Jump to content

Coronavirus


1of4

Recommended Posts

Just now, Archied said:

I am told they are bringing down deaths and serious illness, don’t forget it’s a question just like stives I’m replying to

Well they are, but not quite hit the point yet where we can just open up.

As per my previous post, I sort of understand the question he asked, but it's not as simple as picking one or the other, for me it's in between. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

So it goes through masks easier and even spreads from people shielding in their own houses?

No I wasnt aware of this!

Dont worry, thats tongue in cheek.

Yes I am aware of these facts.

Two words -

Viral

Load.

OK, that's 4 if you include "Two Words".

Now 12.

Dammit.

(15)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Depends what you mean by early ? I understand to a certain point where you are coming from, however COVID is going to be around for the foreseeable future, so if your definition of early is based on number of infections that I'd have to say I'd need a bit more detail. 

I was referring to the report in the Telegraph saying that we may not come out of lockdown until the cases were in the hundreds not the thousands. So I guess for the purposes of this philosophical question, use that as the definition of "early" - coming out of lockdown when the cases are still in the thousands and unmanageable via track and trace

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

As per my previous post, I sort of understand the question he asked, but it's not as simple as picking one or the other, for me it's in between

I framed it as a binary choice on purpose, so as you have to say which you think is the most acceptable to you personally

How about this?

I'm punching you in the face repeatedly.

Would you rather I stopped punching you the face now, but I might start punching you in the face again later - or

would you rather I carried on punching you in the face for another week and then never punched you in the face ever again?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

This sounds like it's based on looking at the more successful strategies of other countries.

The way to come out of lockdown and STAY out of lockdown is to have case numbers low enough that track and trace has a fighting chance of controlling outbreaks. What we've seen coming out of the last lockdown is that within 3 months we were back to the point of locking down again because there were simply too many outbreaks to control

Given that the govt are pledging things like "this will be the final lockdown" and the plan to exit this lockdown will be "irreversible" - it certainly sounds like they don't want to repeat last year's mistake

Whether pressure from the "covid research group" faction of Tory MPs and general public unrest will force the populist goon BJ to waver from that remains to be seen

An open question to the floor - would you rather come out of this lockdown early but have another lockdown in 3 months, or would you rather extend this lockdown to guarantee no more lockdowns

And yes I know it's a simplisitic view, and there are no guarantees either way - I just mean it as a philosophical question (so please no lengthy explanations as to why the question is wrong...)

Extend the current lockdown by how long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stive Pesley said:

I was referring to the report in the Telegraph saying that we may not come out of lockdown until the cases were in the hundreds not the thousands. So I guess for the purposes of this philosophical question, use that as the definition of "early" - coming out of lockdown when the cases are still in the thousands and unmanageable via track and trace

 

 

Is any number manageable by track and trace...but that's for another day.

Problem is though will we ever get to that few hundred, April, May, December? You just can't keep going can you ? Don't get me wrong, it depends what is meant by opening up, outdoor activities, low risk of transmission, sitting in a pub getting arseholed with a group of people, higher  risk.
I suppose I'm saying, I'd need to know more, I'm in agreement that we can't just open everything up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Well they are, but not quite hit the point yet where we can just open up.

As per my previous post, I sort of understand the question he asked, but it's not as simple as picking one or the other, for me it's in between. 

Yep there always going to be a crossover point , i personally believe it now , as for the stive loaded follow me question ? even boris is not hinting garuanteed no more lockdowns/ restrictions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I framed it as a binary choice on purpose, so as you have to say which you think is the most acceptable to you personally

How about this?

I'm punching you in the face repeatedly.

Would you rather I stopped punching you the face now, but I might start punching you in the face again later - or

would you rather I carried on punching you in the face for another week and then never punched you in the face ever again?

 

But your giving me timelines there, your first question didn't have them. 
 

If you continue to punch me in the face and I don't know when it's going to stop, there is going to be a point where I say fook that and oppose, you then lose control....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I framed it as a binary choice on purpose, so as you have to say which you think is the most acceptable to you personally

How about this?

I'm punching you in the face repeatedly.

Would you rather I stopped punching you the face now, but I might start punching you in the face again later - or

would you rather I carried on punching you in the face for another week and then never punched you in the face ever again?

 

The kind of unhinged person punching people in the face is in no position to make promises to not be punching you again and you would be mad to trust him , I’m more the kind of put a stop to him  punching myself 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep there always going to be a crossover point , i personally believe it now , as for the stive loaded follow me question ? even boris is not hinting garuanteed no more lockdowns/ restrictions 

To be fair BJ said the move out of lockdown will be 'cautious but irreversible'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Archied said:

I am told they are bringing down deaths and serious illness, don’t forget it’s a question just like stives I’m replying to

Indications are that there is indeed a fall in infections, hospitalisations and deaths - some of which will be due to the vaccination programme and some of which will be due to the lockdown restrictions. Cases are currently halving every 2 weeks or so - if that trend continues, then we should be down to the 'target of less than 1000 cases per day' by early to mid-April. I don't know if that sub-1000 figure is too ambitious or even too optimistic, but because of the numerous clangers that have been dropped over the last year, I can understand the desire for caution in government circles.

There will come a point when enough is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Is any number manageable by track and trace...but that's for another day.

Problem is though will we ever get to that few hundred, April, May, December? You just can't keep going can you ? Don't get me wrong, it depends what is meant by opening up, outdoor activities, low risk of transmission, sitting in a pub getting arseholed with a group of people, higher  risk.
I suppose I'm saying, I'd need to know more, I'm in agreement that we can't just open everything up.

Yep , there really is no reason that the vast majority of this country cannot act very sensibly and I honestly think we are well at the tipping point where coupled with vaccine and treatments this is going to be far more productive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

To be fair BJ said the move out of lockdown will be 'cautious but irreversible'.

Yep I heard that in one breath but also he is not garuantee ing that and the noises around him are so mixed it’s clear that it’s far from written in stone irreversible 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep , there really is no reason that the vast majority of this country cannot act very sensibly and I honestly think we are well at the tipping point where coupled with vaccine and treatments this is going to be far more productive 

As you know I'm a big advocate of waiting for the numbers to reach a level before opening up, however it has to have the right balance. Vaccine and treatments are getting us there, the country is the main playing nicely and toeing the line but to then give more ambiguity when everyone is expecting a plan could IMO be a disaster.

Dangle a carrot if they want, saying but XYZ will happen early if you continue to help by observe social distancing, but let the people know what is going on. Even for me there is no reason I can see for the vast majority of the country to be open by Easter week, or if there is they need to be very open around what that is rather than another variant that may be a bit more transmissible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Extend the current lockdown by how long?

Good point - For the sake of the philosophical question, i'll rephrase it with a few more absolutes

Would you rather

A) come out of lockdown now if it meant the chance of another lockdown in 3 months time

or

B) come out of lockdown in 3 months time if it meant no more lockdowns for covid ever

It's all hypothetical I know, and it's not mandatory to answer. If the idea of the question makes you too furious to even consider answering it then I beg that you step away from the keyboard, do us all a favour and exercise your right to not reply

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think @Uptherams posted a link to this story a week or two ago. Ive not seen or heard anything else about it (Not that ive looked particularly hard).

I would have thought it would have received a wider discussion the media?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9228317/Experimental-cancer-drug-hailed-coronavirus-cure-Israeli-hospital.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Good point - For the sake of the philosophical question, i'll rephrase it with a few more absolutes

Would you rather

A) come out of lockdown now if it meant the chance of another lockdown in 3 months time

or

B) come out of lockdown in 3 months time if it meant no more lockdowns for covid ever

It's all hypothetical I know, and it's not mandatory to answer. If the idea of the question makes you too furious to even consider answering it then I beg that you step away from the keyboard, do us all a favour and exercise your right to not reply

 

Too hilarious to answer more like?, change again in the second option to come out of lockdown in 3 months time if it meant we could still go back into lockdown then I will answer

on the furious thing ,,, it’s not me comming out with the face punching stuff in crazy posts  ??‍♂️ Though never had you down as a slapper 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

I think @Uptherams posted a link to this story a week or two ago. Ive not seen or heard anything else about it (Not that ive looked particularly hard).

I would have thought it would have received a wider discussion the media?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9228317/Experimental-cancer-drug-hailed-coronavirus-cure-Israeli-hospital.html

He linked that sort of treatment months and months a go. 

But it wasn't peer reviewed and he was asked for scientific data that made it impossible to have a discussion, and was ridiculed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norman said:

He linked that sort of treatment months and months a go. 

But it wasn't peer reviewed and he was asked for scientific data that made it impossible to have a discussion, and was ridiculed. 

It is weird though that it's not being picked up on more widely. I tried to google the drug in question with a -covid flag and a date range from BEFORE this story was published and I couldn't find any mention of it. Which feels odd, given that it's supposed to be a pre-existing cancer drug. 

But anyway, I still hope it's true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...