Coronavirus

[GboroRam]

10 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I prefer to think of it as the world becoming more aware that words and actions have consequences. And private companies realising that they have a duty to act in the best interests of the society.

 

For every freedom loving bank user who decides this is a bridge too far, I think there'll be a safety loving bank user who thinks, I like this focus on my personal safety in their buildings.

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

I said 'Big Tech etc' - without getting to political, given recent events elsewhere in the world I predict that large private companies will start wielding more power than Governments would ever dare in the coming months.

With regards to HSBC - is it right to threaten to ban someone of a bank account because they don't wear a mask?  Especially given that staff are behind glass screens anyway?  And once one bank starts the policy, will we see all major banks follow leaving people without access to banking?

aren't UK offices mostly open plan environments now?

[Tamworthram]

28 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Because I want to see the Government taken to task on their handling of the pandemic.

Its not so bad now the chamber has social distancing rules.

But are the government, regardless of which side of the house, ever really taken to task during PMQ’s at any time not just during this virus?

As I said, whenever I’ve seen it, it’s just a shouting and name calling exercise that I’d be embarrassed to be part of.

[maxjam]

30 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I prefer to think of it as the world becoming more aware that words and actions have consequences. And private companies realising that they have a duty to act in the best interests of the society.

I can't reply to that without getting political other than to say I fear we are heading into excessively oppressive times.

Whilst HSBC potentially barring their customers from having bank accounts or Supermarkets banning people from their stores might be done with the best of intentions 'most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions'.

We'll see how this plays out once the threat of the pandemic recedes and we settle into the 'new normal'.

[Comrade 86]

53 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Why does anyone watch PMQ's?

[Stive Pesley]

53 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I can't reply to that without getting political other than to say I fear we are heading into excessively oppressive times.

Whilst HSBC potentially barring their customers from having bank accounts or Supermarkets banning people from their stores might be done with the best of intentions 'most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions'.

We'll see how this plays out once the threat of the pandemic recedes and we settle into the 'new normal'.

Fair enough, but it seems rather paranoid. Nothing that hasn't been done with good intentions, but also nothing that indicates the good intentions may be somehow heading towards "evil"

If anything we saw last week how easily "evil" happens when we turn a blind eye to things in the name of "freedom"

 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Really ? I thought masks were considered of no value 10 months ago and for a fair while beyond that??‍♂️

 

10 months ago, there was a world-wide shortage of PPE - and whilst I am aware that there were mixed messages, the main driver was to preserve the supply for the health sectors. It has always been recognised that masks are no more than partially effective at preventing the wearer from inhaling droplets, but hugely effective at reducing the droplets (and with it the viral load) that the wearer would otherwise spray over those in close proximity. In order to reduce droplets, any mask or face covering would help. It's the fundamental reason why people were told to sneeze into the crook of their arm and to immediately dispose of tissues after use - and then to wash their hands. A similar problem existed with the availability of sanitiser, another reason for the huge emphasis on frequent hand-washing.

I wonder why these 'words of wisdom' passed you by?

[Archied]

43 minutes ago, Eddie said:

 

10 months ago, there was a world-wide shortage of PPE - and whilst I am aware that there were mixed messages, the main driver was to preserve the supply for the health sectors. It has always been recognised that masks are no more than partially effective at preventing the wearer from inhaling droplets, but hugely effective at reducing the droplets (and with it the viral load) that the wearer would otherwise spray over those in close proximity. In order to reduce droplets, any mask or face covering would help. It's the fundamental reason why people were told to sneeze into the crook of their arm and to immediately dispose of tissues after use - and then to wash their hands. A similar problem existed with the availability of sanitiser, another reason for the huge emphasis on frequent hand-washing.

I wonder why these 'words of wisdom' passed you by?

They didn’t pass me by , although there’s conflict on how effective they actually are , myself as a lay man using common sense was of the opinion that it’s got to cut down the spread at least a bit , or are the words of wisdom you think passed me by ,the government s insistence at the time that they were of no value in slowing the spread? Now if the words from the gov were that we needed to preserve masks only nhs then I can see that and find it easy to accept the sense in it ,

I wonder why you’ve always got to be so caustic but it comes across as not being able to see beyond your own opinion on things

[G STAR RAM]

@Eddiea couple of weeks ago I doubted you when your predicted that deaths would reach 1500 a day.

I see we have reached that grim milestone today and, regardless of measurements applied, we have reported the figure that you suggested.

Sorry that I doubted your expertise, your blemish free record remains intact. Just hope your next prediction of 2000 a day does not come to pass.

[Marriot Ram99]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Fair enough, but it seems rather paranoid. Nothing that hasn't been done with good intentions, but also nothing that indicates the good intentions may be somehow heading towards "evil"

If anything we saw last week how easily "evil" happens when we turn a blind eye to things in the name of "freedom"

 

How is death evil? 

Death is a natural process that happens to everyone at some stage. 

[G STAR RAM]

5 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I prefer to think of it as the world becoming more aware that words and actions have consequences. And private companies realising that they have a duty to act in the best interests of the society.

This thread gets more bizarre by the day, first of all we have the left telling us we need to trust a Conservative government and now they are telling us that banks are acting in the best interests of society.

I need a lie down.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

@Eddiea couple of weeks ago I doubted you when your predicted that deaths would reach 1500 a day.

I see we have reached that grim milestone today and, regardless of measurements applied, we have reported the figure that you suggested.

Sorry that I doubted your expertise, your blemish free record remains intact. Just hope your next prediction of 2000 a day does not come to pass.

Having now researched the figures in a bit more detail, there are currently around 1000 people dying per day.

The figure is bad enough, Im not sure why the media/Government feel the need to sensationalise things and create more distrust in anything that is being said.

[BIllyD]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Having now researched the figures in a bit more detail, there are currently around 1000 people dying per day.

The figure is bad enough, Im not sure why the media/Government feel the need to sensationalise things and create more distrust in anything that is being said.

Not questioning, just wondering where the difference is between the figure given (1564) and your researched figure.

Im all for you being right on this one ?

[Gone]

Now you know I like a graph and am not too keen on lockdowns or their effectiveness, so I thought I’d post this I saw just to get some opinions on what people thought. Now I know it’s the US and they’re a little crazy anyhow, but how does this make any sense. Is it just there are too many variables at play with this virus? Eg health of population, climate, demographics , cultures/habits etc etc to make tactics like continual lockdowns work. I know I’ll get “look at our R rate after lockdown 1, but we were entering summer then as well, then as soon as the cold weather starting rolling in it went back up (sound familiar with other viruses). I don’t know, just thought it was interesting. 

 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

@Eddiea couple of weeks ago I doubted you when your predicted that deaths would reach 1500 a day.

I see we have reached that grim milestone today and, regardless of measurements applied, we have reported the figure that you suggested.

Sorry that I doubted your expertise, your blemish free record remains intact. Just hope your next prediction of 2000 a day does not come to pass.

I take no pride in being correct. In fact, I always hope that I am wrong, but to me it seemed that it was absolutely inevitable. First comes the transmission, next come the cases, then the hospitalisations then the ICU admissions and finally the deaths, and each stage lags behind its predecessor by up to a week or so.

Although today's figures are grim, we are beginning to see a reduction in new infections. This will, in time, filter through. The press will always concentrate on the number of deaths, but the key figures has always been in relation to transmission (new cases).

[BIllyD]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Now you know I like a graph and am not too keen on lockdowns or their effectiveness, so I thought I’d post this I saw just to get some opinions on what people thought. Now I know it’s the US and they’re a little crazy anyhow, but how does this make any sense. Is it just there are too many variables at play with this virus? Eg health of population, climate, demographics , cultures/habits etc etc to make tactics like continual lockdowns work. I know I’ll get “look at our R rate after lockdown 1, but we were entering summer then as well, then as soon as the cold weather starting rolling in it went back up (sound familiar with other viruses). I don’t know, just thought it was interesting. 

 

If there was ever a case of a graph being created to try to prove a point whilst ignoring many other factors, I think you have found it ?

If we ignore the other states in the country and wonder why they are not on the graph, I'll try to give you some answers based upon my limited knowledge.

California is America's most populated and also diverse state. Lockdowns don't tell the story of how the virus is spreading within this state, the conditions for migrant workers are a breeding ground for COVID, then you have the conditions they live in that are very difficult to stick to the self isolating rules. Number of ICU beds is also one of the lowest per population, they are struggling with outbreaks in places like prisons and in general the population of this state has a higher number on average of people with chronic illnesses.

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

I take no pride in being correct. In fact, I always hope that I am wrong, but to me it seemed that it was absolutely inevitable. First comes the transmission, next come the cases, then the hospitalisations then the ICU admissions and finally the deaths, and each stage lags behind its predecessor by up to a week or so.

Although today's figures are grim, we are beginning to see a reduction in new infections. This will, in time, filter through. The press will always concentrate on the number of deaths, but the key figures has always been in relation to transmission (new cases).

Back in April time, it seemed the whole nation were horrified by the number of deaths. 1000 a day was dire and everyone felt it.

The nation seems to have become de-sensitised too these horrific numbers already.

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, BIllyD said:

Not questioning, just wondering where the difference is between the figure given (1564) and your researched figure.

Im all for you being right on this one ?

From the BBC:-

Today's figures are affected by the weekend, which sees delays in reporting deaths that tend to translate into higher figures from Tuesday onwards.

Currently around 1,000 people a day on average are dying once you take this into account.

Interesting, Covid deaths in hospital are currently around the 600 per day mark, compared to 900 per day at the peak in April.

[1of4]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Now you know I like a graph and am not too keen on lockdowns or their effectiveness, so I thought I’d post this I saw just to get some opinions on what people thought. Now I know it’s the US and they’re a little crazy anyhow, but how does this make any sense. Is it just there are too many variables at play with this virus? Eg health of population, climate, demographics , cultures/habits etc etc to make tactics like continual lockdowns work. I know I’ll get “look at our R rate after lockdown 1, but we were entering summer then as well, then as soon as the cold weather starting rolling in it went back up (sound familiar with other viruses). I don’t know, just thought it was interesting. 

 

Do you know that Ron DeSantis the Governor of Florida had many of the virus case numbers suppressed.

He also had a government employee sacked for not following his orders. When they carried on publishing the true covid figures, he had them arrested on trumped up chargers.

I don't know from where you sourced the graph, so the nice chart you happily posted may not be showing the true numbers. Just thoughtit was interesting.

[Eddie]

46 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

From the BBC:-

Today's figures are affected by the weekend, which sees delays in reporting deaths that tend to translate into higher figures from Tuesday onwards.

Currently around 1,000 people a day on average are dying once you take this into account.

Interesting, Covid deaths in hospital are currently around the 600 per day mark, compared to 900 per day at the peak in April.

It is interesting - and perhaps that is because of huge advances in treatment of those who are critically ill.

Back in April, the old people's homes were dealing with a huge influx of patients with Covid-19, many of whom had been sent to them carrying the virus (for whatever reason) having been discharged from hospitals. I would think that the same mistake won't be made a second time.