Category: annoying people

Day 35 – Surprises

Posted on

It’s day 35 of a hard lockdown, ahead of an indefinite period of a further hard lockdown. But what’s coming up is a Level 4 lockdown, rather than a Level 5 lockdown, so there are a few differences.

Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (I don’t make up the titles, folks) Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma took centre stage for several hours last night to fill us all in on what that means, and there were a few surprises. (For the record, Trade and Industry Minister Ebrahim Patel was also there, but we were all asleep by the time he did his bit.)

The big surprises were:

Outdoor exercise being allowed – albeit under strict conditions. But I’ll take 6-9am each day within 5km of my home, and
Sale of cigarettes and tobacco not being allowed. This one left a lot of people very, very upset.

The fact is that Covid-19 is a respiratory disease, and smoking does mean that you are potentially more likely to develop the disease if you are infected with the virus. But we were told that there had been “over 2000” submissions in support of keeping the ban on the sale of tobacco products – a ban that was to have been relaxed in Level 4. A couple of points on that: firstly, who were these 2000 people? I’m not a smoker and I don’t like environments where I am exposed to smokers, smoking. But South Africa is generally very good at separating smokers and non-smokers in social environments, and we’re not going to be in social environments for a long, long time anyway. So which 2000 people decided that objecting to people being able to smoke was something they needed to do? And secondly, there was no opposition to those 2000 people’s submissions because it had been documented that tobacco was going to be sold under Level 4, and it’s generally wholly unnecessary to comment/object/support the status quo.

Obviously, there is quite a bit of opposition now.

Next question: What does this mean for alcohol, which is/was due to be sold at Level 3? The logic behind the tobacco sales ban is perhaps a bit “meh”, but there are real tangible benefits for an alcohol sales ban as far as the workload on hospitals goes. So will 2000 people object to that, as well? And will people learn from the tobacco decision and write in to support alcohol sales at Level 3 – and if so, on what grounds? Because “I miss my wine” isn’t going to cut it.

The most concerning announcement was perhaps the curfew: 8pm-5am. Mainly because according to the documentation we’ve seen so far, it appears to remain right down to Level 1, which government themselves has described as:

Low virus spread, high health system readiness.

And which (currently) includes allowing sit-down meals in restaurants. So why do we all need to stay home from 8pm?

Given that Level 1 is likely to continue to be in place until there is widespread vaccination in SA – probably (optimistically) 18 months away at least – will this “new normal” ever go away?

And this as SA recorded its largest rise in infections yet.
And as the Western Cape (and Cape Town in particular), showed worrying signs of becoming a real hotspot for infections.
And as the DBE seem to be planning to send kids back to school.

It just doesn’t add up, at all.
There’s no clear communication, no joined up government and no good news at the moment.

Day 31 – It’s all over

Posted on

It might as well be, anyway.

Since the announcement that we would hopefully be moving to “Level 4” lockdown restrictions on May 1st – something that will not be materially different for the vast number of people in SA – the population seems to have given up on their lockdown.

The roads are busy, next door are having yet another braai with their family, and people are wandering past our house in greater and greater numbers.

Literally.

But with Cape Town now one of the SA hotspots for new infections, there’s a real chance that we actually might not be downgraded by the end of the week, or that if we are, we might be upgraded again soon after.

The blame for this will be placed squarely at the door of government, at whichever level – city, province of national – but it will actually be due to the aforementioned fuck-knuckles going around, living their normal lives and pretending that their actions have no consequences for the rest of us.

I seriously don’t know how much more simply anyone can explain it to them. It’s hardly rocket surgery:

Don’t. Go. Out.

and yet… the cars still go by, the people still walk past and the braai smoke still drifts from next door’s chimney.

Day 25, Part 2 – We Are Led

Posted on

Each time Cyril Ramaphosa addresses the nation (i.e. turns up late and reads from an autocue for 20 minutes), the level of fawning on social media is quite remarkable – usually exemplified by the phrase:

We Are Led

This is because:
1. Cyril is a very good orator,
2. SA has a very low bar as far as recent presidential achievements go after 9 years of Jacob Zuma, and
3. Cyril isn’t Jacob Zuma.

For some reason, when he speaks, people are apparently able to look past the fact that he is invariably tardy, and conveniently forget the nonsense coming from the rest of his circus (of which, we shouldn’t forget, he remains The Ringmaster).

I wonder if they’ll be quite so forgiving when he next (eventually) appears at the podium, given that the only big decision his government appear to have made in the last week is [drum roll]… banning the sale of hot cooked food.

Seriously:

Well, Thank God.

That will certainly aid the fight against coronavirus.
It will feed the hungry.
It will really help with contact tracing and screening.
It will definitely make a huge difference.

What an utterly pointless, pathetic move.

South Africa is being bullied by these little Hitlers, flexing their muscles and reveling in testing their powers.

Moreover, Cyril Ramaphosa – The President of the Republic – is also being bullied by them.

And he’s supposed to be in charge.

We Are Led? More like:

Are We Led?

Day 23 – internet woes

Posted on

We’re not even two thirds of the way into this extended lockdown thing (which may well be extended again) and I’ve just finished the internet.

Everything.

All the interesting stuff, at least.
I’m going to leave the other 99.99% for the next pandemic.

What am I supposed to do now?

Maybe I’ll invite loads of people around for a braai like the neighbours have done today.
Oh no. Wait a second. That’s both utterly stupid and totally illegal. Wankers.

Back to the internet then…

Day 19 – “Tim Noakes interview is dangerously misleading”

Posted on

Indeed.

Professor Cookbook gave an interview to CCFM (“we play a mix of contemporary Christian music, combined with compelling chat, views and interviews”) about Covid-19.

Nathan Geffen from Groundup reports that the interview was dangerously misleading.

Professor Tim Noakes gave an interview to CCFM that has been widely circulated on social media. In it Noakes makes false and misleading statements.

The interview starts off with Noakes admitting he is not a virus expert. If the interview had ended at this point it would have been accurate.

Ouch!

I haven’t listened to the interview, because of:

a) The radio station,
b) The interviewee, and
c) The combination of points a) and b) above.

but it certainly wouldn’t be out of place for Tim to make false and misleading statements.

The cap certainly fits, even if the trousers are a bit iffy.

There’s a very valid school of thought that says that responding to this sort of thing merely amplifies the reach and message of the original interview. Then there’s the other equally valid side of the coin which says that if you don’t challenge this sort of nonsense, it will just continue unabated (actually, it seems to continue to ooze like shit from a leaky sewer whatever you do, but anyway…).

Sadly, given that both these points of view hold merit and validity, there is likely no right answer here, but Geffen’s piece is a robust, undramatic, step-by-step takedown of Noakes’ BS. I like it for its simplicity.

And for that second paragraph. Thank you.