Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

It is made for virus detection, it was developed to establish the link between HIV and aids.

It cannot tell you what virus you have and also detects old and inactive virus.  Kary Mullis actually said that a pcr test cannot tell you if you are sick nor can it tell you if you are going to be sick, therefore it is not suitable for diagnosis, please do your research.

 

I have, and I'm satisfied that the PCR test is good enough for at least telling if the Covid virus in any form (as opposed to an intact and infectious form) is within a patient, which works as at least a rough-and-ready diagnostic IMO. It would be nice to have a better and faster diagnostic for picking between different types of Covid in peoples bodies, but seeing as that isn't on the table right now the more risk averse strategy - assume everyone who has the virus within them is infectious - is fair enough.

 

If anything, not being able to tell accurately who is and who isn't infectious, merely who has it, is a bigger argument against opening things up because a more targetted approach isn't possible.

 

If peer-reviewed, detailed scientific literature comes along saying otherwise - nothing less - I will reconsider. But it's good to have chewed the fat with you. :thumbup:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/09/2020 at 09:44, Jon the Hat said:

It's almost like the scientists know **** all about economics and don't have to worry about the country not being completely ****ed, and are only answering medical and epidemology based questions with no political lens whatsoever.  On this basis you would ban ****ing everything. Smoking; drinking; driving; meeting other people at all.

They not there to advise on the economy and politics, they there to advise on the virus to be fair.

 

Its the government themselves who decides if to listen to them, or prioritise the economy over it, and we can see which direction they have gone.

 

I expect they give projections based on course of actions the government choose to take, possibly a recommendation to go with that as well.  I believe with hospitality the government was going to close it up, but the chancellor threatened to resign so we got the curfew instead.

 

Of course we already have bans in place for the things you listed, smoking in cars with kids, cant smoke in open enclosed public areas (designated smoking areas), seat belts required in car, they likely advise on all sorts of things pre covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/09/2020 at 09:49, Jon the Hat said:

Feel free to move to China if you want to live in a police state!  FFS the death rate is miniscule and you want to hand over your freedoms.  Un ****ing believable.

No need for the swearing, I have never said I want to hand over my freedom either, but I am observing a lot of selfishness amongst the population, I see it time and time again, as long as its someone else affected, people don't care.  Also I wouldn't call the affects on mortality minuscule either.  If this was a long term disease I expect the life expectancy would be nowhere near where it is today.

 

If you think that is a police state, I dread to think how you would react to been in war conditions.

 

Regardless of what you think, laws are not there to be broken, if business's are showing blatant disregard to safety guidelines of course action should be taken.

Edited by Chrysalis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2020 at 09:41, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

One of the few sensible things Tubby Johnson (older folk remember him from Viz?) is for people to lose weight, obesity is one of the main factors for being in the vulnerable category and also one of the few factors that can be changed.

People should take responsibility for themselves and lead a healthier lifestyle.

This is probably one of the biggest assumptions made right now, that been overweight is always down to no effort been made to get rid of it.  There is various reasons someone can be overweight, and there can be various reasons why people struggle to lose weight.  Of course some cases might be remedied by effort, but this should not be assumed to be for every case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/09/2020 at 22:48, Rob1742 said:

Time to turn this on it’s head. So of 67m population we have deaths Of 42,000. Let’s say this gets to 67,000, then we are saying it has taken 0.1% of the population.

 

So 99.9% of the population are facing restrictions, the economy is on its ass and implications with regards to people’s future is increasingly worrying. We are in a devastating situation, yet we are trying to protect maybe 20,000 people.

 

We need to turn this on its head. We need to isolate those at risk, put money in the pot to help them, and let the rest get on with their lives. With social distancing where possible to keep these 99.9% of people’s lives going forward.

 

The government have got this drastically wrong. It should be the old 80/20 rule, but this is 99.9 / 0.1 yet we are causing issues for the majority.

 

At 53 I am not a youngster who would walk through the virus without trouble, but I fully understand the implication this is having on millions of people and we have to keep the country going and livelihoods protected.

 

People are missing operations, mental health is suffering, education is being affected for millions and millions and we are accepting what the government say and just watching people’s futures diminish. 
 

I supported the government initially as it was something they couldn’t ever predict, but they are watching futures go down the toilet rather than have a plan to protect the most vulnerable.

 

 

I sort of agree, but the problem is, its how people are categorised, you have lots of people who have undiagnosed illness, right now people are been categorised based on their medical files and age only.   For your idea to work fairly, the NHS needs sorting out so people can get properly diagnosed, and the scheme would need to be more lenient to not just be reliant on medical files to get people in the vulnerable group.  They would for sure need to open up an application system for people to be recognised as vulnerable.

 

Also bear in mind the death figures are now much lower primarily for two reasons.

 

1 - Most of the cases are now from community testing, actual hospital cases are much lower than spring, and this is something I have said in dozens of older posts, I don't like, my opinion is and remains they should not be locking people down for community testing.  But everyone in here who is now moaning, doesn't know I posted that because they couldn't give a crap before as long as they were not locked down.  So I think none of the local lockdown's in the summer should have happened and most of the local lockdown's in place shouldn't be there.  On the flip side I don't think everything should be fully open either, the reason deaths are lower now is because of the national restrictions still in place and the earlier national lockdown.

 

2 - The national restrictions, there is still some in place, and I think especially certain people, such as those in care homes are been wrapped in cotton wool.  Attendance at sporting events and other things are all likely having an impact.

 

I think we heading in this direction, stories of anyone over 45 potentially been asked to shield with everyone else on free reign to live how they please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2020 at 13:18, Cardiff_Fox said:

I just looked up the last Covid-19 watchlist report 

 

Leicester is 90.9 positive tests per 100,000. 
 

So correct me if I’m thick here 

 

90.9 / 100,000

9.09 / 10,000

0.909 / 1,000 

0.0909 / 100 

 

So that’s like 1 person has Covid in every 1,100? Over the last seven days on average 

One thing you need to bear in mind, these are "confirmed" cases.  In the medical world, people are only considered to be ill of something if they have been tested and confirmed by a HCP, this however is flawed.  We have to remember many people can have all sorts of illnesses butits not official unless a HCP confirms it, this can go from anything like cancer, to of course covid.  I expect probably 100s of thousands had covid in march but because there was no community testing none of them were confirmed.

 

So I expect a lot more than 1 person in a 1000 actually has covid.

 

On the flipside death rates are a more real statistic, if someone is dead, they dead.  Dont need a HCP to know that.  Personally I think we should just concentrate on hospital cases and deaths, which in practice means we are more lenient, but at the same time however we shouldn't let the tap flow freely.  Also bear in mind as I have seen it mentioned about op's and other f2f been cancelled in hospitals and GP surgeries, this is a real problem, but the problem is when people are ill they are also more vulnerable to covid, so if we opened up hospitals again, then death rates are likely to shoot up as you then have very ill people entering virus hot spots.  I think the solution to that is isolate hospitals for specific patients, covid free hospitals only treat anyone who has been tested negative before entry (routine appointments, ops etc.).  Then covid hospitals for a&e and covid patients.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2020 at 16:25, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Whatever the Govt (or any Govt) do, there'll be millions screaming for something different.

They try and help X - they're accused of not doing enough for Y

There's risks in whatever they choose and they'll be hammered either way.

Locking down to reduce deaths, the economy suffers and that's wrong.

Try and re-energise the economy, deaths rise and that's wrong.

Just seems impossible to find something to please the masses.

Pretty much nail on head there, this is because most people are concerned for their own well being only, so it will never be possible to please everyone.

 

Look at wales, most of it is now under local lockdown's, but is no national lockdown there because of course that would be very unpopular.  Future political decisions are going to be heavily based on popularity, so I think unless this really kicks off and causes a national emergency, I think we wont see another national lockdown.  They will be very hesitant to close hospitality because of how many are affected by it, and schools I think will stay open as long as there is no national emergency.  I would not want to be a PM right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2020 at 16:25, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Whatever the Govt (or any Govt) do, there'll be millions screaming for something different.

They try and help X - they're accused of not doing enough for Y

There's risks in whatever they choose and they'll be hammered either way.

Locking down to reduce deaths, the economy suffers and that's wrong.

Try and re-energise the economy, deaths rise and that's wrong.

Just seems impossible to find something to please the masses.

The issue is they can't commit to either and keep flip flopping which enrages the lockdown nonces and the people who want to live their lives 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

This is probably one of the biggest assumptions made right now, that been overweight is always down to no effort been made to get rid of it.  There is various reasons someone can be overweight, and there can be various reasons why people struggle to lose weight.  Of course some cases might be remedied by effort, but this should not be assumed to be for every case.

If you read one of my posts before then you’d realise I didn’t assume anything of the sort. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

If you read one of my posts before then you’d realise I didn’t assume anything of the sort. 

 

Fair enough, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally, but thanks for clarifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8799317/Coronavirus-Boris-hints-hell-suspend-Rule-Six-Christmas-Day.html

 

'Did Boris just save Christmas? PM hints he'll suspend Rule of Six on December 25 to ensure a family of five can have both grandparents round for festive lunch'

 

lol

that just proves how much of a load of bollox this is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

When the obese 74 year old POTUS survives it, how can we keep making the arguments to continue this madness 

He's a fairly active 74 year old with the best medical care in the world.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8799317/Coronavirus-Boris-hints-hell-suspend-Rule-Six-Christmas-Day.html

 

'Did Boris just save Christmas? PM hints he'll suspend Rule of Six on December 25 to ensure a family of five can have both grandparents round for festive lunch'

 

lol

Granny and Grandpa's Christmas present?

 

Three weeks all expenses paid break in January at the Royal Infirmary with your very own ventilator!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t normally come on this thread much ...   too much fecking whining...   would love some of our more prolific whining posters to have a go at running the country ....   3 nervous breakdowns later ...    “Bit harder than I thought“ ....   

 

Just can’t understand it ...   everyone should be pulling together ...   being sensible and helping those that are vulnerable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8799317/Coronavirus-Boris-hints-hell-suspend-Rule-Six-Christmas-Day.html

 

'Did Boris just save Christmas? PM hints he'll suspend Rule of Six on December 25 to ensure a family of five can have both grandparents round for festive lunch'

 

lol

As I said they are chasing the popular opinion now.  They was always going to back down on Christmas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

He's a fairly active 74 year old with the best medical care in the world.

Yep he will be getting platinum level care, 24h personal observation, experimental drugs, personal medical team etc.  He will pull through it.

 

Kind of like how Boris got admitted early, when rest of UK were only allowed when almost dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joachim1965 said:

so the virus takes christmas off.

what a croc of shit.

It doesnt but we will have to deal with it, I dont think for one minute anything more than a small minority would have complied.  We also have to think about letting people have these special moments.  So I can sympathise here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

He's a fairly active 74 year old with the best medical care in the world.

Fairy active? You sure? This man thinks the body is like a battery and if you exercise you use all the energy and die early. He's famously not very active, with a terrible diet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...