Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 becky  over the moon 18 May 23 6.11pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
It's back - it's the Coronavirus and impact of lockdown thread and it will get locked permanently if personal insults start being thrown about again.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
  |
 palace_in_frogland  In a broken dream 18 May 23 6.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Ivan Toney bets it won’t last more than a day.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
The groover  Danbury 18 May 23 7.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
My daughter and her husband have caught covid over the weekend. They are both very ill. Obviously, their vaccines have now worn off. My son-in-law found it very difficult to breath and was 2% away from being hospitalised. His O2 sats hit 92% (90% being hospital time). My daughter is also getting heart palputations, another common issue. I'm hopeful that us oldies will get another shot in the autumn with the flu jab. It hasn't, as yet gone away. And we are in a warm weather period.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 21 May 23 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The groover
My daughter and her husband have caught covid over the weekend. They are both very ill. Obviously, their vaccines have now worn off. My son-in-law found it very difficult to breath and was 2% away from being hospitalised. His O2 sats hit 92% (90% being hospital time). My daughter is also getting heart palputations, another common issue. I'm hopeful that us oldies will get another shot in the autumn with the flu jab. It hasn't, as yet gone away. And we are in a warm weather period.
Very sorry to hear about that, Groover. The majority of people clearly aren't majorly troubled, but it certainly doesn't pay to undermine the damage that the virus can do to some, or the tools at our disposable to counter that. I wish your daughter and son-in-law a speedy recovery.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 21 May 23 2.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace_in_frogland
Ivan Toney bets it won’t last more than a day. I'll bet his first match back will be against us.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 26 May 23 1.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This bloke seems to have done fairly well out of Lockdown, so not everyone was suffering. A businessman whose company supplied the NHS with millions of apparently unusable surgical gowns earned £47m in dividends last year. During the Covid pandemic, Cambridge-based Chemical Intelligence won £162m of government contracts to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Data obtained by the BBC shows at least a fifth of the equipment supplied was classified as "not fit for use". (BBC website 26.5.23) His bank account seems to be remarkably healthy
,, |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 03 Jun 23 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
With real power comes no accountability. [Tweet Link]
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 5.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I would be very disappointed if our national broadcaster accepted everything at face value and treated every opinion as equally valid. Labelling something as disinformation is not done lightly, but it must be done if we are going to know what is truly scientifically sound and what is not. There are plenty of alternative outlets for alternative views where those who hold them can circulate them to their heart's content. The national broadcaster has a duty to report the existence of these views and to set them in their context, but not take part in helping to spread them. For sure on occasions something which has been speculated about can be found later to have merit. Then though is the time to review it and not when it is just speculation. The BBC deals in verified facts, or the most likely theory, and not unverified speculation.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 03 Jun 23 6.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I would be very disappointed if our national broadcaster accepted everything at face value and treated every opinion as equally valid. Labelling something as disinformation is not done lightly, but it must be done if we are going to know what is truly scientifically sound and what is not. There are plenty of alternative outlets for alternative views where those who hold them can circulate them to their heart's content. The national broadcaster has a duty to report the existence of these views and to set them in their context, but not take part in helping to spread them. For sure on occasions something which has been speculated about can be found later to have merit. Then though is the time to review it and not when it is just speculation. The BBC deals in verified facts, or the most likely theory, and not unverified speculation. If something was a 'verified fact', it would not later turn out to be untrue. It is not the BBC's job to put all its eggs into particular baskets and I find this all to be very similar to the Durham report in America. With real power comes no accountability.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Jun 23 11.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If something was a 'verified fact', it would not later turn out to be untrue. It is not the BBC's job to put all its eggs into particular baskets and I find this all to be very similar to the Durham report in America. With real power comes no accountability. Which is why I qualified it with "or the most likely theory"! Did you miss that, or just choose to ignore it as it suited your agenda to do so? It's the BBC's job to inform and not to misinform. Sifting out dubious claims is exactly what they must do. It's nothing like the Durham report which spent 4 years trying, and failing, to whitewash Trump at his behest.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Jun 23 5.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Which is why I qualified it with "or the most likely theory"! Did you miss that, or just choose to ignore it as it suited your agenda to do so? It's the BBC's job to inform and not to misinform. Sifting out dubious claims is exactly what they must do. It's nothing like the Durham report which spent 4 years trying, and failing, to whitewash Trump at his behest. If the BBC had presented this information within the format of 'most likely theory' instead of providing information with no such caveats then I might have some sympathy for the view. However, this was not done. There was suppression of, what has turned out to be, far more likely alternatives, which many people, me included, were saying early on. As for the Durham report, it has been vindicated as the FBI admitted the failures and did not deny its conclusions. If Trump had not pursued this investigation then those failures would not have been revealed and people like you would be able to continue spreading falsehoods as you did in the 'bias against Trump' thread. Tens of millions of dollars and years of investigation and nothing but egg on your face. As predicted. I hope you are enjoying the eggy taste. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2023 5.47am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 04 Jun 23 9.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Which is why I qualified it with "or the most likely theory"! Did you miss that, or just choose to ignore it as it suited your agenda to do so? It's the BBC's job to inform and not to misinform. Sifting out dubious claims is exactly what they must do. It's nothing like the Durham report which spent 4 years trying, and failing, to whitewash Trump at his behest. Yes that is their job. But they don't do their job. They only report whatever fits their agenda at the time. They will only sift through claims they do not agree with. I have to say I am impressed with Twitter notes. If you have come across this? It has called out mis information on both sides of arguments. Edit: I already regret jumping back into this thread. Edited by eaglesdare (04 Jun 2023 9.27am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.