Coronavirus Thread

[Parafox]

20 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

Lol. You need help with spelling by the look of it. Should be ‘quote’ ‘legitimacy’ and from your previous post. ‘Eaten’. You’re welcome 😉 

You ned holp with grusping the faxts of wot yo poste on her. By the way, you missed "conspriracy". your welcum.

When your grasp of the facts matches your grasp of spelling, please post again.

Also, you don't need to say 'quote'... when you can use quotation marks i.e. "legitimacy". 

Edited 17 December 2021 by Parafox

[grobyfox1990]

The queue for the Eurostar is literally miles long. All that covid going back to france hahaha. Strong smell of weed in the queue too. Idiotic, senseless rules 

[SpacedX]

28 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Jeez, I'd be here all night listing absurd rules. 

Likewise your absurd posts.

 

28 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

1. How about having to isolate (snap decision from.uk govt)  when coming back from the canaries last year, whose infection rate was 4x lower than the UK?  That was spite to 'punish' those who went on holiday, nothing to do with safety.

Rare that I resort to ad hominem rebuke, but , oh you absolute tit. Boo-hoo. Personally, I think its hilarious. Good. No sympathy for you whatsoever. 

 

It had nothing to do with your poxy package holiday, rather I would suggest the timing of it. Why are you people so self-obsessed? 

 

What was the infection rate per head at the time? What was the rate of increase? More context. Data please. What was the precise date of your return? 

 

Were you by any chance tempted by another quick break in a villa on the flanks of Cumbre Vieja, La Palmas last September? 

 

28 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

2. How about the old fella who sat behind me v Newcastle who leant over towards the gap next to my seat and sneezed on me? And then at the end of the game, popped his mask on? Thanks old fella! 

 

What does the irresponsible behaviour of a complete tool at a football game have to do with the benefit of encouraging people to wear face coverings in public places? I was there too, and frankly I rued the fact that I hadn't had the good sense to stay away. 

 

28 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I cba to list literally hundreds of other absurdities in the last 18 months.

So could I, but that wasn't the question. You proudly and arrogantly proclaimed that you hadn't complied with 75 % of regulations since June 2021. Could you clarify precisely what they are? and why? Because, evidently it slipped your mind. Good lad. 

Edited 17 December 2021 by Line-X

[Guest Lcfc82]

.

Edited 17 December 2021 by Lcfc82

[Paninistickers]

11 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Likewise your absurd posts.

 

Rare that I resort to ad hominem rebuke, but , oh you absolute tit. Boo-hoo. Personally, I think its hilarious. Good. No sympathy for you whatsoever. 

 

It had nothing to do with your poxy package holiday, rather I would suggest the timing of it. Why are you people so self-obsessed? 

 

What was the infection rate per head at the time? What was the rate of increase? More context. Data please. What was the precise date of your return? 

 

Were you by any chance tempted by another quick break in a villa on the flanks of Cumbre Vieja, La Palmas last September? 

 

What does the irresponsible behaviour of a complete tool at a football game have to do with the benefit of encouraging people to wear face coverings in public places? I was there too, and frankly I rued the fact that I hadn't had the good sense to stay away. 

 

So could I, but that wasn't the question. You proudly and arrogantly proclaimed that you hadn't complied with 75 % of regulations since June 2021. Could you clarify precisely what they are? and why? Because, evidently it slipped your mind. Good lad. 

You having a bad day, dude? 

 

Have a glass of vino and watch some telly. Might help x

[Legend_in_blue]

38 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Jeez, I'd be here all night listing absurd rules. 

 

1. How about having to isolate (snap decision from.uk govt)  when coming back from the canaries last year, whose infection rate was 4x lower than the UK?  That was spite to 'punish' those who went on holiday, nothing to do with safety.

 

2. How about the old fella who sat behind me v Newcastle who leant over towards the gap next to my seat and sneezed on me? And then at the end of the game, popped his mask on? Thanks old fella! 

 

I cba to list literally hundreds of other absurdities in the last 18 months.

 

 

3.

 

Drinking a coffee in a park was an arrestable offence...

[SpacedX]

Just now, Paninistickers said:

You having a bad day, dude? 

 

Have a glass of vino and watch some telly. Might help x

Thanks friend, really I'm fine. I'd ask after the other bloke if I were you. Telly - not so much, a drop of red...most certainly. 

[Corky]

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

 yep

 

This annoyed me with a lot of people. They would bleat on and on about what a saint they are because they're not risking other people's lives by mixing with other people. Then the government give them a little window to go and see other people and the same people are gladly mixing with relatives and friends. So weird

I agree on the saints, holier than thou lot but I think, for many people, the fact it was made an offence and the Police could turn up if you were unlucky (like those ladies going for a walk in the countryside a few miles from home) that made people more wary.

 

I thought many of the rules were over the top but didn't fancy a chat with a copper justifying why I was doing a normal activity. I hope we never, ever go back to those times- hideous just thinking about it.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Legend_in_blue said:

3.

 

Drinking a coffee in a park was an arrestable offence...

Good one. Absolutely agree with you. Massive over reaction. Didn't they class it as a picnic? . 

 

That's not so much the rule though, more a ham fisted attempt to enforce it and general ****wittery on behalf of the Derbyshire Police Constabulary. 

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Thanks friend, really I'm fine. I'd ask after the other bloke if I were you. Telly - not so much, a drop of red...most certainly. 

You make an awful.lot of assumptions and accusations about me. Idiot. Tit. 'Package holiday'. And more.  You really don't know me at all. 

 

Seriously, it was way OTT and you come.across as needing a red.

 

 

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

You make an awful.lot of assumptions and accusations about me. Idiot. Tit. 'Package holiday'. And more.  You really don't know me at all. 

 

Seriously, it was way OTT and you come.across as needing a red.

 

Simmer down. I know you're ultimately a decent well meaning bloke at heart. And actually, the original assumption that I was referring to you was all yours!

 

At least I didn't call you a c**t 

Edited 17 December 2021 by Line-X

[brucey]

 

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

I guess I am one of these idiots you refer to, as I haven't taken a blind bit of notice of 75% of the rules since about June 2020. Mainly as 75% of rules are absurd, pointless, futile and/or just plain spiteful. 

 

I've used my own common sense, my own sense of fairness and just basic politeness theoughout and guess what? I've never caught it (not even asymptomatically) BUT MORE  IMPORTANTLY I have never given it to anyone.  

 

Maybe a few more 'idiots' using common sense rather than blindly following pointless rules would see less transmission!

Can I ask how you know both points for sure. 

 

P.S I dont really care for the debate on the rules etc. I just found this statement intriguing. How could you know for sure. 

[st albans fox]

28 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

65 hospitalisations with the new variant and thankfully still only 1 death 

Pretty sure that the data on the number of patients in hospital with omicron is a few days old. I wonder if they are prioritising hospital positive PCR tests to check for the S gene ? 
 

even if it is a few days old it’s better than being in the other direction ! 

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Can I ask how you know both points for sure. 

 

P.S I dont really care for the debate on the rules etc. I just found this statement intriguing. How could you know for sure. 

Sure. Because I have never been totally isolated. 

 

Even if I was asymptomatic, at least one of my kids, or their mum, or a close mate, or close colleagues would've picked it up. So I'm either a superspreader of asymptomatic covid or, more probably, have never had it

[Phil Bowman]

42 minutes ago, Parafox said:

I don't know if your being obtuse here but surely, science is based on facts and research, not opinions

Yeah, it was a joke. Soz, I often hide my jokes behind pretend stupidity. Don’t know why I think I need to pretend to be stupid, mind…

[pazzerfox]

2 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

What have we learned? Maybe that breakfast telly is crap. If we didn’t know that already. Which, surely, we did?

As you were.

Correct, but a great number of people will watch and believe everything reported on said program without question. Question everything to see if it stands up to scrutiny is my take away. 

[pazzerfox]

34 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

You make an awful.lot of assumptions and accusations about me. Idiot. Tit. 'Package holiday'. And more.  You really don't know me at all. 

 

Seriously, it was way OTT and you come.across as needing a red.

 

 

Straight red or second yellow?

[Raj]

38 minutes ago, brucey said:

 

People wont be taking the p1ss with this especially  towards xmas🤣 (If they are lucky enough to afford the time off work and get the SSP!)

[Charl91]

On 16/12/2021 at 16:24, yorkie1999 said:

Selfishly, I want to be in lockdown over Xmas. Get me mum round, stick GOT on, bottle of sherry and that’s it till next year.

 

It's posts like this that make me despair of humanity. I have no idea why any sane person would think is a good idea and would want to endure this all over again; it was absolutely awful first time round, and its certainly not going to be better second time. Personally, I don't think my mental health could cope.

 

Admittedly, the first few seasons were great, but 7 and 8? Diabolical.

 

[yorkie1999]

40 minutes ago, brucey said:

 

Wonderful, that'll encourage all those who get ssp at 96 quid a week, something that i think has been one of the main problems during this pandemic is people not being able to afford to be off work with the virus.

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

It's posts like this that make me despair of humanity. I have no idea why any sane person would think is a good idea and would want to endure this all over again; it was absolutely awful first time round, and its certainly not going to be better second time. Personally, I don't think my mental health could cope.

 

Admittedly, the first few seasons were great, but 7 and 8? Diabolical.

 

That had me going then, very funny. Peaky Blinders it is then.

Edited 17 December 2021 by yorkie1999

[dsr-burnley]

15 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Wonderful, that'll encourage all those who get ssp at 96 quid a week, something that i think has been one of the main problems during this pandemic is people not being able to afford to be off work with the virus.

It won't encourage people on SSP.  It will, I dare say, encourage people who work for the government and have been working, however inefficiently, from home, to take a mnth off because they will be on full pay.  If it's anything like HMRC they will be unlikely to be missed because HMRC is barely functioning in a useful manner anyway.  With honourable exceptions.  

 

The big problem here is that anyone who is so unfit that they can't go to work or work from home for 28 days at a stretch, ought to see a doctor.  I think this new rule is basically accepting that you can't see a doctor within 28 days anyway, and by the time you get an appointment you will have either died or got better so you won't be troubling them by attending.  A bit rough on people with potentially fatal illnesses, but there it is.  Covid comes first.  

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

It won't encourage people on SSP.  It will, I dare say, encourage people who work for the government and have been working, however inefficiently, from home, to take a mnth off because they will be on full pay.  If it's anything like HMRC they will be unlikely to be missed because HMRC is barely functioning in a useful manner anyway.  With honourable exceptions.  

 

The big problem here is that anyone who is so unfit that they can't go to work or work from home for 28 days at a stretch, ought to see a doctor.  I think this new rule is basically accepting that you can't see a doctor within 28 days anyway, and by the time you get an appointment you will have either died or got better so you won't be troubling them by attending.  A bit rough on people with potentially fatal illnesses, but there it is.  Covid comes first.  

What i mean is that people who can't afford to take time off work if they're ill, specifically with the virus, they'll keep it quiet and hope their employers don't find out.

[dsr-burnley]

38 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

What i mean is that people who can't afford to take time off work if they're ill, specifically with the virus, they'll keep it quiet and hope their employers don't find out.

That may be true, but the self-certification rule change won't be a difference maker to that, will it?