On Sat, 23 May 2020 10:13:16 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Fri, 22 May 2020 18:27:02 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 May 2020 09:55:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
He's changed a lot since his near-death experience. He was previously a
gung-ho risk-taker, but is now a timid, cautious character, at least in
this respect. Being a new father (yet again) probably also makes him a
lot
more cautious.

Thats probably true, but he needs to snap out of it and realise the
policies
are now doing far more damage than the virus. There was some (probably
exaggerated) figure of 7 million doctor and hospital appointments
backlog.
Even if its only 1 million thats a lot of people with potentially
serious
problems not having them sorted. And god knows how many cancer patients
are
or will soon be dead due to the NHS focusing on covid.

but what can he do if the unions (and apparently loads of parents) are
against this plan

The unions are just sabre rattling and will soon settle down. And I'm a
parent
and I have no problem with my child going back to school. If others do
then
thats fine by me - smaller class sizes.

people can't go back to work unless they can send their kids to school and
commute on the train

and the unions are doing their best to block those two things

Any government with a working pair of ******** (which rules out the
current one)
could enact emergency legislation at a time like this to put the unions
back in their box by making striking illegal for X months and shutting
down
any union that proposes it.

refusing to go to work because your workplace is "unsafe" under H&S regs, is
not legally "a strike"

Except its not unsafe if you believe the scientists. The unions were more
than happy to believe them when they said we needed a lockdown, yet for some
strange reason I can't quite fathom they decide not to believe them when it
means their members may have to go back to actually doing some work.