Generic Virus Thread

[blandy]

6 hours ago, nick76 said:

Doing it now when deaths are higher, obviously points to Boris trying to get out of a bind.

The restrictions were due to expire anyway 26th Jan - he's just bottled another commons vote to re-impose them after that date, because he would have to rely on the oppo (again) to get it through, because the throbbers would vote against, and as you imply, maybe try and topple him/submit their letters etc.

Hospital admissions are not notable going down, nor are deaths. It needs a couple more weeks IMO, at least in terms of helping the NHS.

[foreveryoung]

Reading this thread, I sometimes think some people never want this to end, many just don't want to see the positivity.

If the restrictions are lifting, we should be embracing it, not worrying about it all the time, if you think otherwise you can still wear your mask. I for one am glad they are finally coming to a end. We are all vaccinated, omicron has proved to be light symptoms, lets go herd immunity if it needs to be.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

If the restrictions are lifting

What are you prevented from doing right now that needs to be lifted?

 

[trekka]

If I am being honest, the mandate to wear masks in shops etc is a restriction of sorts to some people but it saddens me that these same people just don't see mask wearing as a protector of others.  If I know I am going into a busy shop with potentially vulnerable people (think early in the morning with the pensioners buying their daily bottle of milk and paper) then I would absolutely wear a mask and would probably double-up.  It is this mindset of them being "restrictions" that needs to change.  They are not restrictions.  They are protective measures. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by trekka

[sidcow]

48 minutes ago, trekka said:

If I am being honest, the mandate to wear masks in shops etc is a restriction of sorts to some people but it saddens me that these same people just don't see mask wearing as a protector of others.  If I know I am going into a busy shop with potentially vulnerable people (think early in the morning with the pensioners buying their daily bottle of milk and paper) then I would absolutely wear a mask and would probably double-up.  It is this mindset of them being "restrictions" that needs to change.  They are not restrictions.  They are protective measures. 

Yeah, the YOU can wear a mask is not the point. Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, you wearing a mask isn't a protection for you. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by sidcow

[foreveryoung]

6 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Yeah, the YOU can wear a mask is not the point. Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, you wearing a mask isn't a protection for you. 

Yes it is. It also protects me from getting it.

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

What are you prevented from doing right now that needs to be lifted?

 

Such a simple question but I bet you don't get a good answer. 

[DCJonah]

31 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Yes it is. It also protects me from getting it.

It's not great protection if you are around others not wearing them. 

Which is kind of the point being made. You wear it more to protect others. 

[foreveryoung]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

It's not great protection if you are around others not wearing them. 

Which is kind of the point being made. You wear it more to protect others. 

I wear it more to protect me first. I also wear my seat belt in the back of the car to protect me, no the people in front.

[JoshVilla]

Most people are wearing masks that do sweet **** all anyway. Those plastic face shields do nothing, cloth masks do nothing. It'd be much more effective if people actually wore the right ones...

[Stevo985]

7 hours ago, sidcow said:

Yeah, the YOU can wear a mask is not the point. Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, you wearing a mask isn't a protection for you. 

And if it was protection for the wearer I bet there would be far far FAR more people still wearing them.

People don't give a **** about everyone else.

[LondonLax]

It’s only the N95 masks that actually do anything (the white ones you l’d wear for sanding). They also need to be fitted tight so air doesn’t just go around them.

The blue surgical masks stop drops of spit if you accidentally cough on someone but don’t stop an airborne virus. 

[DCJonah]

8 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

I wear it more to protect me first. I also wear my seat belt in the back of the car to protect me, no the people in front.

Not really a good analogy. You might choose to wear your mask for selfish reasons, but it only helps protect you properly if others do the same. So you're fortunate that others choose to wear it to protect others, or like you, do it for selfish reasons and somehow still don't fully understand how masks work. 

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

15 hours ago, nick76 said:

But that’s old data now even if correct, I don’t know the guy.  Even if correct you can look at the data for the last few days and the deaths have increased quite a bit since those tweets a week ago.

Edit:  just read up on this guy and seems he’s been against any restrictions at any time during the pandemic.  Think I’ll give his analysis a miss, thanks.

That the deaths have increased wouldn’t change the fact that the data could be skewed by certain factors.
He provided the raw ONS stats. The link to the data tables are in the thread. Let’s see your analysis then and you can explain why 400 deaths from COVID a day is accurate since you’re standing by that claim so vehemently.

Oh and did you see the recent article by Devi Shridhar in The Guardian? (A paper that Dr Ali has also written for). She’s been courted by all corners of the media throughout the whole pandemic and has had an extremely risk averse and cautious approach throughout. 

You’ll note a massive change in her tune. How about her analysis or nah because it doesn’t agree with your opinion that we shouldn’t be moving to the stage of living with the virus.

Quote

Now that science has defanged Covid, it’s time to get on with our lives

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/19/science-covid-ineradicable-disease-prevention

Edited January 21, 2022 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

14 hours ago, nick76 said:

The question though is he correct with the data.  I don’t have time to check his data.  We know how people manipulate data both ways.  I’m sure somebody will debunk it soon if it is wrong or I did more checking plus it’s a week old and deaths have risen a lot in the last week according to government released data so looking at his tweets from a week ago is already out of date.  

My issue is when somebody has been tarnished a number of times like this guy, then you have to question the data he is presenting to further his narrative.  Is the data accurate? Is the data adjusted somehow? Is the data telling us everything? When your source is tarnished it brings into consideration any data they present.  You can’t take his data on face value.

It’s not his own data, it has come directly from the ONS. Here’s the link that he provided in his Tweet. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

You have your own narrative but you don’t seem to be able to back up your claims. You don’t have the time to look at the data but you seem to have the time to post long-winded messages on a football forum. Odd. 

[nick76]

3 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

I mean, you could address the point he’s making, rather than dismiss him, and explain why your numbers of 400 deaths per day is accurate? He provided the raw ONS stats. The data tables are in the thread. Let’s see your analysis then…

Oh and did you see the recent article by Devi Shridhar in The Guardian? (A paper that Dr Ali has also written for). She’s been courted by all corners of the media throughout the whole pandemic and has had an extremely risk averse and cautious approach throughout. 

You’ll note a massive change in her tune. How about her analysis or nah because it doesn’t agree with your opinion that we shouldn’t me moving to the stage of living with the virus.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/19/science-covid-ineradicable-disease-prevention

Why would address the point he's making given his history, I would have to validate his data and given his history is likely to be wrong or very biased.  Why is the 400 deaths per day accurate? It's a fair point but it's the data released by the government and including caveats of course but is the data released by the government.  I'm not really going to engage on a doctor that has a history of issues on this topic, with data that I would have to reproduce to check his workings.  Unless it was a respected source, it's just discussing a subject based on data that maybe incorrect which is pointless.

As you'll read in the comments to that tweet, well into the tweet within the tweet, Devi Shridhar has been discredited a number of times as well.  'Appealing to Authority' is a logical fallacy, just because they have written for a paper doesnt mean their word on everything is gospel.  I can name many people who have written for the Guardian who I wouldnt trust with a barge pole.

I have rejected people that agree with my opinion as well because of their history so I wouldnt say you could use that against me either including Devi Shridhar who as you would say was extremely risk adverse.

I just dont think relying on people on twitter or social media who have narratives either way can be used, or rely on the data they produce that looks quality and yet so often get exposed later on.  It just becomes a waste of time in the first place discussing it.  People use that data to say, look at this data, prove me wrong when quickly other people prove it wrong.  Additionally the tweet is now over a week old and the deaths have increased even by the governments data, so we are trending upwards 

[nick76]

12 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

It’s not his own data, it has come directly from the ONS. Here’s the link that he provided in his Tweet. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

You have your own narrative but you don’t seem to be able to back up your claims. You don’t have the time to look at the data but you seem to have the time to post long-winded messages on a football forum. Odd. 

The data there is two weeks old, have you not seen the increase in deaths since then and did you look at the ONS data yourself, I have briefly looked at it last night.

I have my own narrative?  Sure, I havent made a claim have I? I've just responded to claims you have provided knocking them down. I don’t know why you keep quoting wack jobs from Twitter weekly.

Edited January 21, 2022 by nick76

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

So now we’re just trusting the government now are we? Wow.

Another long winded post but you still haven’t explained why 400 deaths per day from COVID is accurate. You’ve provided no analysis of any data.

You’ve decided a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge and an honorary consultant in acute medicine at Oxford University is wrong because of some vague reasoning: “a tainted history”. 

I have suggested you should provide your analysis based on the ONS stats. You don’t even have to address Dr Ali, just the raw stats instead.

Devi Sridhar is also wrong and should be discredited. Okay, so who is correct and which scientist have you decided to trust? 

 

[nick76]

14 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

So now we’re just trusting the government now are we? Wow.

Another long winded post but you still haven’t explained why 400 deaths per day from COVID is accurate. You’ve provided no analysis of any data.

Ok so you’re into conspiracy theory territory that government released data (not from Boris or politicians but the scientists and government process followed is a problem but a guy off Twitter who is a doctor is correct….good one!

14 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

You’ve decided a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge and an honorary consultant in acute medicine at Oxford University is wrong because of some vague reasoning: “a tainted history”. 

 

Again ‘Appealing to Authority’ fallacy on a guy off Twitter whose not involved in the data, the process and even the ONS isn’t that detailed that he makes assumptions.  Plus as you say he has a very tainted history.

14 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

Okay, so who is correct and which scientist have you decided to trust? 

Not people who have been repeatedly discredited that’s for sure,

not people who only publish on this subject on Twitter

You keep quoting wacko people weekly and then there are pages on this forum that discredit those people.

You want positivity, I get that but don’t just read twitterverse people that give you what you want to hear

I’ll leave it at that as we aren’t going to agree on this subject

Edited January 21, 2022 by nick76

[foreveryoung]

52 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Not really a good analogy. You might choose to wear your mask for selfish reasons, but it only helps protect you properly if others do the same. So you're fortunate that others choose to wear it to protect others, or like you, do it for selfish reasons and somehow still don't fully understand how masks work. 

I don't get what you saying here, I think your trying to be a bit pedantic, an I'm sure most know how a mask works.

If I wear my mask in a room and no one else does I'm protecting myself, yeah? Let's not over complicate things for the sake if it, an try be politically correct.