The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

What mass hysteria? Where exactly are the masses hysterical? The only person I've come across who is even verging on hysteria is you with your constant and tedious streams of gushing hyperbole.

Instead of wasting half your days on here preaching to the unconvertible, why not get out an enjoy the freedoms you claim to value so highly. For all your bluster, I see no 'national obsession' at all, but I've sure as duck noted some obsessive individuals!

I think the media response to this, or the media I pay any attention to, has been really measured.

Maybe the gutter press are hysterical, I'm honestly not sure because I don't read them, but it's sure not been any thing like that with serious news outlets.

[Norman]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

 tedious streams of gushing hyperbole.

Instead of wasting half your days on here preaching 

I like it when someone posts a word such as hyperbole and even goes to the effort of giving an example of it in the very next sentence. 

Makes for easier reading. 

[Bris Vegas]

The media covering Covid and pumping news is expected though isn't it? It's a global event and people will read it.

The MSM are probaby obsessed with it as it helps drive their revenue streams. Just like the sport papers pumping news around Ole prior to his United sacking. There were countless stories on it.

It may be different if the media were trying to push their own agenda on it. But with Omicron there are numerous links above which cover both sides be it potentially more dangerous or potentially a further step towards normality.

[Bob The Badger]

47 minutes ago, maxjam said:

If the sheer volume produced by one outlet in a week doesn't nod towards @TexasRam's MSM obsession statement, I don't know what does.

For that statement to be of any value whatsoever you need to go and take a look at a few other stories that are similarly high profile and see if they are reported as frequently, more frequently. or less frequently.

Then you may at least have a starting point.

Otherwise, you have no clue whether it's an obsession, or just normal reporting of the news.

I clicked on 3 of those stories and they were all matter-of-fact this is what's happening kinda stuff.

With a story like omicron, stuff is breaking all the time from all over the world. Do you not expect a paper like The Guardian to report on each story?

That's not scaremongering, it'd doing their job.

Obsession would be running stories like 'Flat cat found dead by side of road - could it be omicron?'

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Bob The Badger

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I didn't read them either. But judging by the titles none of them are talking up the chance of being hospitalised or dying. Mostly they seem to be talking about where it's been found recently. The closest to scaremongering seems to be a suggestion that we should treat it with caution (whilst still saying that it may be less dangerous than the other variants). 

I can't get bothered by the volume of articles. That's likely to be a result of the move towards rolling news and the preference for online over dead tree media. 

I guess it depends how you define scaremongering or obsession.

40+ articles in a week imho is overkill imo.  Magnify that by all the other news outlets and social media it quickly becomes overwhelming. 

[Comrade 86]

14 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I guess it depends how you define scaremongering or obsession.

40+ articles in a week imho is overkill imo.  Magnify that by all the other news outlets and social media it quickly becomes overwhelming. 

This reminds me of a debate you had with Gboro. Just man up and admit you missed the context mate and stop waffling on about a point I never made. 

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

I guess it depends how you define scaremongering or obsession.

40+ articles in a week imho is overkill imo.  Magnify that by all the other news outlets and social media it quickly becomes overwhelming. 

Well considering this thread has over 300+ pages and it's part deux wouldn't you say that's an obsession?

[Andrew3000]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I have done, I have had the vaccine, if I'm not safe now then I never will be.

Happy to take my chances now.

So how long does immunity last from each shot?  That's one thing I'm struggling to make sense of, the temporary nature of the protection. So what the hell does fully vaccinated actually mean? In 6 months time, what will it have meant to have had 3 shots? 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

So how long does immunity last from each shot?  That's one thing I'm struggling to make sense of, the temporary nature of the protection. So what the hell does fully vaccinated actually mean? In 6 months time, what will it have meant to have had 3 shots? 

Given that the Government have just ordered another 114m doses, Id say they are planning another 2 booster programmes at least

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

This reminds me of a debate you had with Gboro. Just man up and admit you missed the context mate and stop waffling on about a point I never made. 

If you are referring to the typical rudeness of your post then yes I admit I avoided that on purpose ?

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Well considering this thread has over 300+ pages and it's part deux wouldn't you say that's an obsession?

Probably lol. 

Not sure what thats got to do with what we're talking about however?

[Andrew3000]

10 hours ago, Eddie said:

I wish I had your patience.

Speaking of patience (or near-homonyms), I see that the Sunday Times are running an article today suggesting that 90% of Covid patients in intensive care currently are unvaccinated.

No further comment necessary.

Are we making too much of correlation without considering what other factors are measured? How many of these people have underlying health conditions, are obese or are from areas with high air pollution? How many people are we talking about, Icu beds are relatively few in number.

Do we care about context and critical analysis or are we all happy to have our biases confirmed?  I'm far from certain what is going on, but I think without proper critical analysis this kind of reporting could be deeply irresponsible, divisive and dangerous.

[Andrew3000]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Given that the Government have just ordered another 114m doses, Id say they are planning another 2 booster programmes at least

Wow. So have we got safety data relating to 5 shots in such a short space of time?

Does early detection and home treatment makes more sense? 

Is anyone considering alternative strategies?

It seems very incoherent to me, but what the hell do I know?

[Eddie]

51 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

Are we making too much of correlation without considering what other factors are measured? How many of these people have underlying health conditions, are obese or are from areas with high air pollution? How many people are we talking about, Icu beds are relatively few in number.

Do we care about context and critical analysis or are we all happy to have our biases confirmed?  I'm far from certain what is going on, but I think without proper critical analysis this kind of reporting could be deeply irresponsible, divisive and dangerous.

Are you suggesting that a far higher proportion of the unvaccinated have bigger underlying health problems than those who are vaccinated? I can't think of any other reason why there would be a huge bias towards the unvaccinated being at greater risk of hospitalisation and being in intensive care apart from the obvious one (that vaccination means that, in all likelihood, your symptoms are going to be far milder than if you were not vaccinated).

 

[Bob The Badger]

10 hours ago, Andrew3000 said:

It seems very incoherent to me, but what the hell do I know?

Probably about the same as the rest of us in this thread, close to nothing.

But chin up tiger, that doesn't mean you can't have strong opinions and argue vehemently.

[Bob The Badger]

Just as an aside for anybody interested.

As some of you know my wife works in oncology and they are already giving a 4th jab to some immunocompromised patients.

I presumed (incorrectly) that the booster just topped up the first two vaccinations, but that isn't the case, it both tops up and improves on them.

IOW, you are more protected if you have had the first two jabs 6-months ago and then the booster than if you'd had just the two jabs 3 months ago.

And there is research (which is why they're doing it) that a 4th increases that still further.

Grist to the mill for people anti-vaxxers of course, but just reporting what the medical community are thinking/doing away from the hype.

I've had my flu jab every year for the last 14 or so and it's zero issue to me.

*If* the Covid jab was required twice yearly, the would be equally no problem other than a mild inconvenience.

I spend longer every year on hold with Sky customer support.

Being intubated or getting long covid would be a major inconvenience though.

[PistoldPete]

10 hours ago, Eddie said:

Are you suggesting that a far higher proportion of the unvaccinated have bigger underlying health problems than those who are vaccinated? I can't think of any other reason why there would be a huge bias towards the unvaccinated being at greater risk of hospitalisation and being in intensive care apart from the obvious one (that vaccination means that, in all likelihood, your symptoms are going to be far milder than if you were not vaccinated).

 

It's possible some people cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons. But at the other end of the scale you would think there are also people who don't take the vaccine because they are superfit and don't need it at least in their imagination. 

[ramit]

 

[Stive Pesley]

14 hours ago, maxjam said:

40+ articles in a week imho is overkill imo.  Magnify that by all the other news outlets and social media it quickly becomes overwhelming. 

I'm confused though - as normally when you post a massive list of links, it's because you're saying (insert subject here) must be true?

You were sad because there weren't enough media articles about the anti-vaccine passport marches, but you now seem to be saying that if there had been 40+ articles in a week, that would mean it's just media hysteria?

I'm going back to bed

[Rev]

On 05/12/2021 at 08:05, GboroRam said:

It's also an anagram of EROTIC ALMOND. Makes you think. 

It only infects those with Soft Cell's?