The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Ram-Alf]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

...unless you suffer an anaphylactic shock, collapse and need critical urgent medical attention. It's genuinely a 15 minute wait to make sure you don't have an allergic reaction. Nothing more sinister than that. Of the 70* or so people who've died from the injection, a high proportion were from anaphylaxis. An epi-pen will pretty much guarantee you won't die from a reaction, which they're ready with just in case.

The 3rd jab shows up on your digital record - you don't need a card or anything. Well, it's on mine at least.

Gboro Thanks for the info, I was aware of all this, I'm just one of those sods that don't do the norm, I don't like being in places I feel uncomfortable at?

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Gboro Thanks for the info, I was aware of all this, I'm just one of those sods that don't do the norm, I don't like being in places I feel uncomfortable at?

Of course nobody wants to be there (despite what some people seem to be saying in here, it's a necessity not a pleasure). 15 mins of socially distanced waiting just to not fall down dead on the way out seemed not too much to ask in all honesty.

[Ram-Alf]

Just now, GboroRam said:

Of course nobody wants to be there (despite what some people seem to be saying in here, it's a necessity not a pleasure). 15 mins of socially distanced waiting just to not fall down dead on the way out seemed not too much to ask in all honesty.

Totally agree...I was once described as Captain Scarlet.

[ketteringram]

15 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Had my Booster this Morning, 3 times at 3 stations I had to give the same information, Had a giggle with them about it, I was told that once I had had the injection I was to go and sit in the seating area, I politley declined their off on the grounds I don't like to be kept in a place I feel I don't want to be, The Gentleman said it was for my benefit, I thanked him for his sincerity but I will decline your offer, He then said He would have to put it down on my record incase I collapse outside, I said go ahead, Injection done and I asked if i get a certificate/card to say I have had the booster...no was the response but if you have your card that was given you for your 2 injections I will write on what injection it was Pfizer for the Booster...Astra Zenica for the other 2, Coming out of the booth I was directed to the seating area, Again I politely declined, The Lady was rather confused as she pointed to the people who had already taken up the offer.

All were sitting there in a line masked up looking at me and thinking...I wished I was him.

I was told to go and sit in my car for 15 minutes in the car park, and sound the horn if I felt weird. 

I've felt weird for the last 60 odd years, so I just drove home. 

[Gone]

32 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

The 3rd jab shows up on your digital record - you don't need a card or anything. Well, it's on mine at least

That’s good to know, I did wonder if they add it to the app. That’s will be a god send when travelling. 

[Bob The Badger]

59 minutes ago, Archied said:

Very strange really but when I was a kid you couldn’t drag me near a book , around the age of about 25 I suddenly became an avid reader , I will read 5 or 6 books on a holiday, can’t really get on with fiction , love history, when I trained and worked as an addictions counsellor I got very much into how our minds work across the spectrum, 

I actually phrased the haughty book bit wrongly in my post ( I’m sure you know how it’s meant to come across)

just because I was / am far better read in an area does not trump others real life experience but hey ho maybe we view things differently ??‍♂️

History was my favourite subject at school, but other than the English Civil War I'm ignorant on huge swathes of it these days.

Rather embarrassingly, II couldn't even tell you much about WWI and WWII other than we won.

So I'll not be debating that.

The big issue with our own experiences is that they can, and frequently do, give us a false perception of reality.

By giving our own experience more weight and credence (especially over things like science - not saying you with that, just generalising) we start to build a skewed view of what reality is.

We think our reality is the reality.

I love the Dalai Lama quote when on being asked by a journalist what would Buddhism do if science proved it to be wrong (the two are actually incredibly closely aligned, but I'm sure you know that) he replied 'Buddhism would need to change'.

I get that you're anti-mask and you think they pose a danger to kids development even if I don't know what you mean by that, or how it will manifest.

I don't think you're right, but I can't be sure as there have been no studies done (according to the scientist in the 5 Live debate I mentioned on Monday) so you're entitled to that opinion.

But it drifts from having an opinion to being demonstrably wrong when you suggest that as individuals we cannot communicate highly effectively without seeing the other persons mouth, nose and jaw.

In actual fact, the mouth is very easy to contrive. It's easy faking a smile with your mouth, the tricky bit is making sure the eyes get the message because people are intuitively very good at cueing in on people's eyes, or rather the muscles around them, and realising when somebody may be insincere.

We can communicate effectively without sight and sound - we're doing it now and depending on what research you want to believe that equates to less than 20% of how we communicate when in person. Some think closer to 7 or 8%

I'm not at all sure I favour making kids wear masks in school. In fact, I probably lean away from that, but in all honesty I'm not sure why I think that. I don't have a solid reason, just a sense that it's not a good thing.

Just like I have a sense that kids seeing adults wearing masks isn't a bad thing. I'm sure if somebody had a bad experience in the past it could be a trigger, but you could say that about everything from clowns to dogs. 

Maybe it was unnerving for some for a week or two, but as a species we're phenomenal at adapting, it's literally what we do best. So kids will adapt if they haven't already.

 

 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Totally agree...I was once described as Captain Scarlet.

Careful. Those two white circles can be a problem.

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Just to clear things up , you are saying everyone wearing face coverings from chin to below eyes has no detrimental effect on how we communicate and view each other,  both physically and psychologically?

No I'm not saying it has no effect, just that the effect is not that great unless you rely on lip reading.

We may be forced to enunciate more slowly because of the physical barrier the mask creates, but that's about it.

When we read people. as we all do, we give more importance to all the things I mentioned previously before we do the mouth.

This isn't me offering an opinion btw, this is just how we interact as human beings.

Have you ever heard anybody say anything like 'I could tell be the shape of his mouth he was going to do that?'

What you hear is 'I could see it in his eyes' or "I could tell by his posture' or 'it was in the tone of his voice' etc.

Good security people aren't looking at people's mouth to gauge threat, they are studying their body language.

Another great book for your rapidly growing collection is The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. He's one of the worlds leading security experts and he talks a lot about this. A really fascinating read too.
 

[Archied]

33 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

History was my favourite subject at school, but other than the English Civil War I'm ignorant on huge swathes of it these days.

Rather embarrassingly, II couldn't even tell you much about WWI and WWII other than we won.

So I'll not be debating that.

The big issue with our own experiences is that they can, and frequently do, give us a false perception of reality.

By giving our own experience more weight and credence (especially over things like science - not saying you with that, just generalising) we start to build a skewed view of what reality is.

We think our reality is the reality.

I love the Dalai Lama quote when on being asked by a journalist what would Buddhism do if science proved it to be wrong (the two are actually incredibly closely aligned, but I'm sure you know that) he replied 'Buddhism would need to change'.

I get that you're anti-mask and you think they pose a danger to kids development even if I don't know what you mean by that, or how it will manifest.

I don't think you're right, but I can't be sure as there have been no studies done (according to the scientist in the 5 Live debate I mentioned on Monday) so you're entitled to that opinion.

But it drifts from having an opinion to being demonstrably wrong when you suggest that as individuals we cannot communicate highly effectively without seeing the other persons mouth, nose and jaw.

In actual fact, the mouth is very easy to contrive. It's easy faking a smile with your mouth, the tricky bit is making sure the eyes get the message because people are intuitively very good at cueing in on people's eyes, or rather the muscles around them, and realising when somebody may be insincere.

We can communicate effectively without sight and sound - we're doing it now and depending on what research you want to believe that equates to less than 20% of how we communicate when in person. Some think closer to 7 or 8%

I'm not at all sure I favour making kids wear masks in school. In fact, I probably lean away from that, but in all honesty I'm not sure why I think that. I don't have a solid reason, just a sense that it's not a good thing.

Just like I have a sense that kids seeing adults wearing masks isn't a bad thing. I'm sure if somebody had a bad experience in the past it could be a trigger, but you could say that about everything from clowns to dogs. 

Maybe it was unnerving for some for a week or two, but as a species we're phenomenal at adapting, it's literally what we do best. So kids will adapt if they haven't already.

 

 

I was going to nit pick your post , then I got to your last line and you started to cover what I was going to say ,

im sure we can communicate with our faces covered and can adapt to do that very well over time , it’s just I believe we will be far far poorer for it ,

to be fair I think where you and I bottom line disagree on this topic as with some others is quality of life v longevity, and for me this virus s figures re survival rates doesn’t warrant the reaction 

[Archied]

33 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

No I'm not saying it has no effect, just that the effect is not that great unless you rely on lip reading.

We may be forced to enunciate more slowly because of the physical barrier the mask creates, but that's about it.

When we read people. as we all do, we give more importance to all the things I mentioned previously before we do the mouth.

This isn't me offering an opinion btw, this is just how we interact as human beings.

Have you ever heard anybody say anything like 'I could tell be the shape of his mouth he was going to do that?'

What you hear is 'I could see it in his eyes' or "I could tell by his posture' or 'it was in the tone of his voice' etc.

Good security people aren't looking at people's mouth to gauge threat, they are studying their body language.

Another great book for your rapidly growing collection is The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. He's one of the worlds leading security experts and he talks a lot about this. A really fascinating read too.
 

Sounds interesting, send me a pm with some recommendations for reading ?

Agree with lots of the above but I do believe we lose a lot if faces are covered from chin to eyes and your not seeing the whole face , I’m one of those daft people that over the last few years ( before covid ) have made a conscious effort to smile at people in daily life , not the cheesy American have a nice day way but genuinely smile , be patient and warm , 

you know what ,, it does change people and situations in the main ,, when I wear a mask around everybody else wearing masks as I’ve done plenty over the last few years I feel really disconnected and laugh as people may I find it quite sad , it’s like the big city condition on steroids ??‍♂️

[Ram-Alf]

55 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Careful. Those two white circles can be a problem.

We know you can hear us earthmen, That Captain Black was a bad un ?

[Ram-Alf]

26 minutes ago, Archied said:

I was going to nit pick your post , then I got to your last line and you started to cover what I was going to say ,

im sure we can communicate with our faces covered and can adapt to do that very well over time , it’s just I believe we will be far far poorer for it ,

to be fair I think where you and I bottom line disagree on this topic as with some others is quality of life v longevity, and for me this virus s figures re survival rates doesn’t warrant the reaction 

Interestingly enough, This Morning all had face coverings which you would expect, But, Now here's the rub, Several times I said excuse me to those that were asking me questions...ie have I had a flu jab, Have I had covid this last 7 days and so forth, When conversing with people who both have a face mask on I found it difficult to pick up what was said, Yet without a face mask you hear and lip read at the same time so understanding what is said is a lot easier.

[sage]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-59514568

 

[Norman]

3 hours ago, Eddie said:

In summary (there's half a dozen on here echoing this sentiment):

"My ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge".

I've gone back to putting the ignorant on 'ignore'.

If you have half the thread on ignore, ignoring the ignorance of it, don't you just read the other half of the thread.... Which is the other half quoting the people you have on ignore? Or does that function work better now? 

I like the quote 'the worst kind of arrogance is arrogance from ignorance', myself. 

[Bob The Badger]

 

@Archied - I can share books in here and maybe others are interested.

I'll stick to easy to read stuff, not because I don't think you're capable of reading more academic stuff, but quite honestly a lot of it bores me senseless.

The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis - A brilliant introduction to the work of Tversky and Kahnaman from the guy who wrote Moneyball.

Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely - A cool intro into behavioural economics and why humans do irrational poo. Ariely is a Professor at Duke so a lot of the research he's done himself.

Influence by Robert Cialdini - Probably the seminal book on how and why we are influenced by others and outside factors. This book has been raped and pillaged by marketers, but it has real value for anybody wanting to understand human behaviour.

It has just been republished with a lot of new cutting edge research. I read the old one a couple of times and I'm working my way through the new one that is almost twice as long.

Like Ariely, Cialdini is a professor and much of the research is his own.

Situations Matter by Sam Sommers -Another book written by an academic but for laypeople and really entertaining. He breaks down the whole James Bulger murder when upwards of 50 people (I think, could have been in the 30s actually, but a lot) saw Thompson and Venables with James but nobody properly intervened. 

It seems none of us would, it was typical human behaviour and people who say otherwise are just victims of hindsight bias.

Anything by Malcolm Gladwell other than his short stories book which I forget the name of. I loved Blink which is a deep dive into rapid cognition and have read it maybe 5 times. But his last book Talking with Strangers was really good too and shows how we and why we jump to erroneous conclusions.

Gladwell pretty much turns every topic on its head and says it's not like we think it is and he's usually right. His revisionist history podcast is great too.

Freakonomics - Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner - A really fun read. Like seems to be a thing in this thread, they look at common misconceptions and explain why all is not what it appears on the surface. I read this 16 or 17 years ago so cannot remember many details, but the fact that it went to America with me in 2006 and came back again last year means I must have loved it.

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - One of my favourite books of all time and a must for anybody serious about understanding how we come to decisions and how/why we often get them wrong.

I have a couple of hundred books in my Audible.com account, but you cannot merge .co.uk and .com so when I moved back I had to set up a new account and now I cannot get to my older ones to scroll through.

Well, I suppose I could if I could be arsed, but I've lost my password and it would mean logging out of Audible.co.uk and then resetting my old password.

But I'm sure that should keep you going for the weekend.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

If you have half the thread on ignore, ignoring the ignorance of it, don't you just read the other half of the thread.... Which is the other half quoting the people you have on ignore? Or does that function work better now? 

I like the quote 'the worst kind of arrogance is arrogance from ignorance', myself. 

 

I don't mind ignorance - but deliberate ignorance is another matter.

If an argument is well-constructed, with cogent references/citations and a conclusion drawn based upon scientific evidence, then I have no problem with that (Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em, tell 'em and then tell 'em what you told 'em works for me.

The argument that "I'm not sticking that untested stuff in my arm based just upon the word of qualified scientists of the relevant field until a study of long-term effects has been carried out" is one thing. "I'm not sticking that untested stuff in my arm based just upon the word of qualified scientists of the relevant field until a study of long-term effects has been carried out  - however, I will stick this different untested stuff in my arms instead based just upon the word of qualified scientists of the relevant field, and I won't wait for any long-term study anyway" smacks of insanity.

Well, actually it smacks of 'faith', but that's pretty well the same thing.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

 

@Archied - I can share books in here and maybe others are interested.

I'll stick to easy to read stuff, not because I don't think you're capable of reading more academic stuff, but quite honestly a lot of it bores me senseless.

The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis - A brilliant introduction to the work of Tversky and Kahnaman from the guy who wrote Moneyball.

Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely - A cool intro into behavioural economics and why humans do irrational poo. Ariely is a Professor at Duke so a lot of the research he's done himself.

Influence by Robert Cialdini - Probably the seminal book on how and why we are influenced by others and outside factors. This book has been raped and pillaged by marketers, but it has real value for anybody wanting to understand human behaviour.

It has just been republished with a lot of new cutting edge research. I read the old one a couple of times and I'm working my way through the new one that is almost twice as long.

Like Ariely, Cialdini is a professor and much of the research is his own.

Situations Matter by Sam Sommers -Another book written by an academic but for laypeople and really entertaining. He breaks down the whole James Bulger murder when upwards of 50 people (I think, could have been in the 30s actually, but a lot) saw Thompson and Venables with James but nobody properly intervened. 

It seems none of us would, it was typical human behaviour and people who say otherwise are just victims of hindsight bias.

Anything by Malcolm Gladwell other than his short stories book which I forget the name of. I loved Blink which is a deep dive into rapid cognition and have read it maybe 5 times. But his last book Talking with Strangers was really good too and shows how we and why we jump to erroneous conclusions.

Gladwell pretty much turns every topic on its head and says it's not like we think it is and he's usually right. His revisionist history podcast is great too.

Freakonomics - Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner - A really fun read. Like seems to be a thing in this thread, they look at common misconceptions and explain why all is not what it appears on the surface. I read this 16 or 17 years ago so cannot remember many details, but the fact that it went to America with me in 2006 and came back again last year means I must have loved it.

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - One of my favourite books of all time and a must for anybody serious about understanding how we come to decisions and how/why we often get them wrong.

I have a couple of hundred books in my Audible.com account, but you cannot merge .co.uk and .com so when I moved back I had to set up a new account and now I cannot get to my older ones to scroll through.

Well, I suppose I could if I could be arsed, but I've lost my password and it would mean logging out of Audible.co.uk and then resetting my old password.

But I'm sure that should keep you going for the weekend.

? as long as your aware we may take different things from what we read

probably a good idea to recommend stuff that’s not bogged down with references as such im more into concepts ,

as I say I love history but if I had to take an exam and quote dates I would flunk miserably 

mind you it may have helped if I’d had couple of teachers who could capture your imagination rather than ones who decided I was bother because of family 

went through school always in the top class but never really engaged??‍♂️

Edited December 3, 2021 by Archied

[i-Ram]

I see that the recent Steps Concert in Glasgow might be a superspreader event. A couple of cases initially but this afternoon the numbers increased quickly to 5,6,7,8.

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

as I say I love history but if I had to take an exam and quote dates I would flunk miserably 

Lol. Your idea of history is a bit 'old-fashioned', historical even. ?

[maxjam]

 

'More than half the confirmed cases of the new Omicron variant in the UK were double jabbed, health officials have said.'

'The majority of Delta cases are also in the fully-vaccinated.'

 

I understand the UK is 80% double jabbed so you would expect the majority of the cases to be in the double vaxxed - because we now know the jab doesn't stop you from catching or transmitting covid.  Surely this should put an end to any discriminatory lockdowns we have seen elsewhere around the world?

Furthermore, regardless of anonymous anacdotal Guardian articles telling us hospitals are full of unvaccinated, the numbers of double jabbed dying from covid is far higher than the unvaccinated.  Again, I know as a percentage the vaxxed are dying far less than the unvaxxed (30x less likely iirc) and I am not in anyway downplaying the benefits of the vaccine, but the scary draconian measures we are seeing elsewhere around the world won't even achieve what they think they will achieve ?