613 replies to this topic

[hairy]

Anyone else see that brilliant picture of the bundle of snappers squirming at Cummings’ front gate? 
 

Fecking news media bullshite rattling the stick in the feeding bucket for every lefty news presenter and MP.

 

No, but saw:

 

[Zoobeef]

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.

Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as

- Say all excess deaths over the 5 year average are solely due to CV – that’s 60,000

- take worst case IC model forecast of 500,000 deaths with no government intervention

- So best case (as in, assess the highest possible number of lives saved, and attribute them solely to lockdown) is 440,000 saved

And the lockdown cost has been ~£2.5 bn / day for 90 days, round it down to £200 bn total.

Each live saved has cost £450k, absolute best case. The NHS limit to approve a treatment is £30k per year of additional reasonable quality life.

Given the risk-at-age profile of CV victims, there is no way a lockdown would be approved using the NHS’s own rules, even on the most optimistic possible assessment of benefits.

 

The paper is here

https://www.imperial...ivingwithCOVID%

 

Some interesting points from the paper:

 

"At the high end of estimated lives saved is the difference between the projected deaths from the study of Professors Ferguson’s group at Imperial assuming no change in behaviour (500,000) less an estimate of excess UK deaths (approximately 60,000 by June 2020). This 440,000 net lives saved number is likely to be a significant overestimate of likely lives saved. As noted above it does not account for changes in behaviour that would have occurred without the government lockdown; it does not count future higher deaths from side effects of the lockdown (extra cancer deaths for
example); and it does not allow for the fact that some of those “saved” deaths may just have been postponed because when restrictions are eased, and in the absence of a vaccine or of widespread immunity, deaths may pick up again."

 

"For every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits"

 

"Conclusion – lockdown has been massively costly and benefits unlikely to have matched it. We find that the costs of lockdown in the UK are so high relative to likely benefits that a continuation of severe restrictions is very unlikely to be warranted. There is a need to normalise how

we view COVID-19 because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades.Treating possible future COVID-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.
Good decision making does not mean paying little attention to the collateral damage that comes from responding to a worst case COVID-19 scenario."

 

"a policy of “let’s wait until things are clearer” is not reliably prudent. A policy of not easing restrictions until the point at which there is virtually no chance of a resurgence in infection rates rising is not a policy in the interests of the population."

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the NHS is still running at minimal capacity, you can now go to a pub, but make sure you give the right name (nudge nudge wink wink) so someone can phone you and stop you working for 2 weeks. And Neils still at home popping pills instead of teaching children.

All round good effort.

 

 

[techieboy]

Thank fcuk tonight is the final one of these interminable briefings. Hopefully the BBC will rein back on the wall to wall coverage too. Ten days of experts whingeing on about time to ease the lockdown now they drag out the spackers from independent SAGE to criticise the easing but at the same time to also knock the government for not letting schools back. Missing the irony that they are the very people the union knobs have been quoting constantly as justification for not going back to school.

[C8RKH]

The force is strong with the knobs unfortunately. 

 

 

[Acidpopstar]

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.
Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as


- Say all excess deaths over the 5 year average are solely due to CV – that’s 60,000


- take worst case IC model forecast of 500,000 deaths with no government intervention


- So best case (as in, assess the highest possible number of lives saved, and attribute them solely to lockdown) is 440,000 saved


And the lockdown cost has been ~£2.5 bn / day for 90 days, round it down to £200 bn total.


Each live saved has cost £450k, absolute best case. The NHS limit to approve a treatment is £30k per year of additional reasonable quality life.


Given the risk-at-age profile of CV victims, there is no way a lockdown would be approved using the NHS’s own rules, even on the most optimistic possible assessment of benefits.

The paper is here
https://www.imperial...ivingwithCOVID%

Some interesting points from the paper:

"At the high end of estimated lives saved is the difference between the projected deaths from the study of Professors Ferguson’s group at Imperial assuming no change in behaviour (500,000) less an estimate of excess UK deaths (approximately 60,000 by June 2020). This 440,000 net lives saved number is likely to be a significant overestimate of likely lives saved. As noted above it does not account for changes in behaviour that would have occurred without the government lockdown; it does not count future higher deaths from side effects of the lockdown (extra cancer deaths for
example); and it does not allow for the fact that some of those “saved” deaths may just have been postponed because when restrictions are eased, and in the absence of a vaccine or of widespread immunity, deaths may pick up again."

"For every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits"

"Conclusion – lockdown has been massively costly and benefits unlikely to have matched it. We find that the costs of lockdown in the UK are so high relative to likely benefits that a continuation of severe restrictions is very unlikely to be warranted. There is a need to normalise how
we view COVID-19 because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades.Treating possible future COVID-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.
Good decision making does not mean paying little attention to the collateral damage that comes from responding to a worst case COVID-19 scenario."

"a policy of “let’s wait until things are clearer” is not reliably prudent. A policy of not easing restrictions until the point at which there is virtually no chance of a resurgence in infection rates rising is not a policy in the interests of the population."



Meanwhile, the NHS is still running at minimal capacity, you can now go to a pub, but make sure you give the right name (nudge nudge wink wink) so someone can phone you and stop you working for 2 weeks. And Neils still at home popping pills instead of teaching children.


All round good effort.

I’ve been doing no such thing. I suggested the MDMA for you, might make you less sociopathic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zoobeef]

 

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.
Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as


- Say all excess deaths over the 5 year average are solely due to CV – that’s 60,000


- take worst case IC model forecast of 500,000 deaths with no government intervention


- So best case (as in, assess the highest possible number of lives saved, and attribute them solely to lockdown) is 440,000 saved


And the lockdown cost has been ~£2.5 bn / day for 90 days, round it down to £200 bn total.


Each live saved has cost £450k, absolute best case. The NHS limit to approve a treatment is £30k per year of additional reasonable quality life.


Given the risk-at-age profile of CV victims, there is no way a lockdown would be approved using the NHS’s own rules, even on the most optimistic possible assessment of benefits.

The paper is here
https://www.imperial...ivingwithCOVID%

Some interesting points from the paper:

"At the high end of estimated lives saved is the difference between the projected deaths from the study of Professors Ferguson’s group at Imperial assuming no change in behaviour (500,000) less an estimate of excess UK deaths (approximately 60,000 by June 2020). This 440,000 net lives saved number is likely to be a significant overestimate of likely lives saved. As noted above it does not account for changes in behaviour that would have occurred without the government lockdown; it does not count future higher deaths from side effects of the lockdown (extra cancer deaths for
example); and it does not allow for the fact that some of those “saved” deaths may just have been postponed because when restrictions are eased, and in the absence of a vaccine or of widespread immunity, deaths may pick up again."

"For every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits"

"Conclusion – lockdown has been massively costly and benefits unlikely to have matched it. We find that the costs of lockdown in the UK are so high relative to likely benefits that a continuation of severe restrictions is very unlikely to be warranted. There is a need to normalise how
we view COVID-19 because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades.Treating possible future COVID-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.
Good decision making does not mean paying little attention to the collateral damage that comes from responding to a worst case COVID-19 scenario."

"a policy of “let’s wait until things are clearer” is not reliably prudent. A policy of not easing restrictions until the point at which there is virtually no chance of a resurgence in infection rates rising is not a policy in the interests of the population."



Meanwhile, the NHS is still running at minimal capacity, you can now go to a pub, but make sure you give the right name (nudge nudge wink wink) so someone can phone you and stop you working for 2 weeks. And Neils still at home popping pills instead of teaching children.


All round good effort.

 

I’ve been doing no such thing. I suggested the MDMA for you, might make you less sociopathic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Was I right in that we are spending too much for the lives saved given the NHS work of £30k for every year of life saved and we are drastically exceeding that? Not counting the hundreds of thousands that will die as a result of the "lockdown" and the millions of job losses.

 

Or is the NHS sociopathic too?

 

If you got out your little echo chamber and into the real world you would see things differently.

[TheHood]

If it was your granny I think you'd change your tune.

[Zoobeef]

If it was your granny I think you'd change your tune.

 

If what was my granny?

Thankfully my last remaining grandparent lives with my mum. Otherwise she'd be an 86 year old in the final years of her life spending the last maybe 20% of it completely alone. Thats inhumane.

 

 

I imagine if you had cancer now you'd change your tune. See it works both ways.

 

They are finding 30000 less cancers a month for 3 months (thats new cancers and doesn't count delayed or cancelled treatment). Either corona is a magical cure or there are going to be alot of dead people (hundreds of thousands) in the next 10 years.

Have a conversation with someone that has had their treatment delayed 2 or 3 times and now been told its terminal.

 

Remember though #onlycovidlivesmatter #stayathome

[FLD]

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.

Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as

- Say all excess deaths over the 5 year average are solely due to CV – that’s 60,000

- take worst case IC model forecast of 500,000 deaths with no government intervention

- So best case (as in, assess the highest possible number of lives saved, and attribute them solely to lockdown) is 440,000 saved

And the lockdown cost has been ~£2.5 bn / day for 90 days, round it down to £200 bn total.

Each live saved has cost £450k, absolute best case. The NHS limit to approve a treatment is £30k per year of additional reasonable quality life.

Given the risk-at-age profile of CV victims, there is no way a lockdown would be approved using the NHS’s own rules, even on the most optimistic possible assessment of benefits.

 

The paper is here

https://www.imperial...ivingwithCOVID%

 

Some interesting points from the paper:

 

"At the high end of estimated lives saved is the difference between the projected deaths from the study of Professors Ferguson’s group at Imperial assuming no change in behaviour (500,000) less an estimate of excess UK deaths (approximately 60,000 by June 2020). This 440,000 net lives saved number is likely to be a significant overestimate of likely lives saved. As noted above it does not account for changes in behaviour that would have occurred without the government lockdown; it does not count future higher deaths from side effects of the lockdown (extra cancer deaths for
example); and it does not allow for the fact that some of those “saved” deaths may just have been postponed because when restrictions are eased, and in the absence of a vaccine or of widespread immunity, deaths may pick up again."

 

"For every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits"

 

"Conclusion – lockdown has been massively costly and benefits unlikely to have matched it. We find that the costs of lockdown in the UK are so high relative to likely benefits that a continuation of severe restrictions is very unlikely to be warranted. There is a need to normalise how

we view COVID-19 because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades.Treating possible future COVID-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.
Good decision making does not mean paying little attention to the collateral damage that comes from responding to a worst case COVID-19 scenario."

 

"a policy of “let’s wait until things are clearer” is not reliably prudent. A policy of not easing restrictions until the point at which there is virtually no chance of a resurgence in infection rates rising is not a policy in the interests of the population."

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the NHS is still running at minimal capacity, you can now go to a pub, but make sure you give the right name (nudge nudge wink wink) so someone can phone you and stop you working for 2 weeks. And Neils still at home popping pills instead of teaching children.

All round good effort.

 

 

that's an old figure for cost of life for 1 year.  having worked in oncology drug discovery I'm unfortunately very aware of this.  We had it at mid 50k.  Anyways, this is a minor thing. 

 

Looking at that analysis does it assume that survivors only live for one year?  With a cost of 450k per person saved anyone over 9 years further survival is a positive of have I missed something?

[Zoobeef]

 

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.

Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as

- Say all excess deaths over the 5 year average are solely due to CV – that’s 60,000

- take worst case IC model forecast of 500,000 deaths with no government intervention

- So best case (as in, assess the highest possible number of lives saved, and attribute them solely to lockdown) is 440,000 saved

And the lockdown cost has been ~£2.5 bn / day for 90 days, round it down to £200 bn total.

Each live saved has cost £450k, absolute best case. The NHS limit to approve a treatment is £30k per year of additional reasonable quality life.

Given the risk-at-age profile of CV victims, there is no way a lockdown would be approved using the NHS’s own rules, even on the most optimistic possible assessment of benefits.

 

The paper is here

https://www.imperial...ivingwithCOVID%

 

Some interesting points from the paper:

 

"At the high end of estimated lives saved is the difference between the projected deaths from the study of Professors Ferguson’s group at Imperial assuming no change in behaviour (500,000) less an estimate of excess UK deaths (approximately 60,000 by June 2020). This 440,000 net lives saved number is likely to be a significant overestimate of likely lives saved. As noted above it does not account for changes in behaviour that would have occurred without the government lockdown; it does not count future higher deaths from side effects of the lockdown (extra cancer deaths for
example); and it does not allow for the fact that some of those “saved” deaths may just have been postponed because when restrictions are eased, and in the absence of a vaccine or of widespread immunity, deaths may pick up again."

 

"For every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits"

 

"Conclusion – lockdown has been massively costly and benefits unlikely to have matched it. We find that the costs of lockdown in the UK are so high relative to likely benefits that a continuation of severe restrictions is very unlikely to be warranted. There is a need to normalise how

we view COVID-19 because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades.Treating possible future COVID-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.
Good decision making does not mean paying little attention to the collateral damage that comes from responding to a worst case COVID-19 scenario."

 

"a policy of “let’s wait until things are clearer” is not reliably prudent. A policy of not easing restrictions until the point at which there is virtually no chance of a resurgence in infection rates rising is not a policy in the interests of the population."

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the NHS is still running at minimal capacity, you can now go to a pub, but make sure you give the right name (nudge nudge wink wink) so someone can phone you and stop you working for 2 weeks. And Neils still at home popping pills instead of teaching children.

All round good effort.

 

 

that's an old figure for cost of life for 1 year.  having worked in oncology drug discovery I'm unfortunately very aware of this.  We had it at mid 50k.  Anyways, this is a minor thing. 

 

Looking at that analysis does it assume that survivors only live for one year?  With a cost of 450k per person saved anyone over 9 years further survival is a positive of have I missed something?

 

 

I don't know where the imperial college got their information from, you would assume its accurate though. A quick Google shows a result from 2017 as the QALY set by NICE being £20-30k.

https://www.guidelin.../352885.article

 

Looking at the statistics at who has died, over 90% have had a known pre existing condition and over 85% have been over 70 years old. Both drastically reducing the expected life in comparison to a healthy 30 year old.

 

The above paper also takes into account best cases when in reality the original estimate of 500k is wildly high, and doesn't take into account any measures between carry on as normal and the lockdown we had.

Every extra death as we continue also the data look worse.

 

Given the peak deaths was 8th April and the average peak infection to death is 3 weeks it puts the peak infection the week before lockdown. Just after the work from home and social distancing was implemented.

The issue was by the time this was realised boris was in hospital and we were left leaderless when at that point a critical decision could have been made.

 

Another simple way to look at whats happening economically is, are you willing to give up your house, job and car to save my Gran?

If the answer is no well that's whats being asked of hundreds of thousands, if not, millions of people when this is over. The problem is that none of those in charge, in public sector jobs, retired, unemployed or full time benefits will be the ones being asked that question.

[PaulCP]

 

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.

Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as

- Say all excess deaths over the 5 year average are solely due to CV – that’s 60,000

- take worst case IC model forecast of 500,000 deaths with no government intervention

- So best case (as in, assess the highest possible number of lives saved, and attribute them solely to lockdown) is 440,000 saved

And the lockdown cost has been ~£2.5 bn / day for 90 days, round it down to £200 bn total.

Each live saved has cost £450k, absolute best case. The NHS limit to approve a treatment is £30k per year of additional reasonable quality life.

Given the risk-at-age profile of CV victims, there is no way a lockdown would be approved using the NHS’s own rules, even on the most optimistic possible assessment of benefits.

 

The paper is here

https://www.imperial...ivingwithCOVID%

 

Some interesting points from the paper:

 

"At the high end of estimated lives saved is the difference between the projected deaths from the study of Professors Ferguson’s group at Imperial assuming no change in behaviour (500,000) less an estimate of excess UK deaths (approximately 60,000 by June 2020). This 440,000 net lives saved number is likely to be a significant overestimate of likely lives saved. As noted above it does not account for changes in behaviour that would have occurred without the government lockdown; it does not count future higher deaths from side effects of the lockdown (extra cancer deaths for
example); and it does not allow for the fact that some of those “saved” deaths may just have been postponed because when restrictions are eased, and in the absence of a vaccine or of widespread immunity, deaths may pick up again."

 

"For every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost the costs of lockdown exceed the benefits"

 

"Conclusion – lockdown has been massively costly and benefits unlikely to have matched it. We find that the costs of lockdown in the UK are so high relative to likely benefits that a continuation of severe restrictions is very unlikely to be warranted. There is a need to normalise how

we view COVID-19 because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades.Treating possible future COVID-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.
Good decision making does not mean paying little attention to the collateral damage that comes from responding to a worst case COVID-19 scenario."

 

"a policy of “let’s wait until things are clearer” is not reliably prudent. A policy of not easing restrictions until the point at which there is virtually no chance of a resurgence in infection rates rising is not a policy in the interests of the population."

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the NHS is still running at minimal capacity, you can now go to a pub, but make sure you give the right name (nudge nudge wink wink) so someone can phone you and stop you working for 2 weeks. And Neils still at home popping pills instead of teaching children.

All round good effort.

 

 

that's an old figure for cost of life for 1 year.  having worked in oncology drug discovery I'm unfortunately very aware of this.  We had it at mid 50k.  Anyways, this is a minor thing. 

 

Looking at that analysis does it assume that survivors only live for one year?  With a cost of 450k per person saved anyone over 9 years further survival is a positive of have I missed something?

 

In my experience the mid £50k is more correct unless it only applies to oncology. 
 

I’ve been taking TKI drugs for almost 4 years now & I know that the cost to the NHS of the drugs is £4850 per month

[ICD]

 

 

Some analyses using the actual numbers are starting to come out.

Imperial issued a report today which can be summarised as

blah bla blah

 

..it doesnt take into account all impacts...e.g. the lives saved due to the environment being that much cleaner and e.g. asthma suffers having a better quality of life...apples and apples please

 

..be damned if you do...e.g. New Zealand, 100% lockdown and the economy having to recover even worse than UK, or be damned oif you dont, e.g. Sweden no lockdown and the highest C19 death rate per capita

 

Border closer from day 1 seemed to work better than others, and continual border closer at the first sign of infections being re introduced, e.g. Greece.

 

What are the figures from the financial crash of 10 years ago as a comparison, aganist house and job lose...any one?

 

Stay safe..its not over until the fat lady sings

[FLD]

It is an interesting albeit no win debate this one. 

[FLD]

Interestingly, diabetes now occurring in survivors.  Positive link to C19.  Featured in this weeks drug target review.

[techieboy]

Tourist: Wah wah wah. It's so unfair making us quarantine on our return from Ibiza, when you let us fly there in the first place. There's no problems in [insert name of shitty resort here] and it's only Northern Spain that has problems.

 

Government: Yeah, you're right, that is a little odd. Fcuk it. No travel to Spain at all then. Clear enough? K?   

 

4 months of listening to the media, politicians, talking heads and Faecesbook fuelled people whining on about how the government should have shut down the airports in March/February/January/2015 to prevent people coming into the UK with the dreaded lurgy from Spain/Italy/wherever.

 

4 months of listening to the media, politicians, talking heads and Faecesbook fuelled people whining on about how the government should have acted quicker on everything they've done or not done.

 

2 weeks of listening to the media, politicians, talking heads and Faecesbook fuelled people whining on about compulsory mask wearing and why they've given people 2 weeks notice before implementing it, when they should have done it straight away.

 

Now they've done the sensible thing in a timely manner and the TV/newspapers (and probably the radio) are filled with people putting on their best made-for-TV sad faces and whining that they should have been given more time and it's not fair that they should have to self-quarantine on their return [though it probably won't be so bad, as long as the government pay their wages to extend their holiday for an extra two weeks]. The usual talking heads are a bit scarce though as they try to come up with a different vector of attack because they're struggling to disagree with the decision.

 

Presumably Michael O'Leary is throwing around his usual threats about it, again; hopefully he'll follow through for once and take his shitty airline with him.

 

I'd love to bugger off on holiday for a couple of weeks but frankly, you'd have to be nuts to spend 3+ hours sat in a metal tube, 0.3" away from some random stranger breathing recycled air exhaled from 300 other people and cheering a successful landing, this year and probably the first half of next year too. Actually, I'd just like to have a day off or maybe really push the boat out and even have a whole weekend off.

[C8RKH]

Stupid Spain:  "Hey, come to the Canaries from your COVID infested country as we don't have COVID here. You will not need to quarantine nor will we test you. All of our fellow Countrypeople from the likes of Catalonia are escaping their COVID spikes by coming here too. So all good. We welcome you".

 

Stupid British Tourist:  "Woo hoo. Let's go to the Canaries as I need a holiday as being paid to stay at home is really hard and I really need a holiday".

 

Everyone "Bastard British Government spoiling our fun again. It's not fair!"

 

FFS - the world has gone mad 

[PaulCP]

And now the Spanish PM has engaged his Spanish brain!

“it’s unfair on Spain that the U.K. Govt is comparing the infection rate in Spain as a whole and not looking at the individual areas, many of which have an infection rate lower than the U.K.”

 

So Mr Spanish PM, it’s ok then for you to compare the lower infection rate areas in Spain to the UK as a whole   

Edited by PaulCP, 28 July 2020 - 08:09 AM.

[sford]

Just shows how unhappy people are with their material filled lives. You are being paid to stay at home. Take the time to learn a new skill/take up a new hobby. Instead it's 'I need to go on holiday to escape my life' which is not going to be fixed by a brief holiday. 

 

Looking at things from my selfish view, I've enjoyed working from home. I've taken pleasure in being able to see my son walk for the first time, to start playing properly and to be around me more instead of hearing from nursery that he spoke for the first time, had a great day playing in the sun and generally frolicking. My wife and I have lunch outside on the lawn as a picnic whenever we can all together. We go for walks, listen to music and do gardening together. I know that's a chore to most but once you start it becomes addictive. In fact he garden has never looked so well maintained. 

 

It's no wonder people are struggling though with the mental barrage of information we're all receiving. I've taken to asking Alexa for the new headlines in the morning and leaving it there. I don't want or need to know the ins and outs of the entire country at this stage. Just that my locale is ok, there are no specific rules I need to follow and that will do me. I can get on with having a good work/life balance and enjoying the little things in life. 

[FLD]

Just shows how unhappy people are with their material filled lives. You are being paid to stay at home. Take the time to learn a new skill/take up a new hobby. Instead it's 'I need to go on holiday to escape my life' which is not going to be fixed by a brief holiday. 

 

Looking at things from my selfish view, I've enjoyed working from home. I've taken pleasure in being able to see my son walk for the first time, to start playing properly and to be around me more instead of hearing from nursery that he spoke for the first time, had a great day playing in the sun and generally frolicking. My wife and I have lunch outside on the lawn as a picnic whenever we can all together. We go for walks, listen to music and do gardening together. I know that's a chore to most but once you start it becomes addictive. In fact he garden has never looked so well maintained. 

 

It's no wonder people are struggling though with the mental barrage of information we're all receiving. I've taken to asking Alexa for the new headlines in the morning and leaving it there. I don't want or need to know the ins and outs of the entire country at this stage. Just that my locale is ok, there are no specific rules I need to follow and that will do me. I can get on with having a good work/life balance and enjoying the little things in life. 

 

Same situation here although I am still in work most of the time.  Our little un loves digging in the garden.

Social media seems to drive materialism quite hard.  Must keep up with everyone else!

[techieboy]

Jesus, did the BBC just employ a politically neutral health correspondent who's first instinct isn't to jump on the mass hysteria, hang the government as they're to blame for everything gravy train?

 

https://www.bbc.co.u...health-53656852