Coronavirus Thread

[whoareyaaa]

16 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Please explain why you expected the WHO to define something as a pandemic before it actually was? I'm interested to understand how you think that is possible?

The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.

 

China alerted WHO officials of a growing outbreak in the city of Wuhan on December 31, 2019. The WHO declared a PHEIC one month later and drew up a strategic preparedness and response plan that initially called for $675 million in funding from donors.

Edited 19 October 2020 by whoareyaaa

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

Please go and tell all the NHS staff who worked throughout the pandemic or those who have lost loved ones that "it ain't all that bad". 

This again. People lose loved ones. Every. Single. Day. That's life.

 

Too easy to make an emotional point like that and sound like the voice of reason.

 

And we didn't need a pandemic to stretch the NHS. It was stretched already but very few people seemed to care too much about that until March.

[theessexfox]

53 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.

 

China alerted WHO officials of a growing outbreak in the city of Wuhan on December 31, 2019. The WHO declared a PHEIC one month later and drew up a strategic preparedness and response plan that initially called for $675 million in funding from donors.

Definition of pandemic

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population

pandemic malaria

The 1918 flu was pandemic and claimed millions of lives.

Edited 19 October 2020 by theessexfox

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

Had a test today as my sense of smell has completely gone, no other symptoms at all but now I’m coughing because of that test! 
Are most tests still taking 2 days for results to come in? Real pain in the aris missing more than 2 days of work - assuming it’s negative.

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

Weren't we still in or only just coming out of extreme measures then?

Not really sure that any measure are put in place to keep you happy, I thought it was more to do with keeping the NHS going and saving lives? I'm also not sure how many lives are 'ruined' by redundancy, but I'd be interested to see figures. My other half is being made redundant, but I wouldn't say our lives are going to be 'ruined'

Hence my reference to 20%. That's obviously a total guess but are you not worried that many people will not find new jobs? What do their lives look like for the foreseeable?

 

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

How do you quantify how much of an increase there would be were these 'little half measures' not in place? How is it obvious that they're not working?

Well apparently the current situation is 'grave'. Doesn't sound like success to me.

 

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

See above re lockdown

Where is the data that they have 'some small impact? 

Maybe masks are reducing viral load and plays a part in why cases aren't translating in to nearly as many deaths. But with that being the case, can't we accept that as our measure of success and continue with this new normal? No need for lockdowns.

 

Sure as hell aren't having a big impact on surpressing cases based on the huge increases in cases.

[whoareyaaa]

1 minute ago, theessexfox said:

Definition of pandemic

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the populationpandemic malariaThe 1918 flu was pandemic and claimed millions of lives.

maybe Pandemic was not the right word anyway my point was we can't rely on the information we are being told or not told for that matter.

[SpacedX]

5 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

everyone is worrying about the virus but this 5g technology is apparently very harmful in causing cancer related diseases and its going up at a fast rate.

Oh you absolute cretin. 

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.

 

China alerted WHO officials of a growing outbreak in the city of Wuhan on December 31, 2019. The WHO declared a PHEIC one month later and drew up a strategic preparedness and response plan that initially called for $675 million in funding from donors.

I know who they are  

 

Are you going to answer my question or not? 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

The state of this thread, it really is bringing the worst out in people.

Reflects the state we’re in perfectly.

[whoareyaaa]

7 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I know who they are  

 

Are you going to answer my question or not? 

I did, I'm going sleep this is boring now

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Interesting how Brazil (Hot country ) suffered badly but many African countries are not .... is the average age of many Africans low enough for cases to rarely lead to fatalities? I assume testing rates are pretty low so recorded cases will therefore be also be low. 
 

does a lot of life on that continent also take place outside ?   Is Brazil more likely to have more air conditioned public areas ?   in ten years time we will have lots of studies into all the variances 

 

2 hours ago, Nod.E said:

A lot of African countries have more pressing issues at hand. Like getting food and clean water.

 

Africa and Coronavirus is really intriguing. Lots of ideas why it’s not been as severe. 
 

Previous dealings with Ebola means that some countries (particularly the Western countries) were well prepared for it. Particularly when it comes to isolation. 
 

Equally we forgot how larger African countries are and the movement between cities/towns is not anywhere near what the rest of the world has. No surprise that the top of the list for deaths are the countries with larger developed cities. 
 

There is basically far less older people as St Albans said 

[FoxesDeb]

38 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Hence my reference to 20%. That's obviously a total guess but are you not worried that many people will not find new jobs? What do their lives look like for the foreseeable?

Not really, no. To quote you 'People lose their jobs. Every. Single. Day. That's life. Plenty of people didn't have jobs before this, I don't remember everyone crying about it. Plenty of people I know have found new jobs recently, whether through choice or because they've been made redundnant.

38 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

Well apparently the current situation is 'grave'. Doesn't sound like success to me.

That wasn't what I asked

38 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

Maybe masks are reducing viral load and plays a part in why cases aren't translating in to nearly as many deaths. But with that being the case, can't we accept that as our measure of success and continue with this new normal? No need for lockdowns.

Well you were moaning earlier about having to wear a mask and queue, so are you now accepting that it is a good idea? Or not

38 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

Sure as hell aren't having a big impact on surpressing cases based on the huge increases in cases.

Isn't that likely down to the fact that we really don't actually have that many restrictions on us at present?  And plenty of people seem to be ignoring them anyway? Again, I'd love to see the data to back up your claim that they are having a 'small' impact

[FoxesDeb]

16 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

I did, I'm going sleep this is boring now

Well, I mean, you didn't, at all. You just copied a and pasted a definition of the WHO, the date of the initial outbreak in China, and the timing of the PHEIC. Nothing to back up your claim that a pandemic should have been announced sooner...

 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

[Guest Fktf]

3 hours ago, Nod.E said:

I just got annoyed waiting outside the shop when I was in a rush and had another moan about this cautious mentality having another (albeit small) negative impact on my life.

My heart bleeds for you 

[Nod.E]

16 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Not really, no. To quote you 'People lose their jobs. Every. Single. Day. That's life. Plenty of people didn't have jobs before this, I don't remember everyone crying about it. Plenty of people I know have found new jobs recently, whether through choice or because they've been made redundnant.

I mean I hate to be petty but if this were top trumps, I win. 695,000 before the furlough scheme is even over vs. 45,000 while we're past the peak. And which of the two numbers do you think has a higher 'would have happened anyway' percentage?

 

What are the odds this adds 10 years to the retirement age of all those lucky enough to still have a job? That's what's at stake here. I really don't think people casually calling for lockdowns 'to be on the safe side' realise the implications.

 

16 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

That wasn't what I asked

Well you were moaning earlier about having to wear a mask and queue, so are you now accepting that it is a good idea? Or not

I should stop moaning about this really because it's not my main concern at all. It's a small enough annoyance that I do wear a mask on the basis it may help. It's impossible to police and if I felt strongly enough about it I'd just not wear one. I don't wear one because I feel I have to. I wear one because, well why not if it may in some small way help. There is very little down side apart from minor annoyance. The broader annoyance is at over cautious approaches likely leading to huge negative longer term outcomes. So it's more a lockdown point.

 

I'm saying if masks are successfully reducing the mortality of the disease, that's great. Therefore less reason to be panicked about cases increasing, surely?

 

Just seems to me people are trapped in this doom cycle. People are keen to remind others to wear masks yet reluctant to celebrate their success. Everything has to be bad news, it seems.

 

Doom doom doom doom.

 

16 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Isn't that likely down to the fact that we really don't actually have that many restrictions on us at present?  And plenty of people seem to be ignoring them anyway? Again, I'd love to see the data to back up your claim that they are having a 'small' impact

Compliance is not the key variable here. If it were, London would have the same rates of infection as northern cities. Or are you implying that the 14 million people of London are collectively better behaved than those in the north? 

 

Schools and unis went back and we entered autumn. Did you expect the cases to go down? Just as predictable as the increase in cases is the panic to come off the back of it.

 

The only stat I have noticed in terms of us being able to have any control over the virus is in reducing mortality. Let's celebrate that rather than knee jerk react to case numbers.

[Nod.E]

1 minute ago, Fktf said:

My heart bleeds for you 

I'm obviously being jovial here. There are bigger issues at play. Jesus.

[Legend_in_blue]

I really can't be bothered to stir up further debate on this, but, I will.

 

There's plenty of evidence to suggest lockdown does not work and is ineffective.  As if people agree with Hancock and co. that they actually work...

 

Try starting here:

 

Https://tinyurl.com/lockdownstudies

 

The fact that this exists though is irrelevant since govt will continue with its course of action until the vaccine is distributed large scale.  That's the endgame scenario.  Until then, let's mess about with restrictions and pick out r from a hat and call it 1.2 today, 1.1 next week, or even 1.03452132 if we're having a good day in a few weeks time.

 

Edited 19 October 2020 by Legend_in_blue

[Guest Fktf]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

I'm obviously being jovial here. There are bigger issues at play. Jesus.

Sorry. It's really hard to separate the jovial posts apart from the ones that are supposed to be serious. Much like this post I guess 

[Nod.E]

10 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I really can't be bothered to stir up further debate on this, but, I will.

 

There's plenty of evidence to suggest lockdown does not work and is ineffective.  As if people agree with Hancock and co. that they actually work...

 

Try starting here:

 

Https://tinyurl.com/lockdownstudies

 

The fact that this exists though is irrelevant since govt will continue with its course of action until the vaccine is distributed large scale.  That's the endgame scenario.  Until then, let's mess about with restrictions and pick out r from a hat and call it 1.2 today, 1.1 next week, or even 1.03452132 if we're having a good day in a few weeks time.

 

Anybody that thinks that policy is devised around anything other than political point scoring is... Let's go with misguided.

 

If the government know there is an opportunity to align their actions to inevitable future drops in cases, will they;

 

A) Grab it with both hands, or,

B) Go against the tide, fighting the longer term battle for the betterment of the country

 

This government has a track record of operating on an 'always on campaigning machine' basis rather than a long term planning basis.

 

It's easier, you can cover up your mistakes later and it keeps you in power.

 

Why would this be any different?

 

Edited 19 October 2020 by Nod.E

[Guest Fktf]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

2020 update: instead of wearing masks to avoid chemtrails, conspiracy theorists now avoid masks, even in the midst of a global pandemic.

On a similar note, ee should stop using the phrase 'avoid it like the plague' - because it turns out people don't that very well!

[Guest seanfox778]

10 hours ago, RoboFox said:

The terms "circuit-breaker", and "firebreak" are quite shit and should be binned, stat. 

They sound like Chuck Norris movies.

[Col city fan]

2 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

The state of this thread, it really is bringing the worst out in people.

Reflects the state we’re in perfectly.

Amen to that

Its embarrassing 

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

I really can't be bothered to stir up further debate on this, but, I will.

 

There's plenty of evidence to suggest lockdown does not work and is ineffective.  As if people agree with Hancock and co. that they actually work...

 

Try starting here:

 

Https://tinyurl.com/lockdownstudies

 

The fact that this exists though is irrelevant since govt will continue with its course of action until the vaccine is distributed large scale.  That's the endgame scenario.  Until then, let's mess about with restrictions and pick out r from a hat and call it 1.2 today, 1.1 next week, or even 1.03452132 if we're having a good day in a few weeks time.

 

If lockdowns don’t work I have no idea how you explain what Melbourne have done in reducing daily positives down from over 700 2 or 3 months ago to 1 today.

 

There is no question here of herd immunity kicking in as there have been nowhere near enough infections.

 

Disinformation in this thread continues 

[Trav Le Bleu]

As I've repeatedly said, it doesn't matter what the rules are, mainly as they're never, or very lightly, enforced.

 

In the meantime, stupid people act stupidly and sensible people act sensibly.

 

 

I also think they have got the tier numbering the wrong way round, 1 = best and 3 = worst. It suggests things can't get better, only worse (tier 4, 5, etc).