Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to quote every last person being daft but on the 'muh freedom' posts over the last few pages:

We. Are. In. A. Pandemic.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to still see individuals prioritising their recreation or that of their loved ones over the health of millions but sadly it's been clear for a long time now that some people refuse to learn and adapt to inconvenience.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm not going to quote every last person being daft but on the 'muh freedom' posts over the last few pages:

We. Are. In. A. Pandemic.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to still see individuals prioritising their recreation or that of their loved ones over the health of millions but sadly it's been clear for a long time now that some people refuse to learn and adapt to inconvenience.

That was true up until we have a vaccine that works and by all accounts seems to be battling these scaremongering variants.

 

People have behaved and done their bit as asked. This went from flatten the curve to ‘not allowed out until X vaccinated’. This life is about calculated risk, and people should be allowed to take that of their own accord now. I was fully behind measures during the height of this thing. It’s now time to get back to life. 

Edited by KFS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KFS said:

That was true up until we have a vaccine that works and by all accounts seems to be battling these scaremongering variants.

 

People have behaved and done their bit as asked. This went from flatten the curve to ‘not allowed out until X vaccinated’. This life is about calculated risk, and people should be allowed to take that of their own accord now. I was fully behind measures during the height of this thing. It’s now time to get back to life. 

The irony is that all the inconveniences are so we can get back to normal. Bunch of idiots kicking and screaming at every stage is not people behaving and doing their bit as asked.

Edited by Carl the Llama
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm not going to quote every last person being daft but on the 'muh freedom' posts over the last few pages:

We. Are. In. A. Pandemic.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to still see individuals prioritising their recreation or that of their loved ones over the health of millions but sadly it's been clear for a long time now that some people refuse to learn and adapt to inconvenience.

We are always in a pandemic, Carl.  There has not been a day of my life when we have not been in a pandemic.  Flu, colds, meningitis, malaria, you name it.  The question is not whether or not we should hide until it goes away, because it won't go away.  The question is to what extent we balance our day-to-day lives with the risks associated with the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

We are always in a pandemic, Carl.  There has not been a day of my life when we have not been in a pandemic.  Flu, colds, meningitis, malaria, you name it.  The question is not whether or not we should hide until it goes away, because it won't go away.  The question is to what extent we balance our day-to-day lives with the risks associated with the pandemic.

With respect I don't think you understand what the word pandemic means.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

With respect I don't think you understand what the word pandemic means.

Fortunately I looked it up before I answered so I could be sure I knew what it meant.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

 

But I suppose what you are saying is that we are in the grip of a disease vastly deadlier than your average pandemic and so we need to take special action.  And that is what we're discussing.  Certainly the figures as they are now are nowhjere near enough to justify any sort of restrictions, and what the speculation is all about is whether things will once again turn to hell in a handcart if we release the restrictions.  But just to say "we are in a pandemic" as if that justifies anything - whatever your definition of pandemic, that is not helpful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Equally, what also wouldn’t help is blindly following the ‘science’ or ‘experts’ when they can have other interests and agendas. Some of the best actions in any walk of life come from people’s words and actions being scrutinised in a fair way.

 

Some of the utter shit ive read on Twitter and other media today tells you everything you need to know about why we shouldn’t rely solely on the advice of these people. One of them says we need to social distance forever and the health secretary sounds like he is ready to batten down the hatches and lock us in 16 months into it.

 

On the verge of deleting all forms of social media because it’s not good reading half of the shit that gets posted.

 

I’ve done what they said and not seen my family/friends/gone to football/ holidays etc, my household income is about 40% of what it was 16 months ago, I’ve had both vaccines- I’m sorry but the point of allowing people to make their own decisions on risk etc is fast approaching in my opinion.

It's always interesting to hear when scientific consensus (a rather different term to what many believe it to be) is described as a conspiracy (to do what exactly? Just look at all those scientists with real political power...oh wait...) rather than the self correcting process of finding out about the universe that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's always interesting to hear when scientific consensus (a rather different term to what many believe it to be) is described as a conspiracy (to do what exactly? Just look at all those scientists with real political power...oh wait...) rather than the self correcting process of finding out about the universe that it is.

I don't think there's a "conspiracy" at all, but I do majorly doubt the scientific community appreciate the strain the recommendations they make put on working class and poorer communities in particular. They're usually well off, completely safe in their jobs and homes for example, making decisions that profoundly impact people's lives. 

 

If this was a computer simulation then it wouldn't be a question if we'd completely follow their advice, but it's not a simulation, it's people's livelihoods and their mental wellbeing etc they're playing with. That's always the balance to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I don't think there's a "conspiracy" at all, but I do majorly doubt the scientific community appreciate the strain the recommendations they make put on working class and poorer communities in particular. They're usually well off, completely safe in their jobs and homes for example, making decisions that profoundly impact people's lives. 

 

If this was a computer simulation then it wouldn't be a question if we'd completely follow their advice, but it's not a simulation, it's people's livelihoods and their mental wellbeing etc they're playing with. That's always the balance to make. 

You must know different members of the scientific community to me, then. Privilege is not a word I'd associate with most of them.

 

Additionally, it would be absurd if they *hadn't* considered the societal effects of all this in their calculations as best they could because it's a massively important variable. I can't think why they wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's always interesting to hear when scientific consensus (a rather different term to what many believe it to be) is described as a conspiracy (to do what exactly? Just look at all those scientists with real political power...oh wait...) rather than the self correcting process of finding out about the universe that it is.

I’m not saying there is a conspiracy, what I’m saying is that I would prefer that people listened to all of the facts, don’t change the end goal and at the right point, when the vulnerable have had both doses, then let people make their own choices.

 

Calling people selfish for wanting that is poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KFS said:

That was true up until we have a vaccine that works and by all accounts seems to be battling these scaremongering variants.

Those recent numbers for hospitalisations are pretty scary, yes the vaccine works against the Delta, but you very much need the both doses. About 1% of people getting it (with a single vaccination) ended up in hospital. That's horrific, and those unvaccinated I think it was nearly 4% end up in hospital. With those numbers it's obvious why they want to get the higher age brackets double dosed asap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

You must know different members of the scientific community to me, then. Privilege is not a word I'd associate with most of them.

 

Additionally, it would be absurd if they *hadn't* considered the societal effects of all this in their calculations as best they could because it's a massively important variable. I can't think why they wouldn't.

The academics that are on the usual media outlets are pretty well off let's be honest, and they're the ones that get the exposure and drive headlines etc. Easier to advocate for an extension to restrictions when your salary isn't under threat and you can spend the summer in the garden, but it's not like that for everyone. 

 

I've no doubt that there are people that fall outside of that generalisation, but I think it's quite a fair assumption to say that the majority of people who are from a qualified medical background are pretty comfortable. 

 

Yes I'd agree there will have been socio-economic studies around lockdowns but when was the last time you heard someone fighting the corner of the communities I mentioned in my last post on the BBC or Sky? Barely at all if ever, as those stories don't generate headlines. X amount of deaths/cases forecasted does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

I’m not saying there is a conspiracy, what I’m saying is that I would prefer that people listened to all of the facts, don’t change the end goal and at the right point, when the vulnerable have had both doses, then let people make their own choices.

 

Calling people selfish for wanting that is poor.

What people, and who is providing those "facts". Because much of the "facts" provided by the other side of the coin comes nothing close to being fact most of the time.  

 

We are in a pandemic that nobody in charge has dealt with before and one we were woefully unprepared for due to the ignoring of advice after the trial run years back. People are winging it, people are saying whatever needs to be said at the time to try and get people to comply. Not for shady underhand reasons, but in the main to try and protect people.

 

It's full of models and educated guess work, aims will change, positions will change, dates will shift. That's what happens when nobody has gone through it before and it's a virus that takes a long time to understand and is constantly changing the goalposts itself. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

I’m not saying there is a conspiracy, what I’m saying is that I would prefer that people listened to all of the facts, don’t change the end goal and at the right point, when the vulnerable have had both doses, then let people make their own choices.

 

Calling people selfish for wanting that is poor.

Unfortunately, as much as people desire certainty, that is the one thing science cannot give them, especially on a matter like this. That is frustrating for many I can imagine, but it's also true.

 

17 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

The academics that are on the usual media outlets are pretty well off let's be honest, and they're the ones that get the exposure and drive headlines etc. Easier to advocate for an extension to restrictions when your salary isn't under threat and you can spend the summer in the garden, but it's not like that for everyone. 

 

I've no doubt that there are people that fall outside of that generalisation, but I think it's quite a fair assumption to say that the majority of people who are from a qualified medical background are pretty comfortable. 

 

Yes I'd agree there will have been socio-economic studies around lockdowns but when was the last time you heard someone fighting the corner of the communities I mentioned in my last post on the BBC or Sky? Barely at all if ever, as those stories don't generate headlines. X amount of deaths/cases forecasted does. 

Academics aren't driving headlines, decisions made by politicians either in spite of or agreeing with scientific consensus are.

 

I can see where you're coming from here, and pardon the tone. It's fine to question the methods and results of the scientific community - in fact that's what the method is there for - but questioning their motives is both inaccurate and unfair IMO. Those people don't get into the biz to assert personal power over others or for other base purposes, there are much easier ways to do that. Like being a YouTube rent-a-talking-head, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Babylon said:

What people, and who is providing those "facts". Because much of the "facts" provided by the other side of the coin comes nothing close to being fact most of the time.  

 

We are in a pandemic that nobody in charge has dealt with before and one we were woefully unprepared for due to the ignoring of advice after the trial run years back. People are winging it, people are saying whatever needs to be said at the time to try and get people to comply. Not for shady underhand reasons, but in the main to try and protect people.

 

It's full of models and educated guess work, aims will change, positions will change, dates will shift. That's what happens when nobody has gone through it before and it's a virus that takes a long time to understand and is constantly changing the goalposts itself. 

So the facts I talk about are that we set out on this 16 months ago to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, the data shows that the groups we need to be worried about are the over 60’s and anyone with certain conditions.

 

The government correctly identified that vaccinating these people would prevent 99% of deaths and then proceeded to vaccinate them. They have now been vaccinated and we know that 2 doses of the vaccine give you excellent immunity against every current strain of the disease. We also know that 7/10 people in the UK have antibodies against Covid.

 

Why would we not now be at a stage when we can lift restrictions and let people make their own choices? 
 

I’ve seen a scientist today suggest that we need to socially distance forever, I’m also seeing SAGE recommendations regularity to not open the country in 11 days. 
 

Regarding models- aren’t we below even the worst of the predicted models?
 

There is no reason to deviate from that plan unless I am missing something?

Edited by Costock_Fox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be sick if I can't go to Y Not this summer. Hoping this download pilot goes well. If we can't go to outdoor events by the end of July it's going to be a cold long winter. I expect a lot of venues and companies that offer activities I enjoy will simply go out of business or be set on a path where they'll eventually go out of business. The longer these restrictions are in place, the less certain I feel like I'll be able to do the same things I did. The things that make life outside of work enjoyable.

 

A month to get almost everyone jabbed at least once and hopefully to see proper evidence with a bigger sample size that the vaccines are preventing the NHS from being able to function and work through their backlog. 

 

We should also be working on hospitals or building solely for infectious diseases as well as either buying in or training up medical staff. Actually invest in the medical infrastructure within the country without trying to sell it all off and putting in the bare minimum to keep it running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Academics aren't driving headlines, decisions made by politicians either in spite of or agreeing with scientific consensus are.

 

I can see where you're coming from here, and pardon the tone. It's fine to question the methods and results of the scientific community - in fact that's what the method is there for - but questioning their motives is both inaccurate and unfair IMO. Those people don't get into the biz to assert personal power over others or for other base purposes, there are much easier ways to do that. Like being a YouTube rent-a-talking-head, for instance.

I'm not sure that's the case at all, when academics or scientists make rash quotes, they're sprayed onto the front pages regularly to sell the next days' papers. That's been going on for a good while. The best example of that was Sage's laughably inaccurate case/death projections. 

 

I haven't questioned their motives, they want to save people dying from Covid and will make recommendations that they feel will achieve that. I just feel sometime the balance isn't there from their side regarding the impacts on wider communities. 

Edited by Sol thewall Bamba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that quote from Susan Michie about "wearing masks and social distancing forever" is deliberately being taken out of context (surprise surprise) and is being twisted into a headline to suit the "they're trying to control us" narrative.

 

I took it more as general behaviour of people might, or indeed should change over time - i.e. wearing masks generally in enclosed spaces might become an accepted norm, we place more emphasis on hygeine etc etc. I certainly won't be averse to wearing masks on public transport in the future.

 

Of course in these times, that gets conflated into a headline which makes people think that those things will be "imposed" on us, as opposed to a general behavioural change.

 

 

Edited by martyn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm not going to quote every last person being daft but on the 'muh freedom' posts over the last few pages:

We. Are. In. A. Pandemic.

I wish I could say I'm surprised to still see individuals prioritising their recreation or that of their loved ones over the health of millions but sadly it's been clear for a long time now that some people refuse to learn and adapt to inconvenience.

We have these things called vaccines. 
They stop people getting severely ill from covid. They’re awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, martyn said:

I think that quote from Susan Michie about "wearing masks and social distancing forever" is deliberately being taken out of context (surprise surprise) and is being twisted into a headline to suit the "they're trying to control us" narrative.

 

I took it more as general behaviour of people might, or indeed should change over time - i.e. wearing masks generally in enclosed spaces might become an accepted norm, we place more emphasis on hygeine etc etc. I certainly won't be averse to wearing masks on public transport in the future.

 

Of course in these times, that gets conflated into a headline which makes people think that those things will be "imposed" on us, as opposed to a general behavioural change.

 

 

That’s probably completely fair, I’m just generally ****ed off with it all and I guess it comes back to my point around social media, it’s a cesspit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I'm not sure that's the case at all, when academics or scientists make rash quotes, they're sprayed onto the front pages regularly to sell the next days' papers. That's been going on for a good while. 

 

I haven't questioned their motives, they want to save people dying from Covid and will make recommendations that they feel will achieve that. I just feel sometime the balance isn't there from their side regarding the impacts on wider communities. 

Fair to say, allow me to rephrase:

 

Rash quotes being taken and ran with by headline-chasing frontpagers aren't the responsibility of the scientific consensus or the academic community (martyn makes a good point that above), aren't representative of it either and it would be nice if people treated this as such.

 

Touching on an earlier post, you see this so often with abstract threats (like climate change) as a means to be dismissive of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

We have these things called vaccines. 
They stop people getting severely ill from covid. They’re awesome.

Some ICU's are admitting patients who have had both jabs so it's not 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

We have these things called vaccines. 
They stop people getting severely ill from covid. They’re awesome.

We are now in an exponential growth in cases scenario, with a dominant variant where single dose vaccine effectiveness is significantly reduced.

 

In the immediate term, and given we aren't living under draconian restrictions as it is, I don't see the issue with pushing the final step of lockdown easing back by a couple of weeks initially to get more people double dosed and be more confident in modelling the data. As the case numbers are now ramping up quite a bit we should have even firmer data in a couple of weeks time as to the relationship between cases, hospitalisations, and an individuals vaccine status. We should then be able to model with more certainty whether the NHS will cope as cases grow quickly.

Edited by martyn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...