Coronavirus Thread

[Leicester_Loyal]

11 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55561108

Please no.

The twats on your street (every street has them) that ignore the Covid restrictions anyway, bringing out their wooden spoons and saucepans to make more racket than anyone else.

The Dutch women who thought of this should take her clogs and feck off back to the Netherlands

What a load of crap. My old dear and my ex missus called me selfish and miserable (I am both tbf) for not participating in it the first time round, just another pointless show of one-upmanship from the majority of people involved in it. I think the NHS workers would prefer free parking or extra staff than a pointless clap every Thursday.

 

Anyone participating in it on my street will be targeted next Halloween

[yorkie1999]

13 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The regulation passed allows us to lockdown until March 31st, but Boris will review the lockdown at half term in February.

 

If there are any easing of restrictions in February it'll be the kids going back school.

From what I can gather from the mrs, there’s talk of vaccinating teachers and school staff in order to get the schools open. Her schools open for key workers kids so if they get it, there’s no one to look after the pupils and consequently the key workers can’t go to work.

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I am convinced that he has done bad job, I am convinced anyone who would have been PM would have done a bad job. Don’t confuse my resignation with this government as support, I just think it’s totally terrible whatever, whoever.

I don't think anyone who would have been pm would have done a bad job, because of the reason I pointed out why he's doing a bad one. A true leader wouldn't be scared of being unpopular for the greater good.

 

He's scared of being unpopular, doesn't want to give bad news, isn't proactive, doesn't listen to advice. On top of that he's reported to be lazy and not detail driven. He is literally the worst person we could have in charge right now. 

[foxile5]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I don't think anyone who would have been pm would have done a bad job, because of the reason I pointed out why he's doing a bad one. A true leader wouldn't be scared of being unpopular for the greater good.

 

He's scared of being unpopular, doesn't want to give bad news, isn't proactive, doesn't listen to advice. On top of that he's reported to be lazy and not detail driven. He is literally the worst person we could have in charge right now. 

He's but he's my mate Boris. He's funny. He loves Britain too. Boris will sort 'em out. Look at his funny hair. Etc etc etc. 

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

He's but he's my mate Boris. He's funny. He loves Britain too. Boris will sort 'em out. Look at his funny hair. Etc etc etc. 

I’m still laughing at that crack on here about trusting a bloke who combs his hair with a balloon. Got to be comment of the year.

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I don't think anyone who would have been pm would have done a bad job, because of the reason I pointed out why he's doing a bad one. A true leader wouldn't be scared of being unpopular for the greater good.

 

He's scared of being unpopular, doesn't want to give bad news, isn't proactive, doesn't listen to advice. On top of that he's reported to be lazy and not detail driven. He is literally the worst person we could have in charge right now. 

Being popular (he failed) would not have been such a terrible thing during a pandemic! He should have been stronger, he should have been clearer, his messages should have be succinct and unwavering (within reason). Again, it is impossible to say anyone would have been better or worse without being partisan or utilising revisionism.

[yorkie1999]

29 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

What a load of crap. My old dear and my ex missus called me selfish and miserable (I am both tbf) for not participating in it the first time round, just another pointless show of one-upmanship from the majority of people involved in it. I think the NHS workers would prefer free parking or extra staff than a pointless clap every Thursday.

 

Anyone participating in it on my street will be targeted next Halloween

Stop being miserable, if you want to make a point, take your wheelie bin to the top of the drive whilst everyone is clapping!!

[Facecloth]

12 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Being popular (he failed) would not have been such a terrible thing during a pandemic! He should have been stronger, he should have been clearer, his messages should have be succinct and unwavering (within reason). Again, it is impossible to say anyone would have been better or worse without being partisan or utilising revisionism.

Of course trying to be popular is terrible. This isn't about being loved, its about being tough, harsh. Bringing rules and laws that people don't like but are their own good. Hes tried to do the bare minimum to keep people on side.

 

Of course you can say others would do better. Look at any pm we've ever had, whatever colour badge and guarantee they'd have handled this better. Thatcher, Blair, whoever. I think Cameron is a twat, but hes have been better, even May. There people are leaders, whether you like them or not. They weren't scared to make decisions whatever you may think of those decisions.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Of course trying to be popular is terrible. This isn't about being loved, its about being tough, harsh. Bringing rules and laws that people don't like but are their own good. Hes tried to do the bare minimum to keep people on side.

 

Of course you can say others would do better. Look at any pm we've ever had, whatever colour badge and guarantee they'd have handled this better. Thatcher, Blair, whoever. I think Cameron is a twat, but hes have been better, even May. There people are leaders, whether you like them or not. They weren't scared to make decisions whatever you may think of those decisions.

Nope. He is a coward.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Nope. He is a coward.

And yet still would have handled this better than Boris.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Facecloth said:

And yet still would have handled this better than Boris.

Ok. Will stop now I think. 

[Facecloth]

15 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Ok. Will stop now I think. 

Often what people do when they can't put up a counter argument 

 

Look you seem like a decent guy, don't get sucked into the "Poor Boris" way of thinking. He'll have enough diehards backing him. He said he'd take full responsibility for what happened, we have over 75k dead, and everything from education, to the NHS to the economy is ****ed. 

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Look you seem like a decent guy, don't get sucked into the "Poor Boris" way of thinking. 

Bit patronizing. Surprised you didn't also tell him to clean his teeth and go to bed 

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Bit patronizing. Surprised you didn't also tell him to clean his teeth and go to bed 

Well maybe he needs me to if he thinks that way 

[CosbehFox]

42 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Stop being miserable, if you want to make a point, take your wheelie bin to the top of the drive whilst everyone is clapping!!

Cheers, you’ve actually reminded me to put my bin out 

[Corky]

I clap for the NHS whilst wearing the Poppy so I can doubly look down on you disrespectful cvnts 

 

[Guest Fktf]

2 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Currently, neither.

 

Until you see PCR testing in cases decrease, pretty much as dramatically as they have increased, nothing will change quickly.

 

As for the cycle thresholds of PCR, it would be interesting to find out what the labs are setting this to when analysing samples.  I suspect this information is hard to come by.  According to released govt information I could find, a Ct>36 has indicated infectious virus but then alternative information I found quite easily states a Ct>35 leads to 70-90% false positives in PCR testing.

 

Wherever you look, there's always an alternative point of view.  Who is more believable?  It's irrelevant though because govt clearly will not listen,

 

 

Guarantee we're not using a test that gives those sort of figures. Not even our Gov't is that incompetent. 

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, StanSP said:

Can understand the 2nd bit in wanting as many people legible and possible getting the first vaccine. But with researchers and scientists who produced the vaccine say the best chance of efficacy is within 21 days (Pfizer) or 28 days (Oxford), surely it's best to try and stick to that? The government very hastily changed the approach to almost ignore those time-frames to make it 12 weeks probably in favour of getting as many people as possible vaccinated with first dose and worry about the 2nd dose later.

It's slightly different from that.  The scientists have tested the vaccine and say that it works with the jabs 21 days apart; they have not tested it at 12 weeks apart, or for that matter at 20 or 22 days apart, so they do not express an opinion on whether it works.

 

What the government is saying, backed up by the Pfizer scientists, is that at the end of 3 weeks the first jab is showing 85% efficiency.  Three weeks after the second jab, the combined vaccine is showing 95% efficiency.  They don't have information on what happens after 5 weeks if you only have 1 jab, or for that matter what happens after 12 weeks if you only have 1 jab.  But they are collecting that data very very fast, because by now mid January there will be close to a million people who have had the jab more than three weeks ago and they will certainly be comparing their coronavirus "hit rate" with the ones who haven't had the jab.  So the untested hypothesis will be tested very, very soon.

 

It's not a question of the scientists said 21 days so that is set in stone.  They have to ask the reaosnable question about whether it's better that two people have pretty darn good protection or whether one person has excellent protection and the other no protection at all.  Which would you choose for your elderly relatives - protect 1 fully and 1 takes his/her chance, or protect both pretty well?

 

They know what vaccines generally do.  They don't know the specific result for this specific vaccine, but they do know that vaccines in general - even vaccines against coronaviruses, I dare say - don't fall off a cliff efficiency-wise if the second jab is delayed.  And like I say, the hypothesis is being tested far more thoroughly than any lab could manage, as we speak.

[Dahnsouff]

8 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Often what people do when they can't put up a counter argument 

 

Look you seem like a decent guy, don't get sucked into the "Poor Boris" way of thinking. He'll have enough diehards backing him. He said he'd take full responsibility for what happened, we have over 75k dead, and everything from education, to the NHS to the economy is ****ed. 

I stopped discussing because your mind is clearly set, I was trying to suggest that there could be variations in the way the (any) Government would need to make policy, a given decision. Poor Boris? Not sure where that came from!  
 

Anyway, I did brush my teeth, so there is that....

Edited 7 January 2021 by Dahnsouff

[WigstonWanderer]

10 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Currently, neither.

 

Until you see PCR testing in cases decrease, pretty much as dramatically as they have increased, nothing will change quickly.

 

As for the cycle thresholds of PCR, it would be interesting to find out what the labs are setting this to when analysing samples.  I suspect this information is hard to come by.  According to released govt information I could find, a Ct>36 has indicated infectious virus but then alternative information I found quite easily states a Ct>35 leads to 70-90% false positives in PCR testing.

 

Wherever you look, there's always an alternative point of view.  Who is more believable?  It's irrelevant though because govt clearly will not listen,

 

 

Are you suggesting that they have increased the cycle threshold recently? If not it is irrelevant as the recent increase in positive PCR tests represents a proportionate relative increase in infectious people. It’s not the absolute number of positive results that is driving policy towards lockdown, it is the trend and the degree to which the health service is becoming overwhelmed.

 

The irishman really needs to post an apology to all the people he has duped and close his blog account.

[The Fox Covert]

I went for a walk from my home the other day and I couldn't help noticing this!

[OrielCaziado]

Seriously wonder how many people who watched us beat Villa at home last March would have believed that would be the last time they’d get to go to the ground until probably August of 2021 !

Edited 7 January 2021 by OrielCaziado

[st albans fox]

35 minutes ago, OrielCaziado said:

Seriously wonder how many people who watched us beat Villa at home last March would have believed that would be the last time they’d get to go to the ground until probably August of 2021 !

I’ll be surprised if we don’t have the ground open for the last home game of the season ...... 

[Alf Bentley]

38 minutes ago, OrielCaziado said:

Seriously wonder how many people who watched us beat Villa at home last March would have believed that would be the last time they’d get to go to the ground until probably August of 2021 !

 

I was at that match but it seems so long ago, I can hardly remember what I expected then. 

 

I do know that I only attended because an old mate (a Villa fan) had come up from Devon and I'd got him a ticket in our end - he joined in the "Going down" chants to Villa (inaccurately, as it happens).

If I'd been due to go on my own, I probably wouldn't have attended as the Covid risk was already becoming apparent.

 

As far as I recall, I expected it to be my last match for a while - but was probably hoping that we might be back by the end of the season......last season! 

[Nod.E]

Pleased to see news of the return to the 8PM clap met with derision on social media.

 

Such 'look at me' nonsense and does fvck all to help. They need a pay rise not a round of applause.