I’m an [zb], because I choose to go to work, rather than stay in. That’s what my other half reckons. Guess what? I don’t give a ■■■■. If we die, we die. If we live, we live.
the nodding donkey:
I’m an [zb], because I choose to go to work, rather than stay in. That’s what my other half reckons. Guess what? I don’t give a [zb]. If we die, we die. If we live, we live.
Not sure if you are serious?
If you don’t care about dying that’s your choice, if you don’t care about passing on a virus that may kill others you’re a total prick.
Sent from my mobile.
tachograph:
If you don’t care about dying that’s your choice, if you don’t care about passing on a virus that may kill others you’re a total prick.Sent from my mobile.
+1
Lucky you’ve got a job with attitude like that. Don’t think I want you in my yard.
Cheers
bobbya:
tachograph:
If you don’t care about dying that’s your choice, if you don’t care about passing on a virus that may kill others you’re a total prick.Sent from my mobile.
+1
And another +1.
.
.
“If we live, we live.
If we die, we die.”
.
Does that attitude apply when you’re driving towards a sharp bend?
To brake, or not to brake?
To steer, or not?
.
To take sensible precautions during a pandemic?
.
These are not normal times, so actions we wouldn’t normally take, are sensible and proportionate.
Driving as normal, when there are gale force winds, and icy patches is obviously stupid.
Acting as normal during these times is equally foolish.
The majority of people are pulling together in these unprecendented times however we seem to have a minority who just want to carry on as normal.
It’s a great pity that some can be so irresponsible and selfish but I am sure it’s the same ones that are like that in normal times.
Can we stop them? Not at the moment but it looks like further action will have to be taken and of course then we all for go our little allowed freedom because of these neeps.
tachograph:
If you don’t care about dying that’s your choice, if you don’t care about passing on a virus that may kill others you’re a total prick.Sent from my mobile.
Absolutely.
You might not give a ■■■■ if you die, but can the same be said of the family you’d leave behind? Or how would you feel if you came through unscathed but passed this onto someone else and they died? Still have the same laissez-faire attitude? If so, then like others have said, you’re a ■■■■■■■■■■■ of the highest order
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
CookieMonster:
You might not give a [zb] if you die, but can the same be said of the family you’d leave behind? Or how would you feel if you came through unscathed but passed this onto someone else and they died? Still have the same laissez-faire attitude? If so, then like others have said, you’re a ■■■■■■■■■■■ of the highest orderSent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
+1
Well said Cookie Monster , thundercnut is now my word of the week 
I think op needs to explain the , chose to go to work , do
You mean a extra shift , if so I agree with your mrs , if
Part of your shift pattern , I disagree with
Her , u
I also think people are reacting to this in different ways , mrs is telling me
Not to keep snapping at people , but
I’m struggling with no football & pubs shut ,
Cleaning the windows & washing upvc is
No substitute , especially when I should
Be in Cyprus
Everyone needs to learn “Risk Management” and the difference between “Risk” and “Liability”…
“Liability” remains the “worst outcome in all situations”
whilst
“Risk” - means “The actual liklihood of that worst outcome happening”.
Thus, to manage risk - you can be very effective indeed by mitigating the Liabliity down somewhat, at the cost of increasing the perceived risk of that outcome happening.
Eg. when playing Russian Roulette, you have a one in seven chance of dying, for instance - the worst outcome is “Instant Death” - that is your “Liability in this situation.”
Your “Risk” is around 14% of that worst outcome, - anything else means you "Survive, and it is 86% ish.
If someone then told you that you could switch the revolver for a brute aiming a punch at your face instead…
The chances of him smacking you square in the face might RISE from 14% to say, 50%…
BUT that single punch might only now have a 2% chance instead of 14% chance of killing you…
Further mitigations can be made to reduce the “worst outcome” or “liability” still further, and of course dodging and darting about would also reduce things at your own end.
If something could be done to impair the performance of the Brute trying to punch you - and the risk of even being hit HARD get reduced significantly. If he’s half-cut for instance, he might only get to hit you with a “Girly Punch”…
We all need to learn how to mitigate ALL scenarios involving “Death” as the worst outcome then, - whilst profiting from every time you DON’T die.
THIS might be called the “Fortune of War” concept.
Learn it!!
If you don’t bother, you’ll find someone else more than willing to risk it for both themselves AND you and yours on their behalf, that’ll put you back in the higher risk bracket - without you needing to do anything at all!
If you think you can “Mitigate Risk” by simply “Not and never gambling” - then you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
“Human Nature” - demands that we ALL re-appraise our appetide for risk. ALL of us, lest we fall by the wayside for simply “Not being ready, by choice”. Don’t sit on your arse, and “refuse to play” - Make a decision for you and yours which reduces the worst outcome by increasing the chances of a minor downside outcome happening in it’s place.
It’s better to run towards losing a little - than standing still only to risk losing it ALL.
Hear endeth the lesson. 
Think the o/p is getting a bit of a hard time here, I’m sure he’s big enough to speak for himself but …
How do you know he ain’t one of the famous essential ‘key workers’ doing food deliveries, and he’s volunteered, where others on his firm have chosen to stay at home.
Maybe he can’t afford to stay at home and his laid back carefree attitude is helping him cope…no doubt some star is about to come back with ‘‘well if he’s dead he needn’t bother about debt’’ etc, but that’s up to him 
…, and he can’t do anything about other people dying in the country…get a grip ffs. 
Too many judgemental people on here who are just too quick to jump without knowing the facts.
I’m also working, ideally yeh I’d much rather be off, but if I am, someone else will do (not to mention totally ■■■■ up) my job, so here I am reluctantly working but at the same time being careful.
When our lot shut their doors I’ll be off gladly.
robroy:
… Too many judgemental people on here who are just too quick to jump without knowing the facts.
This is very true^^^
I hesitate to make Rob’s ego bigger than it already is, but he’s hit the nail on the head. ■■■■ me, even dozy managed a sensible post…
Yes, I’m driving a truck. No, not every load is absolutely essential, but most are food and supply related. All you haters, who are enjoying a drink during the next few weeks, you’re welcome. To turn the tables round, I’m the hero, for risking my life, to ensure that you can all have an ‘essential’ beverage…
We (that is everybody working atm, not just me…) are also keeping the machine going. Somebody needs to pay taxes. Somebody needs to get the raw ingredients to the factories, somebody needs to turn it into something edible, somebody needs to take it to the shop, for you to panic buy it. Again, you’re welcome…
I do have a life attitude, that we die when it’s our time. I do not subscribe to the “keeping people alive as long as possible, at all cost” (often simply prolonging their suffering, for your own selfish reasons.) I’m not going into a long rant here, but unless we change our attitude to working, retiring, and dying, the system is going to collapse.
A lockdown to halt the spread would only work if we have a “total” lockdown. Everybody, but absolutely everybody stay in for at least 6weeks. No food supplies, no medical help, nothing at all. The infected die or become immune.
It would only work if the virus also obliges to die, otherwise, after 6 weeks, we start all over again…
Hate me all you like, I feed of that.
Franglais:
bobbya:
tachograph:
If you don’t care about dying that’s your choice, if you don’t care about passing on a virus that may kill others you’re a total prick.Sent from my mobile.
+1
And another +1.
.
.
“If we live, we live.
If we die, we die.”
.
Does that attitude apply when you’re driving towards a sharp bend?
To brake, or not to brake?
To steer, or not?
.
To take sensible precautions during a pandemic?
.
These are not normal times, so actions we wouldn’t normally take, are sensible and proportionate.
Driving as normal, when there are gale force winds, and icy patches is obviously stupid.
Acting as normal during these times is equally foolish.
I’m not going to reply to each individual, but I expected more from you Franglais. Of course I dont drive like a Mumbai native. And of course I take sensible precautions during this time. Gloves, keeping distance from others, antibacterial soap and lotion etc.
Acting as if the world is ending during these times is equally foolish.
The issue isn’t about o/p going to work, just like the type of work is irrelevant, I think what most people, including myself, take umbrage with is the flippant attitude towards potential harm caused to others by his ‘I don’t care’ stance. If someone isn’t bothered about getting it, or it’s effects, then can you trust them to take reasonable precautions to protect others? I doubt it
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
dieseldave:
robroy:
… Too many judgemental people on here who are just too quick to jump without knowing the facts.This is very true^^^
I’ve no idea whether or not that those comments are aimed at me but my remark about the nodding donkey was in part based on other posts he’s made such as the one bellow where he makes it clear he has no qualms about spreading the Covid-19 virus.
If criticising someone for not being prepared to do their part to stop Covid-19 spreading is judgmental, or if criticising someone for not caring about passing on a potentially fatal virus to other people including the most vulnerable people in society is being judgmental then I’m happy to be considered to be judgmental, and I will continue to criticise anyone who thinks it’s OK to bury their head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem, or simply not care about the problem other people face, while decent people, including NHS staff and the most vulnerable people in our society, are put at risk by the attitude the nodding donkey has.
Personally I have a fairly philosophical attitude to life, none of us are going to get out alive so there’s no point worrying about it, however to have such a couldn’t give a [zb] attitude towards the lives of other people including the most vulnerable people in society and the NHS staff who will be called on to help him if he’s infected is, in my opinion at-least, beneath contempt.
the nodding donkey:
Being of a "here today, gone tomorrow " kind of mindset, my attitude to these kind of issues is rather blunt. If it kills me, it does. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I just get on with life. As for not spreading it around, why not? My other half has been isolating g for over a week, and told me that she’s told by the hospital that she has the virus. I’ve been off work, and avoiding contact (which comes natural anyway…) for a week now. But I still go shopping most days, needs must. We are an invasive species, and very close to destroying the Earths ecosystem. One day, it’s going to be the big one. Might be this one. Might not. You’re not going to be around in 60 years to care anyway.
ashoke?
tachograph:
dieseldave:
robroy:
… Too many judgemental people on here who are just too quick to jump without knowing the facts.This is very true^^^
I’ve no idea whether or not that those comments are aimed at me but my remark about the nodding donkey was in part based on other posts he’s made such as the one bellow where he makes it clear he has no qualms about spreading the Covid-19 virus.
If criticising someone for not being prepared to do their part to stop Covid-19 spreading is judgmental, or if criticising someone for not caring about passing on a potentially fatal virus to the most vulnerable people in society is being judgmental then I’m happy to be considered to be judgmental, and I will continue to criticise anyone who thinks it’s OK to bury their head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem, or simply not care about the problem vulnerable people face, while decent people, including NHS staff, are put at risk by the attitude the nodding donkey has.
Personally I have a fairly philosophical attitude to life, none of us are going to get out alive so there’s no point worrying about it, however to have such a couldn’t give a [zb] attitude towards the most vulnerable people in society is, in my opinion at-least, beneath contempt.
the nodding donkey:
Being of a "here today, gone tomorrow " kind of mindset, my attitude to these kind of issues is rather blunt. If it kills me, it does. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I just get on with life. As for not spreading it around, why not? My other half has been isolating g for over a week, and told me that she’s told by the hospital that she has the virus. I’ve been off work, and avoiding contact (which comes natural anyway…) for a week now. But I still go shopping most days, needs must. We are an invasive species, and very close to destroying the Earths ecosystem. One day, it’s going to be the big one. Might be this one. Might not. You’re not going to be around in 60 years to care anyway.
You may not like my forthright attitude, but I say it as I see it. There is a bigger picture than keeping “the most vulnerable” safe.
The lockdown will increase the cases (and quite possibly the severety) of domestic violence and abuse. Many cases will go unnoticed, and likely lead to deaths.
Suicide rates will go up.
You may not like what I have to say, but you cant say I’m wrong.
Keeping everybody in lockdown only works if every single person is in lockdown. Period. Than you need to decide how long to lockdown for. How long can the virus survive before the carrier is guaranteed to be clear? 2 weeks? 3 weeks? A month?
Then double that, to make sure the whole population is clear.
You need to lockdown the whole world, to ensure the virus cant survive …
An economic recession will hit the poor and the elderly hardest, causing more deaths down the line than the virus will.