In reply to Post #582
Its exactly that, think we've all been guilty of it recently
Its exactly that, think we've all been guilty of it recently
In reply to Post #579
The long term effects of living oh well at some point we all come to an end eh
There is so much crap on the internet and none of us are medically qualified to make any sense of it, I'll just trust the science and leave x files at home.
The long term effects of living oh well at some point we all come to an end eh
There is so much crap on the internet and none of us are medically qualified to make any sense of it, I'll just trust the science and leave x files at home.
In reply to Post #573
Back to your old self I see you childish ****
Back to your old self I see you childish ****
In reply to Post #585
In reply to Post #586
Is that you on the right?
Is that you on the right?
In reply to Post #583
How can you say it's all working.
We've had two vaccines and now need a third then a fourth
We wore and wear masks
We've locked down
Cases are through the roof, it doesn't work. Jab up the ones that are likely to die and let it rampage and mutate (hopefully) weaker with the rest of us. It's the only way out of this, we went out to eat this evening to support our favourite pub and they're distraught, they can't order their Christmas food or beer because last year they paid £10k out and didn't use it.
How can you say it's all working.
We've had two vaccines and now need a third then a fourth
We wore and wear masks
We've locked down
Cases are through the roof, it doesn't work. Jab up the ones that are likely to die and let it rampage and mutate (hopefully) weaker with the rest of us. It's the only way out of this, we went out to eat this evening to support our favourite pub and they're distraught, they can't order their Christmas food or beer because last year they paid £10k out and didn't use it.
In reply to Post #560
Total loons.
Still, I'm up raising a few bob for charity....
Total loons.
Still, I'm up raising a few bob for charity....
2 jabs and a booster later and there's still talk of yet another lockdown.
They've really done the trick.
They've really done the trick.
In reply to Post #588
The data doesnt lie, there is only 1/5 of the amount in ICU beds with covid compared to last year with greater amount of infections.
Masks do work, I can get one tomorrow if I wanted that was 100% effective.
Lockdowns do work, even though they are sh#t, because in simpleton terms, if you stop people from mixing then it cant spread
The data doesnt lie, there is only 1/5 of the amount in ICU beds with covid compared to last year with greater amount of infections.
Masks do work, I can get one tomorrow if I wanted that was 100% effective.
Lockdowns do work, even though they are sh#t, because in simpleton terms, if you stop people from mixing then it cant spread
In reply to Post #591
Lockdown 1 just about worked, these half hearted “let's shut the pubs” lockdowns don't? All the time kids are at school and men are on building sites, it might slow it but it's kicking the can down the street, as it stands we're going round in circles hoping for a different outcome.
Lockdown 1 just about worked, these half hearted “let's shut the pubs” lockdowns don't? All the time kids are at school and men are on building sites, it might slow it but it's kicking the can down the street, as it stands we're going round in circles hoping for a different outcome.
In reply to Post #593
I read somewhere that currently 40% of cases are asymptomatic and pregnant women are disproportionately represented as carriers. Coincidental that they are testing asymptotically positive at a higher rate when they are visiting/testing monthly/bimonthly for their unrelated ‘condition'? (And often have other children in school or nursery=more testing)
This is one reason I wouldn't take a test, it's skewing the data used to model restrictions on. Surely higher proportions of asymptomatic positives is a positive?
It's obviously important to understanding the prevalence of covid, but if all you're doing is testing people with symptoms or in high risk settings like hospitals and schools, it goes without saying cases and divisive ‘news' will be easy to come by. Especially in winter when people are admitted for unrelated issues.
And I bet you all wish you could retract the claps on a Thursday for the 200k who won't have a jab
I read somewhere that currently 40% of cases are asymptomatic and pregnant women are disproportionately represented as carriers. Coincidental that they are testing asymptotically positive at a higher rate when they are visiting/testing monthly/bimonthly for their unrelated ‘condition'? (And often have other children in school or nursery=more testing)
This is one reason I wouldn't take a test, it's skewing the data used to model restrictions on. Surely higher proportions of asymptomatic positives is a positive?
It's obviously important to understanding the prevalence of covid, but if all you're doing is testing people with symptoms or in high risk settings like hospitals and schools, it goes without saying cases and divisive ‘news' will be easy to come by. Especially in winter when people are admitted for unrelated issues.
And I bet you all wish you could retract the claps on a Thursday for the 200k who won't have a jab
In reply to Post #594
There's been a few articles recently which have all pointed out that the modelling the govt use is very basic, and nearly always set on worst case or at the very least, pessamistic scenarios.
It should also be said that the mathematical models that they use are really just estimates based loosely on some data and not actual prediction models. When people quote these over simplified doomsday predictions people like you rightly lose faith. I just ignore the pessamism and carry on.
Remember the goal is to gain immunity through a mixture of infection and vaccination. Any restrictions they put in place are to slow the spread, not stop it...
But yes to your point Noj, when the schools went back in September the cases went through the roof. Partly due to testing.
EDIT: I have just seen your link AFTER writing this post!
There's been a few articles recently which have all pointed out that the modelling the govt use is very basic, and nearly always set on worst case or at the very least, pessamistic scenarios.
It should also be said that the mathematical models that they use are really just estimates based loosely on some data and not actual prediction models. When people quote these over simplified doomsday predictions people like you rightly lose faith. I just ignore the pessamism and carry on.
Remember the goal is to gain immunity through a mixture of infection and vaccination. Any restrictions they put in place are to slow the spread, not stop it...
But yes to your point Noj, when the schools went back in September the cases went through the roof. Partly due to testing.
EDIT: I have just seen your link AFTER writing this post!
In reply to Post #591
Lockdowns cause massive mental health problems
Lockdowns cause massive educational disruption
Lockdowns hinder/delay other vital medical treatment
Lockdowns cause job losses
Lockdowns cause people to lose their businesses and homes
and most importantly
Lockdowns dont work, they just delay the inevitable.
Lockdowns cause massive mental health problems
Lockdowns cause massive educational disruption
Lockdowns hinder/delay other vital medical treatment
Lockdowns cause job losses
Lockdowns cause people to lose their businesses and homes
and most importantly
Lockdowns dont work, they just delay the inevitable.
In reply to Post #596
Absolutely correct.
I quoted this below but it's VERY relevant.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome” Albert Einstein.
Absolutely correct.
I quoted this below but it's VERY relevant.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome” Albert Einstein.