Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bielesibub said:

Anyone else pissed off that they have "mates" that are planning biggish get togethers this weekend before the 'rule of 6' comes in? should I be fuming?

Did you not get an invite?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bielesibub said:

Anyone else pissed off that they have "mates" that are planning biggish get togethers this weekend before the 'rule of 6' comes in? should I be fuming?

We're having a big get together this weekend, the sister in law is visiting. I'll be in the mancave, the bog, having a bath, anything really, just so I'm not in the same room as her :mrgreen: My social distancing in respect to her has been going on decades now

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the mother in laws birthday next week, she’s invited us round to hers for some food later because of the tightening of the rules on Monday 😏

The Mrs has agreed to drive, and the father on law likes a beer so I’ll just get merrily pissed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to a friend's in Manchester tonight for dinner with another couple.  Will be 6 of us in total.

I'm really anxious about it - the meal itself and the taxi ride.

Whenever I'm ill I always seem to get the most extreme version of it, so this shit would likely end me.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bielesibub said:

Anyone else pissed off that they have "mates" that are planning biggish get togethers this weekend before the 'rule of 6' comes in? should I be fuming?

Yeah. I was planning to go to an outdoor gig (a mate's band) tomorrow, but I've decided against it. My decision though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bielesibub said:

Anyone else pissed off that they have "mates" that are planning biggish get togethers this weekend before the 'rule of 6' comes in? should I be fuming?

No. Especially if they're outside.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Five year old granddaughter has been back at school for four days. She now has a cough. Not allowed back to school without a negative test result. No tests available (To confirm Dem's London to Manchester story, people from Leeds have been getting told to go to Carlisle and Aberdeen). 

EDIT: They've just been offered a test slot. In Wales. 

Taking the piss. 

Edited by mjmooney
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a look at the rules and I don't think it'll massively effect me. 

Its not as though i'm entertaining people in my flat every day or going out every night. I can still travel out of the area if I abide by social distancing (for supermarket shopping - I tend to go to either Walsall or Lichfield) and although I shouldn't visit other people, as a single adult household, I can visit people in my 'support bubble'. Effectively I could say my parents are and still visit them. 

So overall I don't think it'll make any difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I debated posting this. I am not a raving conspiracy loon or likely to automatically question authority, yet I do like to work out the why behind things. I am not one of those people who believe it's all a lie, I even recognise some actions like stadium closures (especially at the start) may have been wise - despite what I'm about to post even questioning that. I wear masks and follow the rules as that is what society dictates and have actually, on a personal level, enjoyed lockdown in the main. However, the data handling/conclusions and reactions to that data have always greatly confused me. A case in point being the current 'rise' in cases being a bad thing... when we're testing more and hospital admissions/deaths are not changing (even allowing for the two/three week delay).

So, where I'm I going with this? I think education and knowledge is far more important than media and political grandstanding. However, I love to be wrong! I'm a teacher and I tell my kids constantly that if you're wrong, you're learning. Politicians and media outlets rarely share this philosophy! So, can someone who is far more knowledgeable than me counter some of the data put forth by this guy... He doesn't seem to be a quack and isn't ranting and raving but quietly points to reams of data. I'm sure he has an agenda too though; I'm interested in what people on this thread think - generally it errs more on the Pro-lockdown side or the belief that it is all horrific.

Genuinely interested in people's views (warning - LONG video);

WARNING 2 - This is very data driven, there is little emotion given to death. But even I grimaced at the term 'tinderbox' although I understand it's scientific impact...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting theory on masks :

Link

Quote

Face masks could be giving people Covid-19 immunity, researchers suggest

Mask wearing might also be reducing the severity of the virus and ensuring that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Five year old granddaughter has been back at school for four days. She now has a cough. Not allowed back to school without a negative test result. No tests available (To confirm Dem's London to Manchester story, people from Leeds have been getting told to go to Carlisle and Aberdeen). 

EDIT: They've just been offered a test slot. In Wales. 

Taking the piss. 

I was being told to go to Oldham but then I tried again a couple of hours later and it changed to Droitwich.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I debated posting this. I am not a raving conspiracy loon or likely to automatically question authority, yet I do like to work out the why behind things. I am not one of those people who believe it's all a lie, I even recognise some actions like stadium closures (especially at the start) may have been wise - despite what I'm about to post even questioning that. I wear masks and follow the rules as that is what society dictates and have actually, on a personal level, enjoyed lockdown in the main. However, the data handling/conclusions and reactions to that data have always greatly confused me. A case in point being the current 'rise' in cases being a bad thing... when we're testing more and hospital admissions/deaths are not changing (even allowing for the two/three week delay).

So, where I'm I going with this? I think education and knowledge is far more important than media and political grandstanding. However, I love to be wrong! I'm a teacher and I tell my kids constantly that if you're wrong, you're learning. Politicians and media outlets rarely share this philosophy! So, can someone who is far more knowledgeable than me counter some of the data put forth by this guy... He doesn't seem to be a quack and isn't ranting and raving but quietly points to reams of data. I'm sure he has an agenda too though; I'm interested in what people on this thread think - generally it errs more on the Pro-lockdown side or the belief that it is all horrific.

Genuinely interested in people's views (warning - LONG video);

WARNING 2 - This is very data driven, there is little emotion given to death. But even I grimaced at the term 'tinderbox' although I understand it's scientific impact...

I posted it a few pages back. He does seem to be making the data fit his preconceived narrative at times, however he also raises some very interesting points. 

The correlation between countries that had a very mild flu season in 2019 getting a worse reaction to COVID is very interesting, as is the historical trend for the US to see a double hump based on how big of a country it is. 

From what we are seeing here in Sweden this year is not particularly out of the ordinary as far as total number of deaths is concerned from ALL causes. In fact it seems like 2019 was a big anomaly (the fewest number of deaths in the country since 1977, back when the population was much lower). That’s despite not closing down society.

Last winter was very mild here, there was virtually no snow for most of the country, I wonder if that contributed to the very few number of winter deaths, until COVID came In the spring and levelled things out again.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Interesting theory on masks :

Link

 

As Bicks says, it does seem to make sense from a layman's perspective. But if it's that simple, why do we bother with vaccines? Just catch a few sneezes from infected people, and waft a bit under everybody's nose? Can't be that simple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LondonLax said:

I posted it a few pages back. He does seem to be making the data fit his preconceived narrative at times, however he also raises some very interesting points. 

The correlation between countries that had a very mild flu season in 2019 getting a worse reaction to COVID is very interesting, as is the historical trend for the US to see a double hump based on how big of a country it is. 

From what we are seeing here in Sweden this year is not particularly out of the ordinary as far as total number of deaths is concerned from ALL causes. In fact it seems like 2019 was a big anomaly (the fewest number of deaths in the country since 1977, back when the population was much lower). That’s despite not closing down society.

Last winter was very mild here, there was virtually no snow for most of the country, I wonder if that contributed to the very few number of winter deaths, until COVID came In the spring and levelled things out again.
 

So why aren't people talking about this? If it's a legitimate SCIENTIFIC debate why is it being bunched in with the crackpot theories of secret government mind control?!

This points strongly to there being a genuine question as to how data/modelling is being done.

Where is the data for current restrictions and/or actions? Are we being led by fear/policy rather than science?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LondonLax said:

posted it a few pages back. He does seem to be making the data fit his preconceived narrative at times, however he also raises some very interesting points

Yes, exactly that. I didn't watch it through to the end because I became irritated by obvious false assertions and glossing over facts which flatly contradict his theory. It took less than two minutes to notice, when he skipped any justification for asserting that lockdown wasn't a factor of any relevance. Hes done exactly what you say. Had theory and then picked data to justify it and ignored data that inconveniently suggests his theory might be flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes, exactly that. I didn't watch it through to the end because I became irritated by obvious false assertions and glossing over facts which flatly contradict his theory. It took less than two minutes to notice, when he skipped any justification for asserting that lockdown wasn't a factor of any relevance. Hes done exactly what you say. Had theory and then picked data to justify it and ignored data that inconveniently suggests his theory might be flawed.

He touches upon the lockdown when he mentions Brazil (famously anti LD) and Peru which had an extremely militant lockdown. Although, to be fair, I have no idea whether the data or focus of it is transparent.

He also mentions Sweden quite heavily which is the outlier with regards lockdown in Europe.

I don't think it'd be fair to sweep it under the rug as overly biased but equally I'm interested as to why it might be. What data contradicts his theory?

Edited by jackbauer24
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

don't think it'd be fair to sweep it under the rug as overly biased but equally I'm interested as to why it might be. What data contradicts his theory?

No, I don't either. It's not overly biased, and the bits on "dry tinder" and so on are very good.

Lockdown and even masks, much less so. New Zealand was super rapid with lockdown, and the data there...

Medics wear protective masks and more and sanitised and so on, and have done for decades. Why? Because it is proven that they are effective in reducing the spread of infections, including flu type viruses. It is also fact that a virus passed by contact or close proximity breathing cannot spread without those things, and those things are what lockdown introduced. As far as I'm aware everywhere that introduced lockdown saw a swift commensurate turning of the curves. That can't be coincidental, it's too widespread to be so. Further still theres data showing an increase back to R>1 following easing of restrictions in multiple nations. That goes completely against his arguments regarding gompert curves.

In essence I think the area for focus ought to be around the lethality  of the virus and continuing build up of evidence that it is far less lethal than suspected.

Finally a factor missing from his death rate analysis completely is health of a population.  The UK and USA for example have less healthy populations than say Sweden. Sweden, like the UK saw high numbers of deaths in care homes full of vulnerable people, but general population wise, Sweden being typically younger and healthier and less overweight etc. than the UK means fewer fatalities and hospital admissions per capita both before and after measures were introduced.  There's also ethnicity to factor in, and the susceptibility of different groups to severe symptoms. I'd do links and stuff but I'm sat on a wall using a mobile phone, not at a desk with a computer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â