Coronavirus

[Angry Ram]

12 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Far enough, but some of @G STAR RAMs previous defences have seemed a little blind faith. The 10pm pub curfew seems like a minor quibble to many of the issues.

Inconsistencies are always going to happen, but there have been many that have been baffling.

I agree there have been difficult decisions for the government to take. I just struggle to understand why some of their original supporters (not just on here, but in general) seemingly excused some of their worst errors, but then are upset with measures clearly aimed at preventing another load of deaths. I can't understand how people are so sure these measures are unnecessary.

To be honest, I ain't got a clue what is right and wrong anymore. The Govt (or whoever was in the hot seat), are buggered every which way. No win whatever they do.

Half of me thinks some of these restrictions are a massive over reaction, the other half thinks, it ain't a big ask and if it helps, why not. 

What does follow the science mean anymore? Put 12 experts in a room and get 8 differing views on how to move forward. Which 'science' is right? I have not got a feckin clue. To Sweden or not to Sweden? Winter peaks? What happened in other winter peaks? 

We can all pick holes in everything, it's not difficult. I like people who will challenge their own views. No secret who I voted for, I've not been shy on expressing my views on the left and the right. However I will question when needed. Boris has not performed well. I don't believe he has to be front and centre all the time but he looks shot.. Most of us would carrying this burden. 

My personal opinion is they have made mistakes, possibly too many but I understand why. The biggest issue I have, as was mentioned on LBC this morning. They have talked big but delivered small. That circle I cannot square. This is not about sound bites, party politics, point scoring whatever. It's about us getting our lives back whilst balancing the economy with the safety of the vulnerable. 

I am not in a risk group thank god but I know people who are and we all have a responsibility to those. I have waivered at times and pushed the boundries. The odds of catching this are minimal (I only know one person directly), then the chance of it being serious are more minimal. What is the trade off here? My gut still tells me that we have to accept some vulnerable people might suffer but what is the greater cost? It is here for the foreseeable, how long can we hibernate?

 

[Tamworthram]

42 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I’m not complaining about the 10 pm my post (which sparked all this) was in disgust at what we’ve become. Inspectors checking on people, snitching on each other. Not for me I’m afraid 

Surely we wouldn't need inspectors and there would be nothing to snitch on if people just followed the rules designed to help us all?

The fact that some people can't be trusted saddens me more than the fact that folk might report a breach. 

[Bwash_Ram]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8770415/ANDREW-PIERCE-Patrick-Vallance-5m-company-racing-vaccine.html

[ariotofmyown]

21 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

To be honest, I ain't got a clue what is right and wrong anymore. The Govt (or whoever was in the hot seat), are buggered every which way. No win whatever they do.

Half of me thinks some of these restrictions are a massive over reaction, the other half thinks, it ain't a big ask and if it helps, why not. 

What does follow the science mean anymore? Put 12 experts in a room and get 8 differing views on how to move forward. Which 'science' is right? I have not got a feckin clue. To Sweden or not to Sweden? Winter peaks? What happened in other winter peaks? 

We can all pick holes in everything, it's not difficult. I like people who will challenge their own views. No secret who I voted for, I've not been shy on expressing my views on the left and the right. However I will question when needed. Boris has not performed well. I don't believe he has to be front and centre all the time but he looks shot.. Most of us would carrying this burden. 

My personal opinion is they have made mistakes, possibly too many but I understand why. The biggest issue I have, as was mentioned on LBC this morning. They have talked big but delivered small. That circle I cannot square. This is not about sound bites, party politics, point scoring whatever. It's about us getting our lives back whilst balancing the economy with the safety of the vulnerable. 

I am not in a risk group thank god but I know people who are and we all have a responsibility to those. I have waivered at times and pushed the boundries. The odds of catching this are minimal (I only know one person directly), then the chance of it being serious are more minimal. What is the trade off here? My gut still tells me that we have to accept some vulnerable people might suffer but what is the greater cost? It is here for the foreseeable, how long can we hibernate?

 

Great post and I think sums up the feelings of the majority of people I've spoken too.

The people in charge are clearly effective at campaigning, but seem to be totally unsuited to this very difficult situation. Big talk is ok when trying to get people to vote for you (although we've seen recently that the electioneering big talk may have been built on a house of sand).

This situation needs honest, competent and grown up governance. May was hopeless with the party politics of her time in charge, but I'm sure she would have been much better at guiding us through all this.

Ironically, Churchill's record seemed pretty average in normal times, but was able to bring the nation together when it mattered most. He rose to the occasion, whilst his pretender has wilted.

[Tamworthram]

8 minutes ago, Bwash_Ram said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8770415/ANDREW-PIERCE-Patrick-Vallance-5m-company-racing-vaccine.html

So what if he's wealthy?

So what if he holds shares in a pharmaceutical company provided there are appropriate measures to protect against a conflict of interest?

So what if he likes fine dining?

And, as for describing him as "Sir Glum", what do they expect? There would rightly be uproar if he delivered such important messages, including the scale of the risk if we do nothing, with a chirpy smile on his face.

[Stive Pesley]

17 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Has anyone seen the death graphs for Spanish Flu?

The first death was apparently recorded in March 1918, 2nd wave peaked in autumn 1918, with a 3rd wave in spring 1919.

 

I hope to god that this pandemic doesn't replicate that graph - but if it does, I hope those people sat here, on the cusp of the second wave saying that there is nothing to see here, and we should just get back to normality, have the good grace to admit they were wrong

If they're not 6 feet under by then, that is

[Wolfie]

50 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

To be honest, I ain't got a clue what is right and wrong anymore. The Govt (or whoever was in the hot seat), are buggered every which way. No win whatever they do.

Half of me thinks some of these restrictions are a massive over reaction, the other half thinks, it ain't a big ask and if it helps, why not. 

What does follow the science mean anymore? Put 12 experts in a room and get 8 differing views on how to move forward. Which 'science' is right? I have not got a feckin clue. To Sweden or not to Sweden? Winter peaks? What happened in other winter peaks? 

We can all pick holes in everything, it's not difficult. I like people who will challenge their own views. No secret who I voted for, I've not been shy on expressing my views on the left and the right. However I will question when needed. Boris has not performed well. I don't believe he has to be front and centre all the time but he looks shot.. Most of us would carrying this burden. 

My personal opinion is they have made mistakes, possibly too many but I understand why. The biggest issue I have, as was mentioned on LBC this morning. They have talked big but delivered small. That circle I cannot square. This is not about sound bites, party politics, point scoring whatever. It's about us getting our lives back whilst balancing the economy with the safety of the vulnerable. 

I am not in a risk group thank god but I know people who are and we all have a responsibility to those. I have waivered at times and pushed the boundries. The odds of catching this are minimal (I only know one person directly), then the chance of it being serious are more minimal. What is the trade off here? My gut still tells me that we have to accept some vulnerable people might suffer but what is the greater cost? It is here for the foreseeable, how long can we hibernate?

 

Far better expressed than in any of my god-knows-how-many posts in this topic.

When you see the truly eye-watering borrowing and potential long term economic damage from this, not to mention the impact on people's health & wellbeing directly but also indirectly from Covid, it's a hellish situation for anyone to try and navigate.

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

 

I hope to god that this pandemic doesn't replicate that graph - but if it does, I hope those people sat here, on the cusp of the second wave saying that there is nothing to see here, and we should just get back to normality, have the good grace to admit they were wrong

If they're not 6 feet under by then, that is

I hope that the people sat on here that have been pining for lockdown for months will have the good grace to never moan about the economy being ducked. 

[Chester40]

53 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Surely we wouldn't need inspectors and there would be nothing to snitch on if people just followed the rules designed to help us all?

The fact that some people can't be trusted saddens me more than the fact that folk might report a breach. 

Not saying I necessarily disagree, but it does feel like the kind of justification totalitarian state police would use ?

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

I’m not complaining about the 10 pm my post (which sparked all this) was in disgust at what we’ve become. Inspectors checking on people, snitching on each other. Not for me I’m afraid 

I'm sure we had last orders in the past and we had a police force who would try to enforce it, admittedly sometimes half-heartedly. Lock-ins were never permitted. We've always had some rules we were expected to follow.

[Gone]

47 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

So what if he's wealthy?

So what if he holds shares in a pharmaceutical company provided there are appropriate measures to protect against a conflict of interest?

So what if he likes fine dining?

And, as for describing him as "Sir Glum", what do they expect? There would rightly be uproar if he delivered such important messages, including the scale of the risk if we do nothing, with a chirpy smile on his face.

He presented a model that shows there will be no human life in the UK by new year if we carry on. Scaremongering at its finest 

[Eddie]

I apologise for calling someone on here 'stupid' a month ago - lesson learned (perhaps) over my enforced posting holiday.

From now on, I shall outwardly refer to people as 'misguided' and leave it at that.

I have noticed a recurring theme over recent weeks, especially with respect to the disparity between death tolls, hospitalisations and number of cases now compared to six months ago (far fewer deaths and hospitalisations now as a percentage of actual cases) and the suggestion has been aired that Covid-19 may not be as 'deadly' now as it was back in March. 

I think that the more likely explanation (and I stress that this is just an opinion) is that those people who are particularly vulnerable (the elderly, the less able, those who have been shielding etc) are much, much more reluctant to return to 'normal' voluntarily - consequently they are not coming into contact with the virus as much, whereas a higher proportion of the more impetuous younger element have grown weary of the restrictions. This seems to be borne out by the latest ONS findings which indicate both the highest incidence and the highest increase in incidence of infection being in the 17-24 years age range.

[Tamworthram]

10 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

He presented a model that shows there will be no human life in the UK by new year if we carry on. Scaremongering at its finest 

Really, I don’t remember that.

[Tamworthram]

31 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Not saying I necessarily disagree, but it does feel like the kind of justification totalitarian state police would use ?

I agree if we weren’t dealing with such a dangerous situation in which certain people simply can’t be trusted to do the right thing.

[Stive Pesley]

49 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I hope that the people sat on here that have been pining for lockdown for months will have the good grace to never moan about the economy being ducked. 

Give over with the dramatics - show me a post on here where someone is "pining for lockdown" - I'll wait

 

 

[i-Ram]

19 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I apologise for calling someone on here 'stupid' a month ago - lesson learned (perhaps) over my enforced posting holiday.

From now on, I shall outwardly refer to people as 'misguided' and leave it at that.

I have noticed a recurring theme over recent weeks, especially with respect to the disparity between death tolls, hospitalisations and number of cases now compared to six months ago (far fewer deaths and hospitalisations now as a percentage of actual cases) and the suggestion has been aired that Covid-19 may not be as 'deadly' now as it was back in March. 

I think that the more likely explanation (and I stress that this is just an opinion) is that those people who are particularly vulnerable (the elderly, the less able, those who have been shielding etc) are much, much more reluctant to return to 'normal' voluntarily - consequently they are not coming into contact with the virus as much, whereas a higher proportion of the more impetuous younger element have grown weary of the restrictions. This seems to be borne out by the latest ONS findings which indicate both the highest incidence and the highest increase in incidence of infection being in the 17-24 years age range.

BetMafia Odds

Likelihood of Eddie name calling in the next 24 hours:

Calling someone Misguided: 1/10

Calling someone anything other than Stupid or Misguided: Even Money

Calling someone Stupid: 7/2

Odds not currently being given beyond 24 hour period. 
Enjoy your day back Eddie ?

[Stive Pesley]

An interesting article about masks

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

Basically saying that a mask reduces the amount of virus you are exposed to, and may be acting as a type of inoculation (ie giving you a small dose that triggers an immune response - the same as some vaccines do) - which may explain why people are asymptomatic or only suffering milder symptoms

Quote

a large study published in the Lancet last month found that “viral load at diagnosis” was an “independent predictor of mortality” in hospital patients

 

So yeah - another reason to wear your mask and stop whining about it

 

 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, SchtivePesley said:

Give over with the dramatics - show me a post on here where someone is "pining for lockdown" - I'll wait

 

 

I gave a response that was just dramatic as your post I was replying to. Covid 19 is nothing like the Spanish Flu, and you quite well know that. Plenty of posters on here have been desperately searching for signs of a ''second wave'' for months. 

[ThePrisoner]

3 hours ago, SaintRam said:

Are speakeasies *really* going to be a thing in an age where you can get crates of alcohol delivered to your home? ? 

Have you not been to the best damn pet shop in town?

[Shuff264]

35 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I apologise for calling someone on here 'stupid' a month ago - lesson learned (perhaps) over my enforced posting holiday.

From now on, I shall outwardly refer to people as 'misguided' and leave it at that.

I have noticed a recurring theme over recent weeks, especially with respect to the disparity between death tolls, hospitalisations and number of cases now compared to six months ago (far fewer deaths and hospitalisations now as a percentage of actual cases) and the suggestion has been aired that Covid-19 may not be as 'deadly' now as it was back in March. 

I think that the more likely explanation (and I stress that this is just an opinion) is that those people who are particularly vulnerable (the elderly, the less able, those who have been shielding etc) are much, much more reluctant to return to 'normal' voluntarily - consequently they are not coming into contact with the virus as much, whereas a higher proportion of the more impetuous younger element have grown weary of the restrictions. This seems to be borne out by the latest ONS findings which indicate both the highest incidence and the highest increase in incidence of infection being in the 17-24 years age range.

I think in addition Covid-19 may not be getting weaker, but we are getting far better at treating it.