fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
That's what I meant about hoovering up
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
That's what I meant about hoovering up
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's a very Johnson approach, idealism and superficial sparkle, without any clue as to how to actually do it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
That's the thing. They talk tough about reintroducing measures if cases get high again, then when they do redefine what high is. Always seems to be a number just above what the current rate is...
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But that entire generation are all in the same boat, so you're hardly fucking up their life chances. It's not killing the economy, it's proving we have an economy that's extremely fragile and not robust enough to cope with change. It somebody had the balls to use this as the catalyst for change it could make a generations life chances with a more diverse mix of industries including ones which are more robust and long term, improved environment/living conditions and fairer income and wealth distribution.
"Ask not what you do for the economy, but ask what the economy does for you"
As you say this is, on the whole, a relatively minor disease and look how much the world is struggling. Doesn't bear thinking about if a proper modern-day black death reared its head.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
We were lucky Ebola didn't break out. Now *that* would have been an issue...
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
They'll all be clamouring for a covid test now. It'll take most of them well beyond 14 days to get a test and by the time they get a test they'll all test negative and won't ever know if they've had it.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Crazy shit. Also heard Harding say earlier that they slowed the turn around time down on tests so they can process more tests. I don't get how that makes sense.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I’m starting to think we learned the grand total of fuck all from the first wave. It’s true what they say. If you vote in a clown you get the circus.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yeah...
Believe it or not, if Government sold me what Grendel, Brighton, Steve are all saying, and showed me a coherent plan and what they were wanting to get out of it, I'd buy into it.
They're not, though. It really is like we expected it to just go away and they wouldn't have to do any planning, and learn from what they did last time. First time around is excusable (nobody knew!) second time though?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Off the scale but at least some truth
m.huffingtonpost.co.uk
Up To 750,000 Covid Test Requests Going Unanswered EVERY Day
The NHS Test and Trace chief is under fire after saying the September surge in demand was “unexpected”.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Off the scale but at least some truth
Up To 750,000 Covid Test Requests Going Unanswered EVERY Day
The NHS Test and Trace chief is under fire after saying the September surge in demand was “unexpected”.
She is a total fuckwit... that useless I’m surprised she hasn’t been promoted to Secretary of State for something.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I just don't understand what the Nightingale is for. My understanding from colleagues who worked on it was that it was for step down care for people coming out of hospital. This just suggests it was a complete gimmick.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I heard on the radio this morning that people that have died from this without underlying health conditions is 307 since February.
If that is true then what the fuck is this all about?
If that is true then what the fuck is this all about?
We'll_live_and_die
Super Moderator
That’s the thing that I’m getting fed up with. It doesn’t seem to kill anyone (relative) that’s not got underlying health issues.
Why the fuck are we going into another full scale lockdown? I have asthma, i.e. an underlying issue. I'm responsible enough to withdraw myself from situations where I may be at risk of catching it.
NHS was protected to such an extent that the nightingales have now been mothballed and in some cases demolished.
Let’s see a proper plan for living with this now and move forward with an idea where we’re going.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
Because lots of people have underlying health issues, or are related to people who have underlying health issues?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'd count as having an underlying health condition, but would otherwise be seen as healthy. It's an underlying health condition that's not visible or obvious, wouldn't have me shielded or kept off work, but would otherwise be a tick in a box.
That's what it's about.
That's what it's about.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep I suppose it’s what is covered by underlying health conditions. Asthma? Diabetes? Obesity?
I think we think of multiple sclerosis, motor neurone, cancer
I suppose I would ask what the prejudice and bias was that meant someone gave the 307 figure
I think we think of multiple sclerosis, motor neurone, cancer
I suppose I would ask what the prejudice and bias was that meant someone gave the 307 figure
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
I'm seeing a lot of this- "it ain't gonna kill me so why the fuck should I listen, fuck covid and lets crack on" Its like nobody was watching or listening last time, its just about to be let loose in care homes again too, who wants to take a chance on infecting someone working in one of those places? I'd like to think its not all callousness or selfishness, so why don't people get what is happening outside their front door?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
1. Have you seen the scope of 'underlying health conditions'? it's massive and includes a big 'other' group which is the non obvious stuff.
2. Do people with underlying health conditions not matter?
I think there is a plan NW, when there’s a local spike, try staged measures to get it down, with schools last on list.
whether they (ministers/top civil servants) have the tools (trace and track app sorted ? and testing capacity ?) skills, and intellect to deliver this I very much doubt !
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Objectively, it's likely you'd be OK. Objectively, it's nature saying we're over populated and doing something about it.
There is, certainly, an argument for letting it do its thing... but in doing that, you'd have to acknowledge there'd be a lorra lorra deaths.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Matt Hancock was pretty good on radio 4. Clearly said minimise spread, safeguard vulnerable members of community, test and trace, etc etc
The questioner was really good about saying we just need a plan and we need to stick to it
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Worth noting the non deaths can still have consequences, too. Friend of a friend contracted it in... early April? and only end of August could get up his stairs again.
So, does he count as 'not being affected by it'?
If it weakens you, do you then have vulnerability to other respiratory diseases that might then finish you off a year, two years, three years down the line?
So, does he count as 'not being affected by it'?
If it weakens you, do you then have vulnerability to other respiratory diseases that might then finish you off a year, two years, three years down the line?
1nilandwe...
Well-Known Member
If you are someone who says, "it only kills people with underlying health conditions, so why all the fuss," then you are either stupid, or psychopathically selfish.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
I'm still fuming over the farcical schools situation. Over 100 hundred schools in the north-west alone have now sent full cohorts home just because of a single case......if we carry on like this, all schools will be effectively closed before half-term.
its a fucking joke.
If a kid tests positive, isolate the kid & let the rest of them remain in school.
The virus is circulating freely in all environments anyhow....approx. 60% of all people (even higher in the younger population) will never even know they got it.....so disrupting kids education & their families & wider communities lives for every single case is just plain dumb IMHO.
Its causing way more harm than good.
its a fucking joke.
If a kid tests positive, isolate the kid & let the rest of them remain in school.
The virus is circulating freely in all environments anyhow....approx. 60% of all people (even higher in the younger population) will never even know they got it.....so disrupting kids education & their families & wider communities lives for every single case is just plain dumb IMHO.
Its causing way more harm than good.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
If it’s your kids school I’d be challenging being sent home with a positive test in the year and no symptoms it’s not advised by public health England and for the reason you say isn’t following test and trace process either. Those in close contact need to be asked to self isolate but if kids in the same house but in a different year aren’t being sent home the neither should the whole year be sent home for 2 weeks
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Well, you can stop being so dramatic with point number two. In fact, I'm not even going to answer that it is such a ridiculous thing to say.
It is completely irrelevant what the scope is. The fact is, anyone that is completely healthy has to have a test to see if they have the killer virus, and it has killed 300 odd people in 7 months indicates to me that there is something not quite right.
All I did was point out what I had heard, which actually wasn't even disputed by anyone.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
As far as I can see, literally no one on this thread has displayed that attitude.
I do see on places such as twitter, people being obnoxious about this. But if they were being honest with us and said, you are at almost no risk, but people who have certain health conditions are, so please be considerate of them, you would probably find more of those twerps would listen.
If it is true, and only 307 'healthy' people have died then that is extremely far from the notions that have been put out.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It's killed closer to 60,000 people, what are you on about?
Do you know how many people are overweight, or smoke, or have asthma, or have a bowel disease? It's most of the population. Even young people at the peak of fitness might have heart or lung issues undiagnosed.
If you don't get a handle on it people won't partake in the economy fully because they won't have the confidence to.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Of course it's relevant, if the scope is so broad that it includes 50% of the population then the 307 number is utterly meaningless. Why are epidemiologists so nervous about it? Why are critical care consultants so worried about it?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Libtard cucks all of them.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
It is not just a completely binary case of "will I die or won't I" though, with nothing else to consider. There is much more going on than that.
Science | AAAS
www.sciencemag.org
"The likelihood of a patient developing persistent symptoms is hard to pin down because different studies track different outcomes and follow survivors for different lengths of time. One group in Italy found that 87% of a patient cohort hospitalized for COVID-19 was still struggling months later. Data from the COVID Symptom Study, which uses an app into which millions of people in the United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden have tapped their symptoms, suggest 10% to 15% of people—including some “mild” cases—don’t quickly recover. But with the crisis just months old, no one knows how far into the future symptoms will endure, and whether COVID-19 will prompt the onset of chronic diseases."
"The sheer breadth of complications linked to COVID-19 is mind-boggling. In late Akrami collaborated with Body Politic, a group of COVID-19 survivors, to survey more than 600 who still had symptoms after 2 weeks. She logged 62 different symptoms and is now readying the findings for publication and developing a second survey to capture longer term ailments. 'Even though it’s one virus, it can cause all different kinds of diseases in people,' says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University who is studying lingering effects on the immune system. What we’re experiencing is an epidemic of severe illness. So therefore, there is an epidemic of chronic illness that follows it."
We're 6 mths in and it still doesn't seem to have dawned on people that this thing isn't just the bringer of two possibilities- life or death- it can & does affect many people long after they've had it, and make them unable to do anything- even if you didn't actually get any symptoms. And nobody knows how bad it could be, nobody has any firm answers. I would therefore respectfully propose that people stop looking for conspiracies in everything & be a bit fucking smarter. And no, thats not aimed at specific people on here.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Same rhetoric as was about for the first lockdown (once they'd dropped the herd immunity nonsense (publically at least)) but we failed to do any of it. It looks like we're going to fail again and are about to make all the same mistakes we did first time round. I'm still clinging to the hope that deaths are staying relatively low compared to cases compared to before, but that could start to change if more people require hospitalisation and health services start to get stretched. I'm not pinning my hopes on a vaccine, as great as that'd be, and effective tracking and tracing isn't going to happen if they're obsessed with ensuring testing contracts go to private industry run by their mates.
Last time it was annoying that they didn't heed what was going on abroad and use it to make their plans. This time they're seemingly not only ignoring the similar trends in Europe like last time but also their own experiences. Except this time I doubt they'll even lockdown.
"Save a grandee, not a granny"
Last edited: