You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus
October 24 2020 1.40am

Coronavirus

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 621 of 627 < 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 >

 

View Tim Gypsy Hill '64's Profile Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Flag Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 9.09pm Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Add Tim Gypsy Hill '64 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I guess that's because the deaths haven't yet happened. There is obviously a time lag between infection and death. What the impact of the greater understanding and more effective treatments will be on the number of deaths I don't think is known yet either.

What is known is the infection rate increasing and that's enough.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (16 Oct 2020 10.28pm)

But the virus has never gone away. Why not report the daily/monthly excess deaths. If it is that deadly, there will be excess deaths all the time the virus exists. Regardless of any measures. Where are they? If treatments are better or not, and there are no excess deaths, why have further lockdowns? If there are excess deaths, they would be broadcast loud to justify lockdowns.

 


Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 17 Oct 20 9.16pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

That's the spirit. Police state. Now ya talking!

It's not forever and that really is the point.
Have you seen how people dont do what they're advised to do, so now they will be told what to do.
At the start it seemed everyone wanted a handbook on how to distance, wash hands and avoid others as best they can. Now they have one they're still not happy!
Would you be bothered if someone testing positive associated with you and yours without telling you until after. Shake their hand and say never mind who needs rules I'm sure we'll all be fine.
Is that you?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Tim Gypsy Hill '64's Profile Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Flag Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 9.22pm Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Add Tim Gypsy Hill '64 as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

That's incorrect. I label people who claim the government wants to vaccinate us to "chip us" or to "ensure conformity" as conspiracy theorists. And from there inaccuracies branch out to an overly simplified idea that (flu) vaccines are 'useless and harmful' by supplying incomplete information on the topic, and being attacked for posting a far more comprehensive and balances view. My overriding take is that people are perfectly able to have a view on government approach, without adopting an unbelievably slanted take across the board that I can only assume they feel absolves them of any responsibility or impact of their own stance.

Whatever decisions are made are going to be worse than the status quo and so there will be no there's destined to be no shortage of blame. It may well be that the eventual impact of lockdowns and measures causes more damage than harm of the virus itself and I've said absolutely nothing that criticises that take. We can of course factor in that initially we didn't know what we were dealing with, whereas now we know more and have better treatments, and so I have sympathy for the views of cities under measures now. Just as I do those concerned that the situation might get worse (though I did highlight that deaths might be less alarmist metric to get behind, rather than case count, which was likely vastly higher than it is now earlier in the year).

But regardless of what people think of the government approach, it pays to have an outlook of the virus itself, treatments and of individual takes that offer a degree of balance and takes on board information from multiple perspectives rather than adopt a skewed conclusion and spends all day hunting for information that supports it. I'm not the one on here wagging my finger at people who shield if they need to or have a degree of social life if they don't. I'm criticising those who ignore anything that is contrary to their comfort blanket. When you start getting people with X-Files like takes on vaccines, or denying numbers only in ways that's convenient to their outlook while ignoring everything else, and mocking vulnerable people holding out hope for vaccines then yes I'll speak up about those things.


Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 9.10pm)

Just a thought here, not critisism. You talk a lot about "holding out hope for vaccines". How long do you think is reasonable to wait for one that might work? And if it is available next week, do you think it is reasonable for people to refuse it as it has had no real testing? Becky brought up this subject earlier, but I'm not sure that you understand the implications of untested "miracle drugs".

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (17 Oct 2020 9.23pm)

 


Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Oct 20 9.30pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

But the virus has never gone away. Why not report the daily/monthly excess deaths. If it is that deadly, there will be excess deaths all the time the virus exists. Regardless of any measures. Where are they? If treatments are better or not, and there are no excess deaths, why have further lockdowns? If there are excess deaths, they would be broadcast loud to justify lockdowns.

The death rate dropped so much over the summer that any excess would be lost in natural statistical variation and nothing of value could be learned.

Now that the infection rate is rising again so quickly such a statistic will doubtless become useful again, but it's meaningless at the moment.

What will be most valuable is to determine how effective the treatments now are and how much these modify the infection to death ratio.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 17 Oct 20 9.32pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Just a thought here, not critisism. You talk a lot about "holding out hope for vaccines". How long do you think is reasonable to wait for one that might work? And if it is available next week, do you think it is reasonable for people to refuse it as it has had no real testing? Becky brought up this subject earlier, but I'm not sure that you understand the implications of untested "miracle drugs".

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (17 Oct 2020 9.23pm)

That in itself is a simplification, but I'm happy to answer. I've said that I see little point in those in non at risk groups waiting for a vaccine to live as normal life as is possible, because they likely won't be impacted by covid-19 in any meaningful way anyway.

For those in genuinely vulnerable groups though and seriously knocking on in years, I can well understand why they might have reasonably been extra careful. My point is, with stage 3 results for various vaccines being released within the next couple of months, if they are positive I can well understand why many would elect to be first in line. Yes, it's not risk free, but then for some neither is covid-19. It would of course be reasonable to refuse it, just as it would be reasonable and probably sensible for many to have it. For some it could potentially be their route back to a normal life.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 9.37pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Tim Gypsy Hill '64's Profile Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Flag Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 9.41pm Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Add Tim Gypsy Hill '64 as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

It's not forever and that really is the point.
Have you seen how people dont do what they're advised to do, so now they will be told what to do.
At the start it seemed everyone wanted a handbook on how to distance, wash hands and avoid others as best they can. Now they have one they're still not happy!
Would you be bothered if someone testing positive associated with you and yours without telling you until after. Shake their hand and say never mind who needs rules I'm sure we'll all be fine.
Is that you?

I'm of the opinion that this is a novel virus. It is highly contagious, and will likely kill old and vulnerable people. There will be exceptions, as there always is in any situation, regardless of what is being discussed. People smoke 40 fags a day and live to 102. It proves nothing about lung cancer. What I take issue with is this desire to shut down normal life to save a minority. This will be looked back upon as a massive self destruction. The economy is effectively screwed. You harp on about the 80's, (I lost a business then by the way), and how it bounced back, but we still had a fair amount of industry back then. Not now. Globalisation was a glimmer in the eye of corporations then. It's reality now. Small business will not come back if it goes under now. The big guys just move in and corner off everything.

So, I'm fine meeting Joe Public, and letting us all try and live individual lives, and have small businesses, not corporate, unfulfilling jobs for the wealthy.

 


Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Tim Gypsy Hill '64's Profile Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Flag Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 9.43pm Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Add Tim Gypsy Hill '64 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The death rate dropped so much over the summer that any excess would be lost in natural statistical variation and nothing of value could be learned.

Now that the infection rate is rising again so quickly such a statistic will doubtless become useful again, but it's meaningless at the moment.

What will be most valuable is to determine how effective the treatments now are and how much these modify the infection to death ratio.

So excess deaths matter if they are high, but not if they are low. I get your thinking. Crikey!

You are something special.

 


Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Tim Gypsy Hill '64's Profile Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Flag Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 9.47pm Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Add Tim Gypsy Hill '64 as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

That in itself is a simplification, but I'm happy to answer. I've said that I see little point in those in non at risk groups waiting for a vaccine to live as normal life as is possible, because they likely won't be impacted by covid-19 in any meaningful way anyway.

For those in genuinely vulnerable groups though and seriously knocking on in years, I can well understand why they might have reasonably been extra careful. My point is, with stage 3 results for various vaccines being released within the next couple of months, if they are positive I can well understand why many would elect to be first in line. Yes, it's not risk free, but then for some neither is covid-19. It would of course be reasonable to refuse it, just as it would be reasonable and probably sensible for many to have it. For some it could potentially be their route back to a normal life.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 9.37pm)

So, if it kills them in a slow and painful manner, because it had a fatal flaw, is ok?

 


Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 17 Oct 20 9.53pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

If this, if that, why? The "second wave" is a mere ripple, and in areas that were affected less in the spring.

Here's an "if" for you. What if the NHS is not fit for purpose, and never has been?

And again, back off with the insults!

What insults?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 17 Oct 20 9.54pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Shall we all have a virtual hug? ‘In a socially distanced way?’

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 17 Oct 20 10.00pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

I saw the start of ‘Strictly’ tonight.

The opening of the serious had 2 dancers outside in the fresh air of summer. Very appropriate verse from a dance track from more than 25 years ago. Problem was the chorus, by Rozalla.

‘Cos you’re freeeee
To do what you want to dooo’

Are they taking the p1ss?

I know they anticipate loads of questions or complaints of not following rules or being safe but every single thing they talked about was explained and justified by what they’ve done.

Stopped watching it a long time ago once they brought in people ive never heard of. Wouldn’t watch this series anyway.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 17 Oct 20 10.00pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

I'm of the opinion that this is a novel virus. It is highly contagious, and will likely kill old and vulnerable people. There will be exceptions, as there always is in any situation, regardless of what is being discussed. People smoke 40 fags a day and live to 102. It proves nothing about lung cancer. What I take issue with is this desire to shut down normal life to save a minority. This will be looked back upon as a massive self destruction. The economy is effectively screwed. You harp on about the 80's, (I lost a business then by the way), and how it bounced back, but we still had a fair amount of industry back then. Not now. Globalisation was a glimmer in the eye of corporations then. It's reality now. Small business will not come back if it goes under now. The big guys just move in and corner off everything.

So, I'm fine meeting Joe Public, and letting us all try and live individual lives, and have small businesses, not corporate, unfulfilling jobs for the wealthy.

Sorry about your business and I lost my home.
The point is the help wasnt there in the 80s as we both found out. No eviction delays,no Grants, no furlough,no free loans, nothing. This artificial recession has put business on hold. Shops, cafes,gyms,offices etc will all be up and running again as they are needed. Might be different owners and operators but they will be back. In the 80s a lot wernt needed. There was too much of the same thing so competition was a lot fiercer. An example being cafes nowadays or formally on high streets.
There could be 8 or more but all thriving very well. They will be thriving again for sure.
Back to point I think to not be bothered about a positive associating with you knowingly is wrong imo.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 621 of 627 < 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus