Coronavirus

[Albert]

18 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I dont think slowed at all or stopped from spreading at all

 

Well, it categorically has, and is visible across each of the measures. It's not even a point for debate, as it's something directly observable. Take the hospital data for example:

On the above, a straight line is exponential growth (as it's a log plot), and it's clear it's departed from that trend with the restrictions (gold is the tier system, red was the full lockdown), and has reversed. It will be interesting to see the effect this has had in the coming months.  

[Albert]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not sure how you reached that conclusion from what I said.

If you disagree then you must think it is humane to have the elderly dying without any access to their loved ones, I find that logic absolutely abhorrent.

Your implication was that it was better for them not to be shielding, despite being a strong advocate for shielding the vulnerable while opening up. 

The current situation isn't humane, but the reality is that people mixing increases risks. It's a consequence of the decision to not go for control when there was a chance of it. Now the best that can really be done is trying to hold the line so to speak. 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

Your implication was that it was better for them not to be shielding, despite being a strong advocate for shielding the vulnerable while opening up. 

The current situation isn't humane, but the reality is that people mixing increases risks. It's a consequence of the decision to not go for control when there was a chance of it. Now the best that can really be done is trying to hold the line so to speak. 

Was it?

My implication was that people have probably died wondering why they bothered shielding for the last months of their lives.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Was it?

My implication was that people have probably died wondering why they bothered shielding for the last months of their lives.

They bothered to reduce the risk of them or others catching the disease. That doesn't change just because the worst has happened. Not doing so would have increased the risk to themselves and others. In effect, you're arguing 'may as well have taken others with them'. 

Again, given you're a strong proponent of shielding and reopening, a strategy that you, nor anyone else can even provide an outline for, it's odd that you'd attack the very basis of that strategy so aggressively here. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

They bothered to reduce the risk of them or others catching the disease. That doesn't change just because the worst has happened. Not doing so would have increased the risk to themselves and others. In effect, you're arguing 'may as well have taken others with them'. 

Again, given you're a strong proponent of shielding and reopening, a strategy that you, nor anyone else can even provide an outline for, it's odd that you'd attack the very basis of that strategy so aggressively here. 

No its not what I am saying at all, will you please stop trying to tell me what I mean by mean own posts. 

You are assuming they did it through choice, i am sure many did not.

As Ive already said, I find your stance of thinking the elderly die all alone rather than risk passing it onto relatives who are potentially very unlikely to suffer any illness from the virus completely inhumane and abhorrent.

There is nothing more to say about it, so by all means tell me what I mean by my post and that you are right and I am wrong but you will not get another response on the matter.

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No its not what I am saying at all, will you please stop trying to tell me what I mean by mean own posts. 

You are assuming they did it through choice, i am sure many did not.

As Ive already said, I find your stance of thinking the elderly die all alone rather than risk passing it onto relatives who are potentially very unlikely to suffer any illness from the virus completely inhumane and abhorrent.

There is nothing more to say about it, so by all means tell me what I mean by my post and that you are right and I am wrong but you will not get another response on the matter.

Thank you for going on the record and showing that you fundamentally disagree with your own argued strategy of shielding while opening up. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

Thank you for going on the record and showing that you fundamentally disagree with your own argued strategy of shielding while opening up. 

No probs.

Thanks for going on record and admitting that you are happy for old people to die all alone as long as they are not passing the virus on.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

The difference between BLM or Extinction Rebellion marches where masks were generally worn by the protesters and anti lockdown marches (where it is only present at the latter) where masks generally weren't worn.

You missed a couple of relevant points

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You missed a couple of relevant points

I'm not sure that the rules are that marches are allowed as long as you wear masks?

[Albert]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No probs.

Thanks for going on record and admitting that you are happy for old people to die all alone as long as they are not passing the virus on.

The interesting part is that what I said was actually the opposite. That is, it's not a good thing, and people not going out and about decreases the risks of them both catching and passing it on. So really, it's the opposite. 

Given your argument doesn't stay consistent point to point, however, I'm not surprised that you'd try and misrepresent my position that way. 

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

The interesting part is that what I said was actually the opposite. That is, it's not a good thing, and people not going out and about decreases the risks of them both catching and passing it on. So really, it's the opposite. 

Given your argument doesn't stay consistent point to point, however, I'm not surprised that you'd try and misrepresent my position that way. 

Says the man that thinks lockdowns are a bad strategy but advocates them in pretty much all of his posts...

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Says the man that thinks lockdowns are a bad strategy but advocates them in pretty much all of his posts...

I do think that lockdowns are a poor long term strategy. The key point is, however, they work, and when you're out of other options, it ultimately gets forced upon you. As noted, I feel the UK has gotten itself into a horrid position, and there sadly don't seem to be better options. 

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Well, it categorically has, and is visible across each of the measures. It's not even a point for debate, as it's something directly observable. Take the hospital data for example:

On the above, a straight line is exponential growth (as it's a log plot), and it's clear it's departed from that trend with the restrictions (gold is the tier system, red was the full lockdown), and has reversed. It will be interesting to see the effect this has had in the coming months.  

Was flat lining before lockdown. (Plus a lag)

[Albert]

46 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Was flat lining before lockdown. (Plus a lag)

The flattening seen was after the tiered lockdowns were introduced, which was their intention. The lockdown has reversed the trend. That said, we'll get a better view of how much in the coming weeks once more data comes in. 

[uttoxram75]

3 hours ago, Albert said:

Well, it categorically has, and is visible across each of the measures. It's not even a point for debate, as it's something directly observable. Take the hospital data for example:

On the above, a straight line is exponential growth (as it's a log plot), and it's clear it's departed from that trend with the restrictions (gold is the tier system, red was the full lockdown), and has reversed. It will be interesting to see the effect this has had in the coming months.  

Hospital admissions started going up when schools and uni's opened up then. 

Absolute waste of time going into Tiers or Lockdowns if 30+ snotty nosed kids are climbing all over each other in every classroom in the country.

 

[B4ev6is]

3 hours ago, Albert said:

The flattening seen was after the tiered lockdowns were introduced, which was their intention. The lockdown has reversed the trend. That said, we'll get a better view of how much in the coming weeks once more data comes in. 

I dont think they needed to lockdown  it is so they keep us all stuck inside.

[Albert]

32 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I dont think they needed to lockdown  it is so they keep us all stuck inside.

Well, it did was it was intended to, and this has been seen across their usage across the planet. 

As for what I've bolded, that's kind of the point. When people are inside their own homes, they're not risking spreading the virus. 

[Tyler Durden]

10 hours ago, Albert said:

I do think that lockdowns are a poor long term strategy. The key point is, however, they work, and when you're out of other options, it ultimately gets forced upon you. As noted, I feel the UK has gotten itself into a horrid position, and there sadly don't seem to be better options. 

Or rather who has gotten the UK into a horrid position is the more pertinent point. 

Totally concur that lockdowns are a poor long term strategy. 

[Albert]

36 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Or rather who has gotten the UK into a horrid position is the more pertinent point. 

Totally concur that lockdowns are a poor long term strategy. 

Honestly, I'd be surprised that anyone supports lockdowns as a primary strategy. They are a backstop, an option when its already hitting the fan and you just need to put a stop to the chaos to regain control of the situation. When they become a rolling, long-term option, mistakes have definitely been made. 

[Eddie]

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'm not sure that the rules are that marches are allowed as long as you wear masks?

I never said they were, and I wouldn't ever try to make a case for marches or any public gatherings at all under the current circumstances.