Corona Virus main thread

[Bagster 101]

4 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Is this the opening monologue for Trainspotting 3?

 

You have an apt name

[ricardo 7,395]

Furlough extended to March.

Money no object.

[Herman 9,764]

Bloody socialists. 

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

Just now, ricardo said:

Furlough extended to March.

Money no object.

Conveniently across Brexit. Money no object. City quiet today!

[Bagster 101]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Furlough extended to March.

Money no object.

So that's you lot locked down for the winter

Edited November 5, 2020 by Bagster
Spelling

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

8 minutes ago, Herman said:

Bloody socialists. 

For he's a jolly good Furlough!

[paul moy 235]

31 minutes ago, Bagster said:

Well Paul , I certainly don't trust you.

 

LOL......No surprise there as you already stated that you trust nobody.

[paul moy 235]

 

It's not our fault....... LOL

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1356451/Liverpool-coronavirus-lockdown-fine-police-latest-update-10000-pounds-Merseyside-Wirral

[horsefly 4,300]

I don't trust anyone that can't spell "etc"

[Barbe bleu 826]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I don't trust anyone that can't spell "etc"

Is it etcetera, et cetera or et cetera with an accent on the second 'e'?

[horsefly 4,300]

21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Is it etcetera, et cetera or et cetera with an accent on the second 'e'?

"et cetera" for the full Latin expression. But I'm referring to the use of the abbreviation "ect" by a certain individual ranting about who he doesn't trust (I guess my little joke didn't click with you).

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Furlough extended to March.

Money no object.

Couldn’t find 80 per cent for Manchester or Liverpool, but have now found it for six months for the whole country. 
 

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

If people can't quarantine properly without an extremely good excuse (eye tests) on a notifiable disease when they've had all the financial (and otherwise) support for say 10 days then yes 10 more days more unpaid in a camp somewhere.

So you previously stated it would be “undemocratic” to ask ask the most vulnerable people to stay at home and protect both themselves and the NHS, but you actively encourage internment camps for people who leave the house when they may or may not any longer have an infection that kills 0.05 per cent of people who catch it?

Edited November 5, 2020 by Aggy

[ricardo 7,395]

I said the other day that it looked like we had passed peak before any lockdown and now ZOE boss confirms that suspicion.

 

[paul moy 235]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I said the other day that it looked like we had passed peak before any lockdown and now ZOE boss confirms that suspicion.

 

We may have and we may not have.   As there is doubt it does make a bit of sense to adhere to restrictions for a few weeks as too many are flouting current commonsense rules.

This lockdown is not as severe as the previous one but it does keep the idiots/deniers a bit more under control.

[Van wink 2,994]

2 hours ago, Bagster said:

I've not had any financial support so I'll do what I want then

I've heard vw saying he would support mandatory vaccines and now you supporting internment camps!!

Madness

No you haven’t heard me say that, not unless I had been on the Billy Juice, posting at 3am and forgotten what I’d said. 
 

[Van wink 2,994]

23 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I said the other day that it looked like we had passed peak before any lockdown and now ZOE boss confirms that suspicion.

 

Indeed, that’s why I replied to you on this topic yesterday whilst also making the point that the age distribution of those infected is a far more significant issue. I have a lot of time for Spector and his work, his study has been good at mirroring ONS random studies.

[Aggy 755]

17 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Indeed, that’s why I replied to you on this topic yesterday whilst also making the point that the age distribution of those infected is a far more significant issue. I have a lot of time for Spector and his work, his study has been good at mirroring ONS random studies.

In terms of what steps the government takes though, isn’t age distribution irrelevant unless you plan to bring in measures aimed at a specific age group?

You’ve made the point previously that the more infections there are in the community, the more chance there is of it getting to elderly people. So if you aren’t going to bring in measures to ‘shield’ the elderly and vulnerable, then the only thing that matters is the number of infections in the community? 
 

 

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

If people can't quarantine properly without an extremely good excuse (eye tests) on a notifiable disease when they've had all the financial (and otherwise) support for say 10 days then yes 10 more days more unpaid in a camp somewhere.

In a camp somewhere!? listen to yourself

Edited November 5, 2020 by Teemu’s right foot

[ricardo 7,395]

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

How many police does this take! At least 12 I’ve counted there. 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Teemu’s right foot

[Van wink 2,994]

8 minutes ago, Aggy said:

In terms of what steps the government takes though, isn’t age distribution irrelevant unless you plan to bring in measures aimed at a specific age group?

You’ve made the point previously that the more infections there are in the community, the more chance there is of it getting to elderly people. So if you aren’t going to bring in measures to ‘shield’ the elderly and vulnerable, then the only thing that matters is the number of infections in the community? 
 

 

I'm not with you, the more older people get infected the more the hospitals will fill up, thats what we are trying to avoid isnt it?  Age profile of those infected and the way that moves is crucial.

[Aggy 755]

2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I'm not with you, the more older people get infected the more the hospitals will fill up, thats what we are trying to avoid isnt it?  Age profile of those infected and the way that moves is crucial.

My point is that the only way to stop more elderly people getting infected is to bring in measures that shield them away from everyone else, or reduce community infection rate.

If it is exclusively students infected, the only way of stopping that spreading to elderly people is to shield the elderly or to stop the community spread. We aren’t asking elderly people to shield. 

So really, the age of people being infected is little more than an interesting stat. It isn’t really relevant for government policy decisions. What needs to be focussed on in terms of avoiding hospitals being overwhelmed is the r number/infection rate in the community. 

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

Absolutely disgusting if this is true

Edited November 5, 2020 by Teemu’s right foot

[ricardo 7,395]

Dashboard still having trouble with updating.

[Van wink 2,994]

28 minutes ago, Aggy said:

My point is that the only way to stop more elderly people getting infected is to bring in measures that shield them away from everyone else, or reduce community infection rate.

If it is exclusively students infected, the only way of stopping that spreading to elderly people is to shield the elderly or to stop the community spread. We aren’t asking elderly people to shield. 

 

Over 60’s have been asked to minimise contact with others. 
 

[Aggy 755]

46 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Over 60’s have been asked to minimise contact with others. 
 

Yes, which is sensible and something I suggested would be wise some time ago in conjunction with other measures (and which was dismissed as being undemocratic). 

However, not the point I was making here. Only that unless you plan on isolating the over 60s and vulnerable people for ever, the thing that needs to be driving government policy is whether or not the community infections are at a stable level. Age of people being infected is pretty much irrelevant if you don’t plan on isolating elderly people for ever. 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

14 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Yes, which is sensible and something I suggested would be wise some time ago in conjunction with other measures (and which was dismissed as being undemocratic). 

However, not the point I was making here. Only that unless you plan on isolating the over 60s and vulnerable people for ever, the thing that needs to be driving government policy is whether or not the community infections are at a stable level. Age of people being infected is pretty much irrelevant if you don’t plan on isolating elderly people for ever. 

This government wouldn’t have called for the latest lockdown if hospitalisations hadn’t been increasing, infections increasing in the more vulnerable groups, particularly older folks.

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

Regulator criticises the data used to justify lockdown 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54831334

[Aggy 755]

3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

This government wouldn’t have called for the latest lockdown if hospitalisations hadn’t been increasing, infections increasing in the more vulnerable groups, particularly older folks.

Yes, but again not the point.

They way to stop lockdowns (or to be able to come out of them) is to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed. The way to do that is to stop the vulnerable and elderly from being infected. 

So the questions the government needs to solve are:

(1) why are vulnerable and elderly people being infected and (2) how do you reduce the number of elderly and vulnerable people being infected. 

The mere fact they are over 60 is irrelevant to both. Knowing the average age of current infections is irrelevant to both.

The answers are

(1) - because they come into contact with other infected people. 

(2) either (a) shield all elderly and vulnerable people so they don’t come into contact with any other infected people or (b) reduce the number of infected people they might bump into.

So on the basis we aren’t going to isolate elderly and vulnerable people for ever, the issue is how you reduce community infection. The age of people being infected doesn’t solve that.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

So you previously stated it would be “undemocratic” to ask ask the most vulnerable people to stay at home and protect both themselves and the NHS, but you actively encourage internment camps for people who leave the house when they may or may not any longer have an infection that kills 0.05 per cent of people who catch it?

So let me get this right - You are quite happy with somebody walking around, making you coffee etc, while knowingly with a highly infectious disease that they have already been asked to quarantine with (but can't be bothered because they feel Ok) - and that using your figure randomly kills 0.05% (which is 1 in 2000) people that they may give it too?

Wow! 

By the way - enforced quarantine is not new - at the start of the pandemic you may recall groups being placed in such quarantine in  student blocks in Manchester - guards/police.

I would do the same again for those that won't or can't bring themselves to self isolate when instructed too.