Coronavirus Thread

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, Otis said:

 

Still living rent free in your head. I don't think there's a day go by that youdon't mention this.

It's utterly hilarious that's why. Almost as amusing as your revelation that lockdown doesn't work because people are still being infected. 

 

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

You can be as pompous as you like

Eh?...

 

32 minutes ago, Lcfc82 said:

Yep it’s a load of bollocks. No justification for further restrictions.

Great reasoning.

 

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

You can be as pompous as you like but there’s actually zero justification for what has been announced.

 

I'd suggest that an emergent variant that we know nothing little about with scores of changes to the spike protein, over fifty mutations, the potential for vaccine evasion and possibly treble the infection rate of Delta is every justification for the precautionary measures that have been announced.

[fox_up_north]

God, why do we have to have THIS government during the pandemic. Although these rules don't really affect me - I rarely go in shops as everything is ordered online and I work from home anyway, it just feels like such a weasly way to announce it after the last few days. 

[SpacedX]

 

[Farrington fox]

41 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

The restrictions are very much linked to behavioural science - as many members of Sage are "experts" in.  Bring back the measures little by little, reinforce the message constantly, and expect noone to question it.

We are on a very slippery slope now. 

[Legend_in_blue]

4 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

We are on a very slippery slope now. 

 

Can't believe these slides weren't used in the presser either.

 

Tailor made for it they are I tell you!

 

[SpacedX]

Just now, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Can't believe these slides weren't used in the presser either.

 

Tailor made for it they are I tell you!

 

That the recommendation for mandatory facemasks is made prior to a predicted surge in cases? 

 

Why do you think that was? Think hard now. 

[reynard]

6 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Can't believe these slides weren't used in the presser either.

 

Tailor made for it they are I tell you!

 

And?

[kyleolly]

So they want to stop the spread at large events, non vaxed if they don't take the piss will have proof they don't have covid. Double vaxed don't have to do a test so there's a possibility they could have covid when entering a football ground for example so it will be the double vaxed spreading covid

[reynard]

47 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Those tests were carried out at test centres though and required someone to watch you do the test. Then they independently sent you a result.
 

Lateral flows are self reported now. You can literally scan in the barcode and enter the result without doing anything to the test. 

Well maybe we should return to that process to access more events?

[Farrington fox]

11 minutes ago, Line-X said:

That the recommendation for mandatory facemasks is made prior to a predicted surge in cases? 

 

Why do you think that was? Think hard now. 

Or, it could demonstrate they don't prevent a rise in cases, surely. Then the argument would be... Cases would have been higher without them, which surely can't be proved.

[reynard]

20 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

We are on a very slippery slope now. 

You know you may well be right but perhaps not the slope you are thinking about. Let's hope we're both wrong.

[st albans fox]

Just now, Farrington fox said:

Or, it could demonstrate they don't prevent a rise in cases, surely. Then the argument would be... Cases would have been higher without them, which surely can't be proved.

You can’t prove a negative 

annoying for whichever argument you’re having and what side you sit on that debate …..

 

we could go back to the seat belt analogy …….or cooking meat properly. I mean my cat eats raw meat …….

[Raj]

So.....you can go to the games if your double vaccinated or

show a negative lateral tests from any of your mates negative tests!?

Edited 8 December 2021 by Raj

[fox_favourite]

20 minutes ago, Line-X said:

That the recommendation for mandatory facemasks is made prior to a predicted surge in cases? 

 

Why do you think that was? Think hard now. 

Okay - so why pre covid, did we cover our mouths when we cough and sneeze? Would you be happy at the time for someone to sneeze in your direction without doing so? We did it to be courteous to others to hoped stop them getting your cold and spreading germs. Was it 100% effective - no. Did it limit chances - yes 

 

Same with masks - it won’t stop it 100% but it will limit it transmission. Surely logically if you put a cover over your face and you cough you are catching some of the particles and not just coughing in peoples faces. 
 

the graphs you presented only show that masks were introduced when there was an upward trend. They weren’t the cause or the full solution but if everyone didn’t have masks it would be a lot worse. I’m not basing it on scientific knowledge, not politically motivated at all, I’m just basing it on pure logic. 

Edited 8 December 2021 by fox_favourite

[SpacedX]

16 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

Or, it could demonstrate they don't prevent a rise in cases, surely. Then the argument would be... Cases would have been higher without them, which surely can't be proved.

It's your initial statement that is in contention here and can't be proved. As the one making the claim, the burden of proof would be incumbent upon you to "demonstrate" otherwise. 

 

Facemasks are a preventative measure employed against a virus which is known to be transmitted predominately by aerosols as opposed to fomites. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The consilience/preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. There are studies that demonstrate this and epidemiological frameworks developed to quantify effectivity. I can refer you to these if you wish.

 

Returning to your claim that it could demonstrate that they don't prevent a rise in cases - you'll need to produce your data showing a negative relationship. You can't prove an absent. 

 

 

Edited 8 December 2021 by Line-X

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

Okay - so why pre covid, did we cover our mouths when we cough and sneeze? Would you be happy at the time for someone to sneeze in your direction without doing so? We did it to be courteous to others to hoped stop them getting your cold and spreading germs. Was it 100% effective - no. Did it limit chances - yes 

 

Same with masks - it won’t stop it 100% but it will limit it transmission. Surely logically if you put a cover over your face and you cough you are catching some of the particles and not just coughing in peoples faces. 
 

the graphs you presented only show that masks were introduced when there was an upward trend. They weren’t the cause or the full solution but if everyone didn’t have masks it would be a lot worse. I’m not basing it on scientific knowledge, not politically motivated at all, I’m just basing it on pure logic. 

I think that you've just quoted the wrong person. 

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Raj said:

So.....you can ho to the fames of your double vaccinated or

show a negative lateral tests from any of your mates negative tests!?

I guess so ……

[fox_favourite]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I think that you've just quoted the wrong person. 

I did, my bad. Can I blame me phone  or it’s the mask I’m wearing one of the two. 

Edited 8 December 2021 by fox_favourite

[SpacedX]

Just now, fox_favourite said:

I did, my bad. Can I blame me phone 

Easily done 

[fox_favourite]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Easily done 

But at least you understand my point 

 

ill go back to my hole now 

Edited 8 December 2021 by fox_favourite

[Phil Bowman]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

God, why do we have to have THIS government during the pandemic.

Indeed. I agree with you completely. As, I suspect, might the loved ones of all the people who have died of covid because we have this government during the pandemic.

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, Raj said:

So.....you can go to the games if your double vaccinated or

show a negative lateral tests from any of your mates negative tests!?

Or just squirt the liquid straight on the test, it comes up C

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, kyleolly said:

So they want to stop the spread at large events, non vaxed if they don't take the piss will have proof they don't have covid. Double vaxed don't have to do a test so there's a possibility they could have covid when entering a football ground for example so it will be the double vaxed spreading covid

Yeah, and if this new strain is as concerning as is being made out to be then being double jabbed won't mean a lot as what's the point in a passport. 

 

 

[Farrington fox]

 

[Legend_in_blue]

Oh look, it's the 1 in 3 have no symptoms advert on the TV.  Again.

 

There's no getting away from it.