The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Mick Brolly]

1 minute ago, Coconut's Beard said:

In and out, all done in 5 seconds.

Including foreplay. 

[May Contain Nuts]

tbh I do forget / struggle to breathe properly wearing the mask and I have felt a lot better without the mandate, but I wouldn't not wear one out of a desire to prove some inane point.

It all (Corona/mask wearing) coincided with me getting myself in an unhealthy inactive state and ending up with with angina like symptoms, probably nothing to do with the mask (or that link to myocarditis and vaccines) but I have felt better without one... and a lot more exercise walking to the ground / walking an hour every Tuesday to go and play darts, and a decrease in alcohol intake...

 

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Archied]

45 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I wasn’t criticizing your grammar or spelling. That’s not important. I was saying your entire first paragraph was just a bunch of words with no context or meaning. I couldn’t understand it (not because of grammar or spelling) but because to me it just made no sense.

I’m all for being open and having opinions, but you have to provide a reason behind those. You can’t just say ‘follow the money’ suggesting this is some kind of scheme by some to get rich without any context at all.

I consider myself quite opinionated. People may hate that. But at least I try to explain my opinion, whether right or wrong.

I don’t just throw controversial comments out there without context.

 

Then perhaps we should start again , like yourself I can have strong opinions but I very much listen to opposing ones and very often find mine adjusted by them ??‍♂️

[Archied]

47 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

In and out, all done in 5 seconds.

Duck me , you took your time

[Bris Vegas]

31 minutes ago, Archied said:

Then perhaps we should start again , like yourself I can have strong opinions but I very much listen to opposing ones and very often find mine adjusted by them ??‍♂️

Which is fair enough. I’m open to listening to other people’s opinions but they must have context. People shouting it’s a hoax, scam, money-grab by the rich and not backing it up with any evidence is just illogical.

And there are many out there influencing others to think or feel the same.

All built on nothing.

 

[Ram-Alf]

31 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Which is fair enough. I’m open to listening to other people’s opinions but they must have context. People shouting it’s a hoax, scam, money-grab by the rich and not backing it up with any evidence is just illogical.

And there are many out there influencing others to think or feel the same.

All built on nothing.

 

I got talking to a Woman on a dating site last year, We sorted our 1st date, She is/was from Stoke, Fine looking Woman, Trouble was she thought Covid-19 was started by 5G towers, I told her my Mother passed away from Covid and never been near a 5G tower, She then told me to complain to the Government as her death certificate was false.

The conversation was soon ended as I then realised why she was single...oh and from Stoke!

[Archied]

58 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Which is fair enough. I’m open to listening to other people’s opinions but they must have context. People shouting it’s a hoax, scam, money-grab by the rich and not backing it up with any evidence is just illogical.

And there are many out there influencing others to think or feel the same.

All built on nothing.

 

To be fair that’s not what I’ve said though some have been persistent in pushing that on me even though I’ve been very clear that’s not what I’m saying

the bit I am naive about is if we are in a massive pandemic as painted ,money goes out of the window and humanity kicks in ??‍♂️

Edited November 29, 2021 by Archied

[Bob The Badger]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

I believe being forced to wear one is dehumanising , I believe they are so damaging to our children psychologically instilling  fear of other humans into them ( the change in them has been horrible to see ) , I believe they are divisive in society ,I believe they give a false sense of security,I believe we are going to be swamped with billions of them in land fills , in rivers , in the sea ,

if it was a serious thing and not theatre mask spec would be stipulated and poss provided by government and proper bio bins situated in our towns and cities for them if disposable,, the silly pants on your head posts over the last few days actually aren’t so silly because I would be welcomed on a train, bus or in a shop if I put a pair of pants on my head ??‍♂️
pure theatre and I’m stunned people fall for it the negatives far outweigh any minuscule effect they only might have ,, folks this virus is airborne, I’ll fitting bits of paper , scarves , snoods ,pants ,on and off in and out of pockets is useless theatre , 

the least sinister explanation I can see is government s desperately needed if to look like they are doing something 

I heard an interesting debate on 5 Live today driving into Truro on Naga Munchetty's show. A woman was saying the exact same thing as you, that it was dehumanising and that there was research to support the belief that it was psychologically damaging and that science was split on the topic.

Then Naga went to the other woman, a scientist who works in this field who said that was absolutely nonsense and science was no longer split and that she should stop sharing disinformation.

Cue the other woman saying yes it was split and there had been some research done in America that cast doubt.

Then I pulled into the car park and I had to get out, so no idea if a fight broke out but I suspect it did.

[RoyMac5]

23 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I heard an interesting debate on 5 Live today driving into Truro on Naga Munchetty's show. A woman was saying the exact same thing as you, that it was dehumanising and that there was research to support the belief that it was psychologically damaging and that science was split on the topic.

Then Naga went to the other woman, a scientist who works in this field who said that was absolutely nonsense and science was no longer split and that she should stop sharing disinformation.

Cue the other woman saying yes it was split and there had been some research done in America that cast doubt.

Then I pulled into the car park and I had to get out, so no idea if a fight broke out but I suspect it did.

Why do you see them being worn in other countries (pre-pandemic) without a word being said against them? The stuff being said by people like archied is total, utter nonsense based around politicking.

[Bris Vegas]

2 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I got talking to a Woman on a dating site last year, We sorted our 1st date, She is/was from Stoke, Fine looking Woman, Trouble was she thought Covid-19 was started by 5G towers, I told her my Mother passed away from Covid and never been near a 5G tower, She then told me to complain to the Government as her death certificate was false.

The conversation was soon ended as I then realised why she was single...oh and from Stoke!

I'm sorry to hear about your mother. My laughing emoji certainly wasn't to do with that remark. That's incredibly sad. It was in response to the woman being a mix of being a nut and from Stoke. Not exactly a winning combination.

 

[Bris Vegas]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why do you see them being worn in other countries (pre-pandemic) without a word being said against them? The stuff being said by people like archied is total, utter nonsense based around politicking.

Doctors and nurses have worn masks for years and for a very specific purpose. Quite how people can't grasp that astounds me.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

I heard an interesting debate on 5 Live today driving into Truro on Naga Munchetty's show. A woman was saying the exact same thing as you, that it was dehumanising and that there was research to support the belief that it was psychologically damaging and that science was split on the topic.

Then Naga went to the other woman, a scientist who works in this field who said that was absolutely nonsense and science was no longer split and that she should stop sharing disinformation.

Cue the other woman saying yes it was split and there had been some research done in America that cast doubt.

Then I pulled into the car park and I had to get out, so no idea if a fight broke out but I suspect it did.

I didn’t hear the debate but it seems bizarre to me that wearing a mask for the relatively brief period of our week that we’re in a shop is either psychologically damaging or dehumanising. Perhaps she, and others, are taking this so called research out of context and to wear masks 24/7 is both of those things.

[Archied]

9 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Doctors and nurses have worn masks for years and for a very specific purpose. Quite how people can't grasp that astounds me.

Yep the specific purpose is the give away , I listened to an interview by a surgeon on mask wearing who was clear that mask wearing was effective and done in regards to fluids and not airborne viruses,

imposing FACE COVERINGS on everyone is a very different thing and I’m sorry but real world data shows the countries that have kept face covering mandates have done no better than England case numbers wise and often actually done worse , if I was I’ll and coughing and sneezing in the current climate I would wear a mask and probably better still totally avoid being round people

where are the studies on these sorts of figures ?

same with vaccine passports, it is clear the virus is being spread by the vaccinated and un vaccinated alike but we want to make people feel safer somehow from catching the virus if they are in a setting full of people with a vaccine passport rather than a negative test result ??‍♂️
if I was asked to take a test before attending a large event I have no problem with that and can see the sense/ logic , if I’m TOLD I need a vaccine passport to attend but no test then that’s something different,

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Archied

[Bob The Badger]

9 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

Cue the other woman saying yes it was split and there had been some research done in America that cast doubt.

I'm a humble man, quoting myself.

But, I was thinking about this later and I think this is a REALLY important point that rarely gets mentioned.

On the one side of the 5 Live debate which was about kids being told to wear masks in schools (sorry I didn't. make this clear) was a scientist who conducts research and has access to a poo load of it and is involved in peer reviews.

On the other, was a woman who wasn't a scientist quoting one paper (albeit it from a prestigious University, Brown),  with no context and being incredibly vague.

Laypeople will often see science as being split if they hear one person with any science training taking a contrary stand.

Or read a snippet of any report that suggests a different way of looking at things.

And that is totally understandable.

But it's not at all what it means.

For example, I have heard people (way too many times) claim that science is split on the law of attraction and its relationship to quantum mechanics because a quack like Deepak Chopra who happens to be a trained endocrinologist and MD links the two.

I bet most people in here have heard that a glass of red wine is good for the heart because when the research that suggested this was published it hit most of the peoplers

ZERO alcohol is what's good for the heart, because alcohol is a poison and a carcinogenic.

However, there are some anti-oxidants in red wine that can be beneficial that come from the grape skins.

The fact that you can get the same effect from a few blueberries or handful of walnuts doesn't make good reading so the journalists reported on one tiny element and people who love a glass of wine (like me) latched on to that.

The reality is, because of the internet, you will always find people with contrary opinions if you go looking for them on almost any topic.

But, it's probably not wise to go looking for information to support your point of view, but instead, and to to paraphrase @Archied

Follow the science. 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Bob The Badger

[Bob The Badger]

8 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I didn’t hear the debate but it seems bizarre to me that wearing a mask for the relatively brief period of our week that we’re in a shop is either psychologically damaging or dehumanising. Perhaps she, and others, are taking this so called research out of context and to wear masks 24/7 is both of those things.

Sorry mate and to @Archied too because I just reread what I wrote and I wasn't at all clear, in fact, just the opposite. They were talking about kids wearing masks in school being psychologically damaging.

[PistoldPete]

47 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I'm a humble man, quoting myself.

But, I was thinking about this later and I think this is a REALLY important point that rarely gets mentioned.

On the one side of the 5 Live debate which was about kids being told to wear masks in schools (sorry I didn't. make this clear) was a scientist who conducts research and has access to a poo load of it and is involved in peer reviews.

On the other, was a woman who wasn't a scientist quoting one paper (albeit it from a prestigious University, Brown),  with no context and being incredibly vague.

Laypeople will often see science as being split if they hear one person with any science training taking a contrary stand.

Or read a snippet of any report that suggests a different way of looking at things.

And that is totally understandable.

But it's not at all what it means.

For example, I have heard people (way too many times) claim that science is split on the law of attraction and its relationship to quantum mechanics because a quack like Deepak Chopra who happens to be a trained endocrinologist and MD links the two.

I bet most people in here have heard that a glass of red wine is good for the heart because when the research that suggested this was published it hit most of the peoplers

ZERO alcohol is what's good for the heart, because alcohol is a poison and a carcinogenic.

However, there are some anti-oxidants in red wine that can be beneficial that come from the grape skins.

The fact that you can get the same effect from a few blueberries or handful of walnuts doesn't make good reading so the journalists reported on one tiny element and people who love a glass of wine (like me) latched on to that.

The reality is, because of the internet, you will always find people with contrary opinions if you go looking for them on almost any topic.

But, it's probably not wise to go looking for information to support your point of view, but instead, and to to paraphrase @Archied

Follow the science. 

 

Question is why didn't BBC get a scientist on the show with an opposing view , not a layperson? Was it maybe planned to make the layperson look like a layperson who didnt know what she was talking about?

Edited November 30, 2021 by PistoldPete

[Bob The Badger]

14 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Question is why didn't BBC get a scientist on the show with an opposing view , not a layperson? Was it maybe planned to make the layperson look like a layperson who didnt know what she was talking about?

Maybe they couldn't find an actual scientist with an opposing view and they wanted a balanced debate?

And she was no thickee, I *think* she worked on a school advisory board, or something like that. She worked in education, she just wasn't a scientist per se.

I rarely watch the BBC, but I listen to a fair bit of 5 Live and they are super balanced.

They ran an interview this morning where the presenter asked some virology professor if omicron could possibly be less severe, but still replace delta as the main variant and thus be a good thing in the long run <gasp>

The Professor said that was a definite possibility, but they just don't know yet.

Both sides whine at the BBC and whereas you can tell what the presenters think a lot of the time, they clearly go balls to the wall in balancing debates. 

[Archied]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Question is why didn't BBC get a scientist on the show with an opposing view , not a layperson? Was it maybe planned to make the layperson look like a layperson who didnt know what she was talking about?

This has been a big problem from day. 1,, when you have censorship of debate there’s a problem and there’s lots of well qualified science and medical based views being silenced 

[angieram]

The most recent study about the effectiveness of mask wearing and other public health measures is this.

It isn't one study, it is an analysis of many studies, so it isn't just choosing one study that suits a person's point of view.

53% reduction in transmission is the average finding across 72 studies.

A government looking to keep case numbers down, limit the spread of a new variation and keep hospitals from being overwhelmed will look at that and feel that is a good return.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

And here's an easy read version in the Guardian.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/17/wearing-masks-single-most-effective-way-to-tackle-covid-study-finds

[angieram]

My thoughts on only wearing masks in certain places.

I have a good friend with a compromised immune system, who has lived a very careful life for the last two years. 

He hasn't been out for a meal, into a pub, to football, even to visit friends and family, apart from outside. His quality of life has taken a huge hit because of covid.

He has had to go to hospital appointments on public transport, and to shop occasionally. He would just like to feel a bit safer on the limited trips out he has to make. It's not a lot to ask of the rest of us, is it? 

We still have the freedom to do all those other things that he no longer can without putting his health at great risk.