Coronavirus

[Comrade 86]

24 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Another 532 fatal traffic accidents today, I see.

Seems to be a steady climb in the numbers which is a concern. I mooted back a few months back that I was worried that winter would see a steep rise in infections as the scientists seemed to think that like other viruses, Covid didn't cope well with heat. With the huge numbers of students due to return home for Christmas next month, I'm now also worried that things could get far worse. The prospect of spending month after month in staggered lockdowns until the warmer weather returns or suitable vaccines have been rolled out, is not something I really want to contemplate right now. Fortunately, lockdown does not impact my ability to work, something for which I'm very grateful, so the only option right now is to keep my head down and hope Christmas brings folk some relief and cheer. God knows, we need it!

Anyway, hope you and good lady as well as can be mate. Stay safe.  

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

4 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Seems to be a steady climb in the numbers which is a concern. I mooted back a few months back that I was worried that winter would see a steep rise in infections as the scientists seemed to think that like other viruses, Covid didn't cope well with heat. With the huge numbers of students due to return home for Christmas next month, I'm now also worried that things could get far worse. The prospect of spending month after month in staggered lockdowns until the warmer weather returns or suitable vaccines have been rolled out, is not something I really want to contemplate right now. Fortunately, lockdown does not impact my ability to work, something for which I'm very grateful, so the only option right now is to keep my head down and hope Christmas brings folk some relief and cheer. God knows, we need it!

Anyway, hope you and good lady as well as can be mate. Stay safe.  

I am very concerned to be honest that we have the best part of 1000 deaths over the last few days when I understood that new therapeutics were likely to reduce fatality.  The danger limit also appears to have decreased to age  50.  Heard that a few times over the last few days.

The tier system we had in place was seemingly based on the same or more infection will result in much less fatality with these therapeutics.  Think that was a false dawn.

[Marriot Ram99]

1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Seems to be a steady climb in the numbers which is a concern. I mooted back a few months back that I was worried that winter would see a steep rise in infections as the scientists seemed to think that like other viruses, Covid didn't cope well with heat. With the huge numbers of students due to return home for Christmas next month, I'm now also worried that things could get far worse. The prospect of spending month after month in staggered lockdowns until the warmer weather returns or suitable vaccines have been rolled out, is not something I really want to contemplate right now. Fortunately, lockdown does not impact my ability to work, something for which I'm very grateful, so the only option right now is to keep my head down and hope Christmas brings folk some relief and cheer. God knows, we need it!

Anyway, hope you and good lady as well as can be mate. Stay safe.  

I can't see anymore lockdowns coming in, the government aren't that stupid. Boris knows the limitations of all the decisions he could make and is trying to get the balance right but crippling the economy anymore would cross a line, we are at the limit of what people and the economy will take but because of the risk of hospitals being completely overrun he's acted and made the right decision in my eyes. Even though on the whole I've been anti government and anti lockdown as well. 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Seems to be a steady climb in the numbers which is a concern. I mooted back a few months back that I was worried that winter would see a steep rise in infections as the scientists seemed to think that like other viruses, Covid didn't cope well with heat. With the huge numbers of students due to return home for Christmas next month, I'm now also worried that things could get far worse. The prospect of spending month after month in staggered lockdowns until the warmer weather returns or suitable vaccines have been rolled out, is not something I really want to contemplate right now. Fortunately, lockdown does not impact my ability to work, something for which I'm very grateful, so the only option right now is to keep my head down and hope Christmas brings folk some relief and cheer. God knows, we need it!

Anyway, hope you and good lady as well as can be mate. Stay safe.  

We're good, thanks, hunkering down for the winter with just a solitary trip to Keynsham planned to bring my son up for the festive season.

I think the figures will continue to climb for a few days more, then level off before falling.

The er, independent-thinking posters will then say "I told you we didn't need a lock-down, the government are morons (they're right as far as the last bit goes) - the numbers are falling" whilst failing to realise that the tier restrictions and the lock-down bought us Christmas.

The vaccine just might be a godsend - but again, the independent-thinking posters may do their best to undermine that. I never dreamed that a certain few on here would be influenced by someone called Corbyn.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I am very concerned to be honest that we have the best part of 1000 deaths over the last few days when I understood that new therapeutics were likely to reduce fatality.  The danger limit also appears to have decreased to age  50.  Heard that a few times over the last few days.

The tier system we had in place was seemingly based on the same or more infection will result in much less fatality with these therapeutics.  Think that was a false dawn.

If you go back to my posts from two weeks ago, I forecast this increase. It will level off, then start to drop - the deaths follow exactly the same curve as the cases, but 2-3 weeks later. It really is not difficult.

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Eddie said:

Strength comes from within, from having the conviction that you are right. However, when proved that you are demonstrably wrong, you just end up looking silly.

I'm trying to help you to not look silly.

Here’s the rub Eddie , I’ve read all your posts regards all those selfish people out there moaning about they’re lives being destroyed to keep you safe ,we’ve even all got to put the world on hold one day a week so you can go out , how your being made a prisoner when others aren’t , well I’ve observed all the rules supposedly in place to keep you safe but now it’s my turn and right to keep myself and own family safe by not putting something into us until I believe it does not pose a risk to mine and my families health ,

if people are ok to have this vaccine then fair play to them at this point I am not and am ok with being as selfish with my health as you ere with yours

[Archied]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

If you go back to my posts from two weeks ago, I forecast this increase. It will level off, then start to drop - the deaths follow exactly the same curve as the cases, but 2-3 weeks later. It really is not difficult.

Your right , but icke predicted the first lock down and predicted their would be a second lock down even before the first one ,does that make him more right than you?

[Albert]

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Are they?

Most that I have seen arent arguing against the use of a vaccine, just saying they dont wish to use it them, which of course is their right.

...and if they don't take it, then it does indeed slow progress towards herd immunity, hence preventing the World getting back to normal. 

[Albert]

9 hours ago, Archied said:

You see there’s the crux , your the kind that really believes they know what everybody else should be doing ,,, history is littered with people of that persuasion 

You say while suggesting that people actively prevent others' lives from getting back to normal. 

9 hours ago, Archied said:

Why am I not surprised by your response ?

Probably because you already knew how thin your position was. 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

...and if they don't take it, then it does indeed slow progress towards herd immunity, hence preventing the World getting back to normal. 

I thought a figure of 70% to 80% was required for herd immunity?

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I thought a figure of 70% to 80% was required for herd immunity?

Depends on the disease, other controls, etc. It's not a static figure. 

You also have to take into account things like:

 - How effective the vaccine is (the 90% estimate of this one may not turn out to be that good). 

 - The fraction of the population for whom it is not effective for other reasons. 

 - The fact that it won't be everyone getting it at once. 

 - The time it takes to lose immunity. 

etc. 

Having people who "did their research" skip out on it pushing the figure down for no real reason, to the detriment of society as a whole, is just ridiculous. Given the stakes, that you've so clearly been focused on prior to this, there is a reason that for the public good that it should be optional when available.

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

Depends on the disease, other controls, etc. It's not a static figure. 

You also have to take into account things like:

 - How effective the vaccine is (the 90% estimate of this one may not turn out to be that good). 

 - The fraction of the population for whom it is not effective for other reasons. 

 - The fact that it won't be everyone getting it at once. 

 - The time it takes to lose immunity. 

etc. 

Having people who "did their research" skip out on it pushing the figure down for no real reason, to the detriment of society as a whole, is just ridiculous. Given the stakes, that you've so clearly been focused on prior to this, there is a reason that for the public good that it should be optional when available.

I agree it should be optional.

[Archied]

16 minutes ago, Albert said:

You say while suggesting that people actively prevent others' lives from getting back to normal. 

Probably because you already knew how thin your position was. 

No ,,, deffo because I knew your algorithm position would never waver from project fear 

[alexxxxx]

Can we assume that the need for this student evacuation in 1st/2nd week of December means that there still will be large restrictions in place after the 4 week restriction period is over?
 

 

[GboroRam]

"We need to get back to normal"

"Here's a vaccine that gets us back to normal"

"No, not like that"

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

Can we assume that the need for this student evacuation in 1st/2nd week of December means that there still will be large restrictions in place after the 4 week restriction period is over?
 

 

I think mostly areas will return to the tiers they were in.

Bit worried about Derby as that has a rate higher than places like Liverpool and Nottingham, maybe Derby will end up in tier 3.

I think (based on no fact other than a guess) that restrictions will be lifted over Christmas and New Year to a degree, i think people will still be asked to be sensible, avoid big new years parties and large gatherings, but hopefully get togethers of more than 6, or at least exclude children under say 10 from that number.

 

[Sith Happens]

I dont really read every post, but seems to have been how many pages bickering about the vaccine.

While I would hope people close to me choose to have it, if and when made available, no one should be forced or made to feel bad for choosing not to do so.

I know people who refuse the flu jab (although one of them has a reason because the GP's gets paid £12 for doing it...odd one that), i think we do need as many people as possible to have it, but some people are naturally going to be nervous. I think deciding not to have the vaccine is different to not following the rules.

I see the media have been at it again, with headlines its like having the worst hangover from hell, then you read the article and a 'few' people felt rough having had it...well that happens with the flu vaccine.

Hopefully the media can be responsible and not go out their way to put people off having it, hopefully those who decide not to are basing it on their own decisions and not those they read in the sun or star or mirror. (not saying anyone in here is saying that btw)

 

[Albert]

44 minutes ago, Archied said:

No ,,, deffo because I knew your algorithm position would never waver from project fear 

How is suggesting that people should get a vaccine that will end all of this 'project fear'? Is this just your go to line when people disagree with you?

You: "The sky is a nice green today". 

Person on the street: "The sky is actually blue mate".

You: "HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH PROJECT FEAR!"

*Not a real conversation.

45 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I agree it should be optional.

Did it seriously take you nearly 10 minutes to post a one liner jumping on a typo? That typo was up for less than a minute. 

I mean, congrats to you I guess. I'd be a bit embarrassed with that being all from 10 minutes of work though. 

11 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

I dont really read every post, but seems to have been how many pages bickering about the vaccine.

While I would hope people close to me choose to have it, if and when made available, no one should be forced or made to feel bad for choosing not to do so.

I know people who refuse the flu jab (although one of them has a reason because the GP's gets paid £12 for doing it...odd one that), i think we do need as many people as possible to have it, but some people are naturally going to be nervous. I think deciding not to have the vaccine is different to not following the rules.

It's not 'natural' to be nervous about such though, it's just the outcome of disinformation campaigns that profit from spreading that garbage. Vaccines are ridiculously safe, but likely everything, there can be rare side effects. The diseases they stop are orders of magnitude more harmful though. 

11 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

I see the media have been at it again, with headlines its like having the worst hangover from hell, then you read the article and a 'few' people felt rough having had it...well that happens with the flu vaccine.

Hopefully the media can be responsible and not go out their way to put people off having it, hopefully those who decide not to are basing it on their own decisions and not those they read in the sun or star or mirror. (not saying anyone in here is saying that btw)

Going down the 'let people decide' route is a massive gamble, and will prolong the deaths, the damage to the economy, all of it. Should enough antivaxers exist in the UK, it could prevent herd immunity being reached. 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Did it seriously take you nearly 10 minutes to post a one liner jumping on a typo? That typo was up for less than a minute. 

I mean, congrats to you I guess. I'd be a bit embarrassed with that being all from 10 minutes of work though. 

No, it was only 7 minutes.

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, it was only 7 minutes.

My mistake, it only took you 7 minutes to come up with that comeback then.