Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

So the statistics for underlying health issues are very misleading then. 

My wife has asthma, as does my six year old daughter. 

Should something happen to either of them, they will both fall into the Toby Young / Julia Hartley-Brewer "well, they were ill and just going to die anyway category".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Really? People with Diabetes are at big risk and obviously cancer patients, lung disease, heart problems etc . Stuff like that I can totally understand why you’d be fighting for your life if you caught coronavirus. Are there any reasons stated why Excema would leave you more vulnerable? . If they are classing minor things as underlying health issues then you could say this is more deadlier to people than first thought.

ever had a mental health diagnosis? OCD, GAD? underlying condition. It’s a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Really? People with Diabetes are at big risk and obviously cancer patients, lung disease, heart problems etc . Stuff like that I can totally understand why you’d be fighting for your life if you caught coronavirus. Are there any reasons stated why Excema would leave you more vulnerable? . If they are classing minor things as underlying health issues then you could say this is more deadlier to people than first thought.

No, they're just counting any previous medical diagnosis as an underlying condition, even if its a mental health one rather than anything physical. See:

 

12 minutes ago, a m ole said:

ever had a mental health diagnosis? OCD, GAD? underlying condition. It’s a joke.

So basically any stats to do with underlying conditions will be massively skewed by "underlying conditions" that almost certainly don't have any bearing on your health if contracting coronavirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

My wife has asthma, as does my six year old daughter. 

Should something happen to either of them, they will both fall into the Toby Young / Julia Hartley-Brewer "well, they were ill and just going to die anyway category".

Yep, can imagine they would . It’s a cop out isn’t it really . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

No, they're just counting any previous medical diagnosis as an underlying condition, even if its a mental health one rather than anything physical. See:

 

So basically any stats to do with underlying conditions will be massively skewed by "underlying conditions" that almost certainly don't have any bearing on your health if contracting coronavirus.

That’s pretty terrible and very misleading.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it matters or is relevant in any way but the past few days I’ve been trying to imagine how this pandemic would have played out if it happened 20+ years ago, i.e. pre ‘information-age’.


I can’t help but think that 24 hour news, desperate for something new to share has not been helpful, or has it? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Not that it matters or is relevant in any way but the past few days I’ve been trying to imagine how this pandemic would have played out if it happened 20+ years ago, i.e. pre ‘information-age’.


I can’t help but think that 24 hour news, desperate for something new to share has not been helpful, or has it? 

I think it hasn't helped, no.  Neither has having a government that is more concerned about what's trending on Twitter than what's necessary in the real world.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Support bubbles to remain, he said last night.  Now go watch this evening them introduce travel limits (including bubbles).  It'll be interesting what Priti Patel has to say this evening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, trekka said:

Support bubbles to remain, he said last night.  Now go watch this evening them introduce travel limits (including bubbles).  It'll be interesting what Priti Patel has to say this evening. 

College students who are labor party members, something to do with knife crime and our precious children, think of the poor children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trekka said:

Support bubbles to remain, he said last night.  Now go watch this evening them introduce travel limits (including bubbles).  It'll be interesting what Priti Patel has to say this evening. 

I think she’s said “egregious” 97 times. That’s all I’ve heard so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Not that it matters or is relevant in any way but the past few days I’ve been trying to imagine how this pandemic would have played out if it happened 20+ years ago, i.e. pre ‘information-age’.


I can’t help but think that 24 hour news, desperate for something new to share has not been helpful, or has it? 

For the first time in a long time I’ve had radio 4 on quite a bit and I have to be honest, it’s a mystery how I used to be able to listen to it so much. I must have conditioned myself to it.

Basically, it’s been 2 days of presenters having two subjects they just wouldn’t let go of. The main one, the main theme, people must mostly be catching it in supermarkets, yeah? Pitched in various ways at various experts, all of which have said ‘possible, but nowhere near your most likely weak point’, often followed by a vox pop of Brenda’s from Anytown saying people in supermarkets might be a problem. 

Then theme two, should the police be stricter on clamping down on the guidance? Well, the clue is in the title BBC, ‘guidance’. Three different programmes today asking if there will be more fines for travelling to exercise. Oh, and is 7 miles too far on a bike when no distance is mentioned in the rules.

Then the usual default follow up: isn’t it all confusing.

I get the impression they just have too many hours to fill for the number of actual genuine proper journalists and researchers they have on the job, so just have to repeat all day something they were corrected on during a programme that aired 7:00pm the evening before.

48 hours of BBC far less informative than 4.8 hours of VT and/or twitter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

they just have too many hours to fill for the number of actual genuine proper journalists and researchers they have on the job, so just have to repeat all day something they were corrected on during a programme that aired 7:00pm the evening before.

48 hours of BBC far less informative than 4.8 hours of VT

Zackly. I don't agree about the twitter part, mind - you're right more informative stuff is on there, but only if you follow the right people etc. It's also full of complete idiocy and denial etc.

Been saying for a while that blaming journo's and presenters for lack of detailed understanding isn't all their fault - they're spread too thinly and across too many "stories" and being encouraged to use social media to get people to come to the BBC - there's too much wanting to be immediate and not enough wanting to be authoritative and correct, or TL:DR - they've dumbed down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mother in law who was injected Saturday lives in a small village in a rural area near Tamworth. 

She went to the main medical centre that is surrounded by various similar small villages. 

She said they've now vaccinated all the top layers and are now calling in people in their 60s for their jabs.  

If supplies hold up you could reasonably expect everyone over 50 in that area to be done by end of January I would think. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

When the covid list of heroes and villains is being written in a few years time, Adam Wagner should sit somewhere near the top of the first list (yes, nurses etc, obviously...)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, villarule123 said:

With the 'lockdown' and vaccines being thrown out, you'd expect the deaths to drop dramatically in the next month or so.

What is the basis for this assumption?

The Pfizer Vaccine takes 12 weeks to reach its maximum effectiveness after the first jab and around that time you'll be getting a second jab which takes another 12 weeks... that is almost 6 months for the 90 year olds that are currently getting it.

Strap in for the long haul, one month isn't going to sort this out "dramatically"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Not that it matters or is relevant in any way but the past few days I’ve been trying to imagine how this pandemic would have played out if it happened 20+ years ago, i.e. pre ‘information-age’.


I can’t help but think that 24 hour news, desperate for something new to share has not been helpful, or has it? 

I agree. 24 hour news and social media is a poison. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â