Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

On 07/10/2020 at 22:17, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's HERD immunity, as in "herd of cattle" (or "flock of sheeple", if you prefer), nothing to do with hearing things.

 

Undermines your credibility if you promote a concept that you can't even spell.

 

 

Sorted!

 

 

You should tell all those thousands of scientists worldwide who are wasting their money working on a vaccine - and are optimistic (with no guarantees) that one might be available by the spring.

 

They'll be pleased to be put right by a better-informed chap like yourself. Could save them a lot of money when they halt all their pointless research.

 

 

1 per 1,000,000? 

 

The UK population is about 65m, isn't it? So, you're saying that only 65 people have died........not the 42,500+ they keep announcing or the higher figure for excess deaths?

 

Again, you really should use your expert knowledge to put the statisticians right about this.

Oh Alf..These. Young uns..eh.!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

I'd be interested to know what measures certain people in this thread will be happy with currently? I don't want to call people pro-lockdown because I don't think anyone is, but some obviously want stricter restrictions? And also would anyone who has these views be affected by a stricter measures? It's easy to be pro something if you're job is safe regardless and can work from home easily. 

 

Hospitality was always going to be first to be traded off, it was said in the summer that if cases rose when education returned that pubs could close. It's pretty obvious that university students are playing a pretty big part currently, either in their living conditions or the fact they go out partying. I'd be interested to know how strict student bars have been? 

 

If they're is evidence about hospitality venues being a concern then they're right to close them, rather than that an half hearted attempt like the curfew. It's a shame for the many hospitality industries where the risk is low because of their location or the fact they are following the rules.

 

Personally, allowing households to mix together with a limit of 10 or maybe a couple less would help a lot of people. Especially if other businesses are closed. I'd like my parents to be able to stay over at ours and see their grandson. My boy has his 4th birthday coming up but under current rules noone can come and see him. it's up to individual families to decide if they want to risk certain family members in this situation. 

 

Unless everything is locked down, you're always going to get "why can't I do this, if im allowed to do that" arguments. 

When you say 10, does that include 10 random households together or groups so 4 from 1 household and 6 from another? 
 

when you live on your own and far away from family this makes a massive difference. Today we had to swap and change people to meet the rule of 6 even though every one of us well under the age of significant impact (at least 2 people have had mild symptoms and tested positive for it).. i completely understand the risk but the people I see and those around them are not in the at risk category.. should we have to limit how we see each other purely because most of us live on our own? 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the talk about another lockdown closing pubs etc isn’t it just because the school holidays are coming up and they don’t want to many people mixing? I thought I seen something like that somewhere that they wanted to shut stuff for 2 weeks when the kids are off. Could be a mistake so sorry if it’s wrong 🙈

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely read a long time ago they were considering a full scale lockdown, not just the pubs, when half term came in, which to me doesn't really make much sense. But it's clear now regardless of how sceptical you are about everything (I'm personally becoming more and more sceptical everyday, not of the virus itself but of the government and their quite frankly baffling levels of incompetence) but this is a second wave . I'm in Nottingham and I work in a pub. Nottinghams infections rate is out of control and almost certainly the pubs are going to have to close. I know this because of what the press says, it's bad enough I have to find this stuff out second hand from gutter rag publications, but the fact members of Parliament are finding out this way is astonishing. How is this info being leaked to the press before the mps are being informed? And why is it always that the press say something along the lines of 'no decision has been made yet but its likely that...' and they are always spot on. I'm rambling a bit but I'm stressed by the whole thing, furlough is ending and I've got bills to pay, and there's nothing currently in place to help me, as I've said before my missus is a singer and her income is non existent now, we're in the absolute mess here and it's all 'chin up your sub 400 quid universal credit will cover you!'. Will it ****. Is my pub going to close next week? Am I going to get furloughed? Am I going to have a roof over my head by Christmas? If the infection rate in Nottingham is as bad as they say then why the **** are they delaying, taking the absolute piss out of the public giving vague non answers. Just make a bloody decision and let me know where I stand, restrictions are one thing, lockdown is one thing, living in limbo bloody petrified my income is just going to be shut off without any help, after they've already crippled my partners life, basically, and gave her absolutely no help, she should retrain apparently, that **** sunak had better make sure I don't go without as well or were out on our arse. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing. Nottingham has 3 universities. Cases have got out of control since students came back. I absolutely understand primary and secondary school being a priority to open and keep open. But why are universities? Remote learn for now. Is there any good, valid reason universities should be having all the students on campus? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

This sounds very immature from your company... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

I definitely read a long time ago they were considering a full scale lockdown, not just the pubs, when half term came in, which to me doesn't really make much sense. But it's clear now regardless of how sceptical you are about everything (I'm personally becoming more and more sceptical everyday, not of the virus itself but of the government and their quite frankly baffling levels of incompetence) but this is a second wave . I'm in Nottingham and I work in a pub. Nottinghams infections rate is out of control and almost certainly the pubs are going to have to close. I know this because of what the press says, it's bad enough I have to find this stuff out second hand from gutter rag publications, but the fact members of Parliament are finding out this way is astonishing. How is this info being leaked to the press before the mps are being informed? And why is it always that the press say something along the lines of 'no decision has been made yet but its likely that...' and they are always spot on. I'm rambling a bit but I'm stressed by the whole thing, furlough is ending and I've got bills to pay, and there's nothing currently in place to help me, as I've said before my missus is a singer and her income is non existent now, we're in the absolute mess here and it's all 'chin up your sub 400 quid universal credit will cover you!'. Will it ****. Is my pub going to close next week? Am I going to get furloughed? Am I going to have a roof over my head by Christmas? If the infection rate in Nottingham is as bad as they say then why the **** are they delaying, taking the absolute piss out of the public giving vague non answers. Just make a bloody decision and let me know where I stand, restrictions are one thing, lockdown is one thing, living in limbo bloody petrified my income is just going to be shut off without any help, after they've already crippled my partners life, basically, and gave her absolutely no help, she should retrain apparently, that **** sunak had better make sure I don't go without as well or were out on our arse. 

This is a great post, and hits every nail on the head.

 

Its almost scripted, and you can second guess most things that are going to happen, which just proves Boris and his band of ****wits just haven’t got a clue. The really, really annoying thing is that when Boris stands there stuttering his was thought his sentence I can’t help but think there’s a bit of finger pointing going on in between the frankly shoddy attempt to rally like a war time Churchill. This whole fiasco could be a lot less disastrous if he pulled his finger out (and cock out of wife number 27) and was proactive about the virus rather that boasting about shaking hands with covid patients. 
 

He is starting to encroach on Trumps levels of insanity. In short, their incompetence is what is consistently allowing things to regress. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

And another thing. Nottingham has 3 universities. Cases have got out of control since students came back. I absolutely understand primary and secondary school being a priority to open and keep open. But why are universities? Remote learn for now. Is there any good, valid reason universities should be having all the students on campus? 

 

Not really, no. Maybe some students doing more practical degrees but not the masses. Universities make a shit ton out of their accommodation and with the government unwilling to bail them out, the universities beckoned their students back to get their cash. Given that every year 'freshers flu' is a thing, we knew this situation is ripe for spreading pathogens but we've just let it happen.

 

I think the other day I saw that half of Manchester's cases are in students. Probably similar for Nottingham. If it' constrained the student population then it's a decent result but I'm not sure how feasible that is, better chance of that in Nottingham than Manchester where things are more advanced.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

And another thing. Nottingham has 3 universities. Cases have got out of control since students came back. I absolutely understand primary and secondary school being a priority to open and keep open. But why are universities? Remote learn for now. Is there any good, valid reason universities should be having all the students on campus? 

 

As always, its all about money.

 

Force kids onto campuses and they have to pay for halls, student housing,  etc. But the real money spinner are international students of course and if you force remote learning and tell them to stay in their home country then they either start asking for part refunds or dont see the point in studying in the UK and study elsewhere.

Edited by Nalis
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

I hear your prayer brother! I have to come in even though the numbers of people infected is higher than when I was working full time from home. :dunno: Either I should have come to work when the numbers were lower or I should not be coming into work when the numbers are higher. My employers are nineteenth century control freaks. :dry: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Not really, no. Maybe some students doing more practical degrees but not the masses. Universities make a shit ton out of their accommodation and with the government unwilling to bail them out, the universities beckoned their students back to get their cash. Given that every year 'freshers flu' is a thing, we knew this situation is ripe for spreading pathogens but we've just let it happen.

 

I think the other day I saw that half of Manchester's cases are in students. Probably similar for Nottingham. If it' constrained the student population then it's a decent result but I'm not sure how feasible that is, better chance of that in Nottingham than Manchester where things are more advanced.

Similar case in Exeter where the rate has rocketed from very low numbers to 380 in every 100,000. Student population the cause. 
 

Ironically a city such as Wolves which is in local restrictions is slowly but surely edging the rate down.....university wise, it has a small Uni but it’s spread across four small campuses 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Looking at excess deaths is flawed as well because much of that is as, if not more, likely down to cancer cases not being caught early enough because of lockdown measures and general fear.

If they caught the cancer, I'm afraid if it's going to be deadly within a few months or weeks, there is little they could have done about it with treatment anyway. So that can't possibly be the short term bump in excess deaths. Longer term, yes there would be impact. 

 

15 hours ago, Nod.E said:

42.5k wouldn't be enough for me to justify shutting down society for let alone the miniscule number it actually will be.

But it wouldn't be 42,000 would it, it would be far far higher now if we hadn't shut things down and tried to control it. We're already seeing hospital admissions rise and deaths rise again the more it spreads. Without any controls it's going to be 1000+ a day again dying. 

 

15 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Trying and failing to manage the number of Covid deaths is only causing more pain and more deaths. It's impossibly invisible and the data collection is impossibly shoddy.

Not sure how you can say "failing", deaths dropped once restrictions came in, from 1000+ to 1 or 2. It's clear restrictions work. 

 

15 hours ago, Nod.E said:

There is an increasing surge of public and expert opinion that I'm hopeful finally wins out through the utter tripe coming from the mainstream and being repeated by sanctimonious tools that cry blue murder at any suggestion that Covid isn't the end of the world it's built up to be.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

 

Here's to common sense, eh?

I said on here a month ago, the government should explain why that can't happen. I proposed that it was likely that you can't actually isolate hundreds of thousands or millions of vulnerable. Was the reason it's now sweeping through care homes still because of the extra precautions, or because in general the virus was reduced to such small numbers the chances of a carrier taking it in were so vastly reduced. I'd suggest the latter, as without precautions that are pretty much unimplementable, you couldn't keep it out once it's sweeping through the general population. All the carers and doctors and nurses will be out  and about or mingling and are going to spread it. 

 

They have now said that's the case, you can't protect them like that.

Edited by Babylon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yorkie1999 said:

The track and trace app is doing very well. So far its picked up a case at one venue, but because of the data protection act, nobody knows which venue and who was there.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-contact-tracing-app-has-only-sent-one-alert-about-an-outbreak-in-a-venue-12099651

It’s a national disgrace - there’s no other phrase that sums up how little we’ve managed to do on this in six months !!

 

there are working systems all over the world - why couldn’t we just buy one of those 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a national disgrace - there’s no other phrase that sums up how little we’ve managed to do on this in six months !!

 

there are working systems all over the world - why couldn’t we just buy one of those 

Because Mathew Gould isn't the ceo of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If they caught the cancer, I'm afraid if it's going to be deadly within a few months or weeks, there is little they could have done about it with treatment anyway. So that can't possibly be the short term bump in excess deaths. Longer term, yes there would be impact. 

Sorry yes, you're right with this. Of course there is still the long term cancer deaths to consider. But cancer is but one disease. There will be others. Not to mention the impact of elders becoming vegetative.

 

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

But it wouldn't be 42,000 would it, it would be far far higher now if we hadn't shut things down and tried to control it. We're already seeing hospital admissions rise and deaths rise again the more it spreads. Without any controls it's going to be 1000+ a day again dying. 

Would it though? We had limited restrictions in May, June, July, August and cases were flat-lining. The virus is now following the viral peaks and troughs you'd expect from any respiratory illness.

 

Hate to use Sweden again, not least because it isn't the best comparison to the UK in terms of culture and population density. But it's the only real comparison we can make. They had no lockdown and while there were excess deaths (just as there were here), it didn't get off the charts bad. Appreciate this is very unscientific but realistically when you think about it, lockdowns may have saved a handful of lives. Is it worth it? Why don't we pull out all the stops to save lives for other causes of death? Here are a few ideas:

 

- Skin tone checks for sunbathing to prevent skin cancer

 

- Blood pressure tests at checkouts for those buying red meat

 

- Mandatory monthly 10km runs up to the age of 65 to improve respiratory

 

I'm not advocating any of these ideas. They're ridiculous. Point is, so is locking down society to save an insignificant number of lives, ruining many, many more livelihoods for lifetimes in the process. Does the end justify the means?

 

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

Not sure how you can say "failing", deaths dropped once restrictions came in, from 1000+ to 1 or 2. It's clear restrictions work. 

So local lockdowns have worked then? Nope.

 

The deaths figure was a natural progression of the virus becoming less deadly, treatments improving and seasonality.

 

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I said on here a month ago, the government should explain why that can't happen. I proposed that it was likely that you can't actually isolate hundreds of thousands or millions of vulnerable. Was the reason it's now sweeping through care homes still because of the extra precautions, or because in general the virus was reduced to such small numbers the chances of a carrier taking it in were so vastly reduced. I'd suggest the latter, as without precautions that are pretty much unimplementable, you couldn't keep it out once it's sweeping through the general population. All the carers and doctors and nurses will be out  and about or mingling and are going to spread it. 

 

They have now said that's the case, you can't protect them like that.

Well I'm sure they will now be taking extra precautions in care homes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

Jesus Christ. Sounds just like my last employer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The track and trace app is doing very well. So far its picked up a case at one venue, but because of the data protection act, nobody knows which venue and who was there.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-contact-tracing-app-has-only-sent-one-alert-about-an-outbreak-in-a-venue-12099651

It's almost as though they don't know what they're doing

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Almost. Or maybe they do know what they're doing. If you don't want to do something, do it badly and you won't get asked to do it again.

I'm genuinely torn!

 

They're as capable in my eyes as being utterly useless as they are totally mischievous.

 

They can't be both. Can they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

Bummer man.

 

My old place was like that, people directly above and below me were fine but the two at the very top were absolute dinosaurs and treated staff like children. Saying that, one was a massive hypochondriac so fvck knows what sort of shit show that combination created.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Sorry yes, you're right with this. Of course there is still the long term cancer deaths to consider. But cancer is but one disease. There will be others. Not to mention the impact of elders becoming vegetative.

 

Would it though? We had limited restrictions in May, June, July, August and cases were flat-lining. The virus is now following the viral peaks and troughs you'd expect from any respiratory illness.

 

Yes I think it would, Schools and Unis were empty and they are clearly one of the biggest spreaders. Hardly a shock things are going south quickly now they are back open.
 

Hate to use Sweden again, not least because it isn't the best comparison to the UK in terms of culture and population density. But it's the only real comparison we can make. They had no lockdown and while there were excess deaths (just as there were here), it didn't get off the charts bad. Appreciate this is very unscientific but realistically when you think about it, lockdowns may have saved a handful of lives. Is it worth it? Why don't we pull out all the stops to save lives for other causes of death? Here are a few ideas:

 

- Skin tone checks for sunbathing to prevent skin cancer

 

- Blood pressure tests at checkouts for those buying red meat

 

- Mandatory monthly 10km runs up to the age of 65 to improve respiratory

 

I'm not advocating any of these ideas. They're ridiculous. Point is, so is locking down society to save an insignificant number of lives, ruining many, many more livelihoods for lifetimes in the process. Does the end justify the means?
 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

So local lockdowns have worked then? Nope.


To a point they do yes. Didn’t the Leicester rate drop when first implemented? Problem is they are half hearted, confusing and we’ve reached the point A large portion of the general public have given up following rules.

 

The deaths figure was a natural progression of the virus becoming less deadly, treatments improving and seasonality.
 

And it being given nowhere to spread to. 

 

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Well I'm sure they will now be taking extra precautions in care homes.

 

The point is, are they only successful at the moment because the virus has been rained in a bit. I don’t see how any precaution that’s implementable can stop it fully, it’s just a matter of time.

I’m trying to reply but I’m on my phone and it’s doing weird things!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

 

Hate to use Sweden again, not least because it isn't the best comparison to the UK in terms of culture and population density. But it's the only real comparison we can make. They had no lockdown and while there were excess deaths (just as there were here), it didn't get off the charts bad. Appreciate this is very unscientific but realistically when you think about it, lockdowns may have saved a handful of lives. Is it worth it? Why don't we pull out all the stops to save lives for other causes of death?

 

Hmmm - it was their worst death toll within half of a year in 150 years. 

 

They have the 13th highest death when based on per capita/population. Higher than France, Netherlands, Iran*. 

 

To give that figure context, if you compare to their neighbours

Sweden - 578.6 deaths per million 

Denmark - 114.71 

Finland - 62.7

Norway - 51.75 

  • Like 1
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...