Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 31k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2302

  • TheTeapot

    1340

  • Gladys

    1181

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because apparently the infected person was a staff member who would have been there all night and interacted with most other people there.  Whereas in 1886 it was a customer (or two) who was there for a shorter time and would have been in contact with fewer people.

In that case they aren't going have much choice but to lockdown. Let's hope they close schools. Before Banker starts no I'm not a teacher it's just one the major causes of transmission.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

Needed postpone in hope by 5pm, Dr Glover posted on twitter what needs to happen.

Can you or @teapot reproduce it here? Screenshot would do... 

@TheTeapot

Edited by quilp
Wrong name
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

I'm hearing 3 week lockdown from a few people now.

My government spies are unable to confirm, but that is certainly the talk in the corridors of power I'm told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because apparently the infected person was a staff member who would have been there all night and interacted with most other people there.  Whereas in 1886 it was a customer (or two) who was there for a shorter time and would have been in contact with fewer people.

Haven’t been to Ramsey for years but it used to be a case of doing a mini pub crawl, start from one end of the street down to the other, not many folk would stay at the same place for hours, perhaps your right, maybe it was a member of staff, that would change things somewhat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Banker said:

I hope not but some government employees will be very happy 

And probably everyone else who cares about the wellbeing of their family, friends, the economy etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...