and pass it on while showing no symptoms themselves?
I'm not saying you're wrong, just looking for the science.
|
>>My understanding is that the young are far less likely to pass it on to others.
Well your understanding is a pile of crap.
>>Plenty of scientific research indicates that no adult has been infected by a child
I flat out do not believe you. You mean that they have tracked down exactly which person every one of the 348,000 victims caught it from? And it's been done *plenty* of times?
Do feel free to point me at this "plenty of scientific research".
Remember what happens every damned year on the first week back at school after the summer? Everybody gets colds and other bugs passed around by the kids going back to school. Any particular reason you think COVID-19 would be different?
>> as the dead in the main have been elderly catching it in close proximity to other elderly people
And how did the first elderly person get it? And why did it happen only once?
4% of the population has so far been reported to have had COVID-19. If that is also 4% of >70s then that is 350,000 people. There have been 34,000 deaths, so if they're all >70 that would be 10%.
10% of 8.8m people doesn't bear thinking about.
There's all sorts of things wrong with those figures, but the point is that blasé statements such as "yes, more people will die" should be consigned to the trash can.
I agree that the country needs to work out how to live with this virus and still function, but not by being stupid.
>>It is not rocket science, merely logic.
Sure about that?
|
>> Okie dokie, here is a conundrum.
>>
>> London, Bojo says please go back to work, dont use public transport.
In another move Sadiq Khan is proposing removal of cars from large areas of London. As a long time user of the Euston/Waterloo nexus on foot, bus or bike removal of traffic from Woburn Place>Kingsway etc would be welcome.
But not if it's just displaced a block further west on the other side of Russell Square.
|
|
Didn't the government give TfL 1.6bn as loan the other day?
|
>> Didn't the government give TfL 1.6bn as loan the other day?
There was some sort of 'bail out'. TfL normally runs on a mixture of subsidy and fare income. The latter has fallen of a cliff during lockdown causing a financial crisis where there was no prospect of the books being balanced.
|
>> Didn't the government give TfL 1.6bn as loan the other day?
>>
It has been widely reported that the re-imposition of the congestion charge was a Government condition for the £1.6bn Government bail-out to keep public transport in London running, not a decision as such of the Mayor of London.
I was out walking with the current Mrs TnE this morning, and my comments to her were exactly along the lines of Z's original post.
|
|
I hadn't seen the increase of the CC. So something along the lines of, we'll give you the money but you have to raise some yourself.? No doubt made easier that it's not a Con Mayor.
|
>>In another move Sadiq Khan is proposing removal of cars from large areas of London
Excellent move. Long past due.
|
There is an inconsistency between the message (take the car ...) and the action (increase the congestion charge .........)
But we need to differentiate the short term from longer term impacts.
Longer term work from home and online shopping, will almost certainly be impacted.
Entertainment, hotels, tourism, restaurants and bars are likely to be amongst the last venues to open. The landscape may look very different to historic normality.
Cities have also seen major environmental benefits from reduced vehicle traffic.
So the proposition that a strategic end game is the removal of ICE from the centre of cities seems plausible. Clearly many issues remain before this becomes a reality - commercial traffic, emergency vehicles, timing etc. Current barriers are not a good reason to reject the strategy - just a recognition that more work is needed.
|
>> There is an inconsistency between the message (take the car ...) and the action (increase
>> the congestion charge .........)
Sort of. The CC zone is pretty tightly drawn and car travel, for most of it, isn't a viable option for lack of parking etc.
|
>> So the proposition that a strategic end game is the removal of ICE from the
>> centre of cities seems plausible. Clearly many issues remain before this becomes a reality -
>> commercial traffic, emergency vehicles, timing etc. Current barriers are not a good reason to reject
>> the strategy - just a recognition that more work is needed.
There may be many long term outcomes from this global pandemic.
Tourism, Commuting, Public Transport, Capital Infrastructure projects (cross rail, HS2, Heathrow R3) Digital Communications, Leisure, Retail, Metropolitan planning, Globalisation, Supply Chain, Even a shift/fracture in Global influence, Green Issue to the fore.
Of course it may all be BAU in 12 months, Somehow I doubt it, as my offspring will be paying for this for their entire lifespan.
|
|
I don't think it'll be BAU, but neither do I think it'll be as far off as the media and their "new normal" articles keep trying to persuade me.
|
>>Somehow I doubt it, as my offspring will be paying for this for their entire lifespan.
>>
...as will, of course, you..
|
>> >>Somehow I doubt it, as my offspring will be paying for this for their entire
>> lifespan.
>> >>
>>
>> ...as will, of course, you..
>>
I would like to say we all will but the richest seem to do very well out of recessions whilst the very poor really suffer and the middle get squeezed!
|
>>I would like to say we all will but the richest seem to do very well out of recessions whilst the very poor really suffer and the middle get squeezed!
Always the way. If my income gets cut in half it doesn't impact my eating habits, just my disposable income. If even a fraction of that happens to a poor person, they eat less.
Or they don't heat the house, or something.
just how poor the poor people in the UK are is a different matter though.
|
>> >>Somehow I doubt it, as my offspring will be paying for this for their entire
>> lifespan.
>> >>
>>
>> ...as will, of course, you..
My repayment term seems to be reducing pretty quickly.
|
>>
>> My repayment term seems to be reducing pretty quickly.
>>
...latest hospital visit left you OK?
(mind you, I wouldn't be risking Norfolk ;-) )
|
|
Very few workers drive into Congestion zone to work , mainly through lack of parking. The increase will mostly affect those to whom a 30% increase will be water off a duck’s back. The extended hours and weekend operation will however affect those out-of-towners coming into central London, and so I think tourist hot-spots, theatres etc. will suffer more.
|
CV Motoring. - Netsur
