|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 18, 2020 8:57:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 18, 2020 8:57:55 GMT
Every rule and restriction that currently applies to muzzles will apply to health ids and vaccines. What I mean is everything that currently requires you to wear a muzzle will soon require you to have a health id. And you will be tracked everywhere with it. Well if you don't want a vaccine or to participate in public health measures find a cave and leave the rest of us to enjoy the benefits of civilisation and stop trying to impose your paranoid, anti-science, libertarian nightmare on those of us who actually want to live in a world that takes public health seriously. You're not our saviour rousing us from a WHO inspired waking dream - you're a gullible pratt who's sucked up every bit of conspiracy bullshit churned out on alt right websites and will happily post bomb us back into the stone age in pursuit of some fantasy libertarian utopia that in reality would be an uncivilised, dog eat dog shit hole. Even if your conspiracy theories were true (they aren't) I'd happily carry on believing them because your alternative reality is actually far worse. I'm not imposing anything. You're welcome to your opinion, even of it is full of strawman nonsense. If anything, you are the one who consistently tries to bully people into not asking valid questions with aggression and insults. It's not going to work fella. Pandemic scams have been tried before with swine flu. Yet you really think it's not possible to do again? redirect.viglink.com/?key=01868f92fbfbe96767e14b485522ccc4&subId=800541&u=https%3A//web.archive.org/web/20200506131506/https%3A//www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 18, 2020 9:22:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 18, 2020 9:27:02 GMT
Johnson's recent statement: "Draconian measures will be introduced if needed."
Worrying turn of phrase.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Oct 18, 2020 9:28:34 GMT
Every rule and restriction that currently applies to muzzles will apply to health ids and vaccines. What I mean is everything that currently requires you to wear a muzzle will soon require you to have a health id. And you will be tracked everywhere with it. Well if you don't want a vaccine or to participate in public health measures find a cave and leave the rest of us to enjoy the benefits of civilisation and stop trying to impose your paranoid, anti-science, libertarian nightmare on those of us who actually want to live in a world that takes public health seriously. You're not our saviour rousing us from a WHO inspired waking dream - you're a gullible pratt who's sucked up every bit of conspiracy bullshit churned out on alt right websites and will happily post bomb us back into the stone age in pursuit of some fantasy libertarian utopia that in reality would be an uncivilised, dog eat dog shit hole. Even if your conspiracy theories were true (they aren't) I'd happily carry on believing them because your alternative reality is actually far worse. You don't have to believe in a "deep state" threat to be against the removal of civil liberties or to challenge the non sensical approach to this disease. The polarised dystopian vision at either end of this spectrum of views is shutting down democratic debate. I don't want to live in a cave any more than I want to wear a mask or have a vaccine imposed on me, Covid-19 isn't the zombie apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 18, 2020 9:35:25 GMT
I think that's right. They are talking about as many as 10% of people suffering from this catch-all for on-going symptoms of varying severity 'long covid'. I like to think I am in reasonable shape and just the right side of the dangerous age categories but my answer to anyone who suggests I might like to 'take one for the team' in the interests of herd immunity is 'you first mate' ! In other news I see the total recorded cases in the USA topped 70,000 a day yesterday for the first time since July so the engines are revving on wave 2 on the other side of the pond as well.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Oct 18, 2020 9:41:27 GMT
Johnson's recent statement: "Draconian measures will be introduced if needed." Worrying turn of phrase. As if - shutting pubs, banning crowds, wearing masks, pulling the plug on holidays, internal travel restrictions, confining students, ignoring millions of cancer cases........ - wasn't quite enough. You are right, it is very worrying.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 18, 2020 9:51:10 GMT
Johnson's recent statement: "Draconian measures will be introduced if needed." Worrying turn of phrase. As if - shutting pubs, banning crowds, wearing masks, pulling the plug on holidays, internal travel restrictions, confining students, ignoring millions of cancer cases........ - wasn't quite enough. You are right, it is very worrying. Of course you are right to say all of the above is going on. But if we were instead to just role with the covid punches do you think cancer cases would once again get dealt with in the correct fashion? Surely instead what will happen is the National Health Service will one again become the National Covid Service as it did back in March and April and quite literally nothing at all will get done about all the other excellent diseases out there. So I don't think pretending covid doesn't exist and just carry on carrying in is an answer. In short, what is your alternative plan?
|
|
|
Post by henry on Oct 18, 2020 10:17:47 GMT
As if - shutting pubs, banning crowds, wearing masks, pulling the plug on holidays, internal travel restrictions, confining students, ignoring millions of cancer cases........ - wasn't quite enough. You are right, it is very worrying. Of course you are right to say all of the above is going on. But if we were instead to just role with the covid punches do you think cancer cases would once again get dealt with in the correct fashion? Surely instead what will happen is the National Health Service will one again become the National Covid Service as it did back in March and April and quite literally nothing at all will get done about all the other excellent diseases out there. So I don't think pretending covid doesn't exist and just carry on carrying in is an answer. In short, what is your alternative plan? Don't know, but i don't like this one. For a start, if the virus is so deadly and so contagious why not use the Nightingales for Covid patients ? after all, its now over 4 weeks since the big headlines of them going on 48 hour notice, or were they just vanity projects. ? Within weeks of this "novel" virus hitting the western world there was talk of building back after the carnage of this virus, it's as if it was a given that economies would be trashed world wide. Still, won't be long before we get our mandatory vaccine and health papers to keep us safe from a virus 99.9% of the population wouldn't even knew existed if it wasn't for the tele.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 18, 2020 10:19:25 GMT
The mysterious case of the missing influenza virus
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Oct 18, 2020 10:20:36 GMT
I know that these types of stories should matter less than the big picture but seeing someone who’s obviously young and fit losing their life makes me realign my position on things. I know economy and I know suicides but to a layman like me it shows how deadly the virus can be.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 18, 2020 10:21:41 GMT
The mysterious case of the missing influenza virus Because covid tests are picking up the flu
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 18, 2020 10:36:22 GMT
The mysterious case of the missing influenza virus Its not really mysterious is it. All the current measures we as a society are taking will have a massive impact on reducing levels of flu, maybe even bringing it down close to zero because as you know the flu is nowhere near as infectious as covid.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Oct 18, 2020 10:36:45 GMT
Johnson's recent statement: "Draconian measures will be introduced if needed." Worrying turn of phrase. He couldn’t introduce himself to a brass in a brothel Blithering turd of a man We’re controlled by a choice between a bunch of inbred thick cunts and the same again.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 18, 2020 10:40:17 GMT
The mysterious case of the missing influenza virus Be interesting to know how much testing for flu is going on compared to 2019 in order to make sense of the comparison. If it's similar perhaps Covid measures are curtailing the flu, at least for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 18, 2020 11:03:23 GMT
The question on everyone’s mind is whether Covid is out of control in Manchester, or has Burnham got it right, and the government should hold off? First, let’s look at cases, which don’t seem to be out of control, and are, if anything, declining. They peaked on the 30 September with 596 cases and a seven-day average of 461. As of 9 October, the 7-day average has fallen from the peak by nearly 20 per cent to an average of 374. The sweeping term “cases” hides a diverse typology of reality, apart from false positives. The only critical cases are those with serious symptoms (who may go on and be admitted to hospital) and those who are contagious (who may transmit the disease to others). Suppose the increase is due to healthy student-age people. In that case the increase is unlikely to be reflected in either admissions or deaths, especially in the student age group, who play no part in national mortality statistics. Contagious youngsters are unlikely to pass the pathogen on after a week from symptoms onset and if they continue to test positive with few or no symptoms, it’s likely because they are shedding pieces of dead viruses which have little or no public health significance. Manchester University’s figures can help as the university keeps data on known positive cases among its staff and students. It includes those on and off-campus but does not indicate where someone might have contracted the virus. These data also do not support further measures: cases peaked on the 2 October - a spike driven by the return of over 70,000 students to the city - and have fallen significantly since. They are 75 per cent less than what they were at the peak. The Prime Minister said the situation in Manchester is worsening with every passing day. However, cases have decreased for nine days in a row. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/17/covid-cases-manchester-not-control-leave-andy-burnham-alone/
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 18, 2020 11:48:48 GMT
Over 300,000 tests were processed yesterday, according to Hancock.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 18, 2020 11:52:23 GMT
The question on everyone’s mind is whether Covid is out of control in Manchester, or has Burnham got it right, and the government should hold off? First, let’s look at cases, which don’t seem to be out of control, and are, if anything, declining. They peaked on the 30 September with 596 cases and a seven-day average of 461. As of 9 October, the 7-day average has fallen from the peak by nearly 20 per cent to an average of 374. The sweeping term “cases” hides a diverse typology of reality, apart from false positives. The only critical cases are those with serious symptoms (who may go on and be admitted to hospital) and those who are contagious (who may transmit the disease to others). Suppose the increase is due to healthy student-age people. In that case the increase is unlikely to be reflected in either admissions or deaths, especially in the student age group, who play no part in national mortality statistics. Contagious youngsters are unlikely to pass the pathogen on after a week from symptoms onset and if they continue to test positive with few or no symptoms, it’s likely because they are shedding pieces of dead viruses which have little or no public health significance. Manchester University’s figures can help as the university keeps data on known positive cases among its staff and students. It includes those on and off-campus but does not indicate where someone might have contracted the virus. These data also do not support further measures: cases peaked on the 2 October - a spike driven by the return of over 70,000 students to the city - and have fallen significantly since. They are 75 per cent less than what they were at the peak. The Prime Minister said the situation in Manchester is worsening with every passing day. However, cases have decreased for nine days in a row. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/17/covid-cases-manchester-not-control-leave-andy-burnham-alone/This is descended into a problem of political culture. The Govt have picked a fight as a way of deflecting from their own inadequacies (born out of their own incoherency) thinking they are on to a hot favourite by portraying themselves as guardians of the public and now find themselves in an unnecessary and unhelpful public row.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 18, 2020 12:01:26 GMT
The question on everyone’s mind is whether Covid is out of control in Manchester, or has Burnham got it right, and the government should hold off? First, let’s look at cases, which don’t seem to be out of control, and are, if anything, declining. They peaked on the 30 September with 596 cases and a seven-day average of 461. As of 9 October, the 7-day average has fallen from the peak by nearly 20 per cent to an average of 374. The sweeping term “cases” hides a diverse typology of reality, apart from false positives. The only critical cases are those with serious symptoms (who may go on and be admitted to hospital) and those who are contagious (who may transmit the disease to others). Suppose the increase is due to healthy student-age people. In that case the increase is unlikely to be reflected in either admissions or deaths, especially in the student age group, who play no part in national mortality statistics. Contagious youngsters are unlikely to pass the pathogen on after a week from symptoms onset and if they continue to test positive with few or no symptoms, it’s likely because they are shedding pieces of dead viruses which have little or no public health significance. Manchester University’s figures can help as the university keeps data on known positive cases among its staff and students. It includes those on and off-campus but does not indicate where someone might have contracted the virus. These data also do not support further measures: cases peaked on the 2 October - a spike driven by the return of over 70,000 students to the city - and have fallen significantly since. They are 75 per cent less than what they were at the peak. The Prime Minister said the situation in Manchester is worsening with every passing day. However, cases have decreased for nine days in a row. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/17/covid-cases-manchester-not-control-leave-andy-burnham-alone/Have I misunderstood Burnham's position? I thought he was keen on further measures but wants more national tax payers money to support Manchester businesses affected. If he simply doesn't think further lockdown measures are necessary why is he not saying that? Whenever he appears on my TV he is demanding more public money for Manchester as a pre-condition for his support.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 18, 2020 12:02:01 GMT
The mysterious case of the missing influenza virus Be interesting to know how much testing for flu is going on compared to 2019 in order to make sense of the comparison. If it's similar perhaps Covid measures are curtailing the flu, at least for the moment. Testing for flu? I hadn't the slightest idea it could even be done. Never heard of such a thing. Vaccine yes. Testing no. 🤔
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 18, 2020 12:07:09 GMT
The mysterious case of the missing influenza virus Its not really mysterious is it. All the current measures we as a society are taking will have a massive impact on reducing levels of flu, maybe even bringing it down close to zero because as you know the flu is nowhere near as infectious as covid. Yes. But also, some expert on tv here said it's a battle in the microscopic world, where Corona wins the competition. It made me think of an angry eagle entering the scene in a forrest among the other birds, attacking them if they eat the squirrel.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 18, 2020 12:07:49 GMT
The question on everyone’s mind is whether Covid is out of control in Manchester, or has Burnham got it right, and the government should hold off? First, let’s look at cases, which don’t seem to be out of control, and are, if anything, declining. They peaked on the 30 September with 596 cases and a seven-day average of 461. As of 9 October, the 7-day average has fallen from the peak by nearly 20 per cent to an average of 374. The sweeping term “cases” hides a diverse typology of reality, apart from false positives. The only critical cases are those with serious symptoms (who may go on and be admitted to hospital) and those who are contagious (who may transmit the disease to others). Suppose the increase is due to healthy student-age people. In that case the increase is unlikely to be reflected in either admissions or deaths, especially in the student age group, who play no part in national mortality statistics. Contagious youngsters are unlikely to pass the pathogen on after a week from symptoms onset and if they continue to test positive with few or no symptoms, it’s likely because they are shedding pieces of dead viruses which have little or no public health significance. Manchester University’s figures can help as the university keeps data on known positive cases among its staff and students. It includes those on and off-campus but does not indicate where someone might have contracted the virus. These data also do not support further measures: cases peaked on the 2 October - a spike driven by the return of over 70,000 students to the city - and have fallen significantly since. They are 75 per cent less than what they were at the peak. The Prime Minister said the situation in Manchester is worsening with every passing day. However, cases have decreased for nine days in a row. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/17/covid-cases-manchester-not-control-leave-andy-burnham-alone/Have I misunderstood Burnham's position? I thought he was keen on further measures but wants more national tax payers money to support Manchester businesses affected. If he simply doesn't think further lockdown measures are necessary why is he not saying that? Whenever he appears on my TV he is demanding more public money for Manchester as a pre-condition for his support. No, I think Burnham's position is absolutely that. Any mayor that appears to be attempting to take on Whitty and Vallance will be on a hiding to nothing and he knows that. The Telegraph piece is simply challenging WHY is it that the government are hell bent on pushing Manchester into tier 3?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 18, 2020 12:14:27 GMT
From what I see (didn't subscribe), this is really interesting.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 18, 2020 12:21:34 GMT
Have I misunderstood Burnham's position? I thought he was keen on further measures but wants more national tax payers money to support Manchester businesses affected. If he simply doesn't think further lockdown measures are necessary why is he not saying that? Whenever he appears on my TV he is demanding more public money for Manchester as a pre-condition for his support. No, I think Burnham's position is absolutely that. Any mayor that appears to be attempting to take on Whitty and Vallance will be on a hiding to nothing and he knows that. The Telegraph piece is simply challenging WHY is it that the government are hell bent on pushing Manchester into tier 3? Burnham is playing games. His position is so false. He is only opposed to tier 3 because he wants a better financial package. He wants that so he can show he is the cock of the North. All part of him planning his return to Westminster, leadership of the Labour Party and, ultimately, prime minister. Of course, his commitment to this position is qualified because he has also said he’d be happy with a National Lockdowm. I guess he figured there’s no votes for him in Cornwall and Devon so fuck them. As said previously, he’s a politician. So he’s as trustworthy as the rest of them. Everything is all about creating angles that delivers personal advantage.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 18, 2020 12:23:30 GMT
No, I think Burnham's position is absolutely that. Any mayor that appears to be attempting to take on Whitty and Vallance will be on a hiding to nothing and he knows that. The Telegraph piece is simply challenging WHY is it that the government are hell bent on pushing Manchester into tier 3? Burnham is playing games. His position is so false. He is only opposed to tier 3 because he wants a better financial package. He wants that so he can show he is the cock of the North. All part of him planning his return to Westminster, leadership of the Labour Party and, ultimately, prime minister. Of course, his commitment to this position is qualified because he has also said he’d be happy with a National Lockdowm. I guess he figured there’s no votes for him in Cornwall and Devon so fuck them. As said previously, he’s a politician. So he’s as trustworthy as the rest of them. Everything is all about creating angles that delivers personal advantage. He’s just doing his job isn’t he? Everyone in his position I would hope would push for a better deal for their area when it seems like tier 3 is the most likely thing to happen. He’s also creating more time for things to change from a health POV and maybe not go into it. He’s done nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 18, 2020 12:29:15 GMT
Have I misunderstood Burnham's position? I thought he was keen on further measures but wants more national tax payers money to support Manchester businesses affected. If he simply doesn't think further lockdown measures are necessary why is he not saying that? Whenever he appears on my TV he is demanding more public money for Manchester as a pre-condition for his support. No, I think Burnham's position is absolutely that. Any mayor that appears to be attempting to take on Whitty and Vallance will be on a hiding to nothing and he knows that. The Telegraph piece is simply challenging WHY is it that the government are hell bent on pushing Manchester into tier 3? Yep. I don't think the Government can give in to this situation where whoever shouts loudest gets the most dosh. They either have to have a national scheme like they did back in March and sell that to low covid areas on the basis that it will help them to stay that way. Or, hand it over to the local authorities to make decisions closer to home on the ground. That way if someone's brother/sister/husband/wife turns up their toes with covid contracted in a pub which didn't shut down they can go knock on Andy Burnham's door to ask him why not. The current position is unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 18, 2020 12:39:00 GMT
Burnham is playing games. His position is so false. He is only opposed to tier 3 because he wants a better financial package. He wants that so he can show he is the cock of the North. All part of him planning his return to Westminster, leadership of the Labour Party and, ultimately, prime minister. Of course, his commitment to this position is qualified because he has also said he’d be happy with a National Lockdowm. I guess he figured there’s no votes for him in Cornwall and Devon so fuck them. As said previously, he’s a politician. So he’s as trustworthy as the rest of them. Everything is all about creating angles that delivers personal advantage. He’s just doing his job isn’t he? Everyone in his position I would hope would push for a better deal for their area when it seems like tier 3 is the most likely thing to happen. He’s also creating more time for things to change from a health POV and maybe not go into it. He’s done nothing wrong. I think his position is absolutely bang on. He knows tier 3 won't solve any of the issues other than put more pressure on the hospitality sector. He's also in cahoots with Westminster Labour and is quite happy making mischief. I don't blame him at all for any of it and it's exactly what I would do in his position.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 18, 2020 12:40:30 GMT
He’s just doing his job isn’t he? Everyone in his position I would hope would push for a better deal for their area when it seems like tier 3 is the most likely thing to happen. He’s also creating more time for things to change from a health POV and maybe not go into it. He’s done nothing wrong. I think his position is absolutely bang on. He knows tier 3 won't solve any of the issues other than put more pressure on the hospitality sector. He's also in cahoots with Westminster Labour and is quite happy making mischief. I don't blame him at all for any of it. Yup his position is absolutely bang on. He’s got his cities interests at heart and he’s trying to protect them as best he can. All while the Tory govt spin it like he’s the bad guy so suckers will lap it up......
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Oct 18, 2020 12:43:36 GMT
He’s just doing his job isn’t he? Everyone in his position I would hope would push for a better deal for their area when it seems like tier 3 is the most likely thing to happen. He’s also creating more time for things to change from a health POV and maybe not go into it. He’s done nothing wrong. I think his position is absolutely bang on. He knows tier 3 won't solve any of the issues other than put more pressure on the hospitality sector. He's also in cahoots with Westminster Labour and is quite happy making mischief. I don't blame him at all for any of it and it's exactly what I would do in his position. If he had led the Labour Party they’d be in power now
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 18, 2020 12:51:25 GMT
I think his position is absolutely bang on. He knows tier 3 won't solve any of the issues other than put more pressure on the hospitality sector. He's also in cahoots with Westminster Labour and is quite happy making mischief. I don't blame him at all for any of it and it's exactly what I would do in his position. If he had led the Labour Party they’d be in power now At last we can agree on something :-)
|
|