Emily Maitless saying it like it is

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8207519/Manager-UK-food-firm-tells-staff-sacked-stay-home-coronavirus-crisis.html

There you go, even you beloved right wing comic is disgusted.

Thank you for the link showing that people employed by one company have been feeling forced to go to work even when they felt they should stay at home.

That beloved right-wing comic you refer to is very difficult to read online because of all the ads and other interruptions to the text, which is partly (very partly) why I don't read it unless guided to a supposed argument-defeating item by someone trying to prove a point.

I have to admit I don't understand the point about the end result being the same whatever the circumstances of people in low paid jobs having to go to work. The only same end result I can think of is that one gets paid. There is a whole spectrum of differences with regard to whether one enjoys the work and wants to do it, not least because someone has to.

For several weeks we watched the packed buses going through our village and worried about the danger to their drivers. Thankfully, as time went by less and less people seemed to be on them. I feel so sorry for the London Transport workers that have died. It was obviously an accident waiting to happen.

person A goes to work because they are a key worker

person B goes to work because they are a key worker on a zero hours contract, they need the money ie need it to survive.

person B has very limited choices.

Clear?

I'm brighter than the average Raab

I am very impressed indeed, suziewoozie as Raab's qualifications and experience seem fairly impressive to me.

Yes, thank you, gm. It's clear now that your point is an objection to zero hours contracts.

Yes, some people do have far fewer choices than others. I think it's probably impossible to iron out such discrepancies completely but providing everyone with equal opportunities, with regard to schooling, for example, is a good place to start imo. Would you agree?

' A poor person would in those terms “fight” just as hard as a rich person. But the “fight” is unequal.'
-

If somebody is in hospital with COVID 19 and you believe a rich person is getting better treatment than a poor person it doesn't say much for the NHS.

Illness does not respect class warfare, COVID 19 will not decipher who is rich and who is poor.

There is an argument to be had if an individual has private health care, not always by the way. As the UK is different to most countries unless there is a big shift to scrapping the NHS and moving towards other countries health systems then we will continue to have health care ' free at the point of need', something other countries can only dream of.

pogs

Poor people will present with more comorbidities than wealthy people , consequently much more likely to suffer complications.

They will always be at a disadvantage to the wealthy whatever the level of health care they receive.

I read somewhere that for the first time in years, the gap between the lifespan of haves/have nots is beginning to widen again. (Before Corona)

suziewoozie et al.

"Those type of words might be commonplace but that doesn’t make them acceptable. Like most of us on GN, I’ve got friends/family who’ve had serious illnesses including cancer. Some have died, some recovered. I would never have been so insensitive as to talk about them fighting/battling etc nor would I have stated that they’d be fine because they were a ‘fighter’. But then, I’m brighter than the average Raab."
---

That is your entitled opinion but others have their entitled opinion also.

I distinctly remember as clear as a bell both my mother and father who were both in Intensive Care at the end of their life and the staff, including Consultants used the term ' battling' and we all knew that was probably a general term to show empathy for what was coming down the road.

If the staff, consultant had said he/she had ' given up the fight ' I would equally not have been remotely outraged or upset by that generally used term either because that is ironically where life takes us.

As for relating this to Tories/Raab/Johnson that is only worth raising if you can't think it is not applicable to many other individuals on the opposite side of politics.

The words I used earlier were for a much respected Labour female politician and had someone raised the same points over ANY politician it would matter not a jot I would sat the same. My opinion does not, is not switched on and off dependant on politics, wealth or any other issue.

pogs my opinion does not, is not switched on and off dependent on politics, wealth or any other issue

I don’t think that is particularly unusual, most people seem like that.

The words were from the past, where they belong.

I have felt irritated every time there has been a reference to "being a fighter" as a reason to beat coronavirus. Its the same when I hear people say "* will beat her cancer, she will never give in" or similar!!

I don’t care who uses the battling/ fighting - it’s wrong

Of course this is a battle that the infected are fighting. Each and every person who gets the virus is fighting a battle within their body, white blood cells v coronavirus. The NHS staff are fighting on the front line to kill the virus and save those infected. It is a war but not with soldiers and tanks, with tiny microscopic organisms. Those infected may not be able to fight the virus mentally but their bodies are fighting it just the same.

When I had cancer, it was the 'You're so brave.' Like I had any choice! It was treatment or die.

I wouldn’t bundle nurses in with ‘the poor’. Although not highly paid, they are professional people with a much better salary than fifteen years ago. Not paid enough though.

Saying ‘ their body is fighting the infection’ is very very different from saying ‘he’s a fighter’.

I don't see why left v right has to come into this. Medical staff are getting infected and some are dying - and they are saying there is not enough protective equipment. We are also struggling to have enough equipment to support those who are seriously ill.
I've always hated this talk of 'fighting' any type of illness that might kill you - it's just ridiculous - we're never told to fight to mend a broken leg for instance.
This is a pandemic which our health system is not able to deal with in it's normal mode so many changes are needed to cope. Personally I feel that the government always seems to be one step (or maybe 2 or 3) behind what is needed. Keen to make sweeping promises without the background work done. For example all those who volunteered for the government scheme - there did not appear to be a system in place to manage it.
Only when this is all over will it be possible to analyse it's effect on various groups within the population.

Peter Kylie

“25th March, Johnson was asked when care homes would be getting the necessary PPE - the answer by the end of this week

Liz Kendal

On the press conference

“ has anyone asked about the deaths in the care homes? These need reporting alongside the hospital deaths so that we know
the true scale of the problem and take action to protect the 4000000 elderly residents and staff”
“

Kylie - how can we believe Hancock when Johnson’s promise was found useless?

The writer, or one of them, on how to understand and report figures for Covid deaths, is Dr John Lee. He is a recently retired professor of pathology and a former NHS consultant pathologist. There is an article by him in this week's Spectator though that's not where I first saw it.

I think the 'academic' side of this issue is important. It may seem removed from hard life, but it's pathologists and epidemiologists who, in practical terms, ultimately help us deal with things like Covid19 precisely by working out differences, and why they matter, such as the 'academic' one I mentioned above.

That's why testing is so important; I understand the Germans are doing a lot of tests for us at the moment.

Dr John Lee's opinions have already been discussed on GN. In a nutshell, he's advocating sacrificing the useless members of society (you maybe?) for the sake of the economy. By training, he's a medieval historian, so his perspective of epidemics such as the plague is that of a historian. The plague was a catalyst for huge social change - and, by the way, a few million people died.

Neither of my two readings of Lee’s article gave the jaundiced view that you seem to take, growstuff. Have you actually read the article?