Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, nedflanders123 said:

What evidence or source do you have to claim it's a lie? Do you honestly believe that the Scottish Government received no written scientific data to support our public health strategy? You don't like Sturgeon/SNP but to claim it's a lie to suit your hatred?

I took it that the FOI that he mentioned would be the source?

you wouldn’t make that up.

would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest TPAFKATS
Just in case anyBuddie thinks I am over reacting to The Buffoon and his inept coterie...
Watch this.
 
 
I thought you were being a tad over optimistic in your previous post where you hoped it might make then act. more responsibly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
 If someone told me, with evidence, that you are a complete walloper, as opposed to writing down that evidence that you're a complete walloper, it amounts to the same thing.:rolleyes:
 
'Fact' is carry an awful lot of the load in that post of his that you've quoted [emoji1]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
3 hours ago, antrin said:
Just in case anyBuddie thinks I am over reacting to The Buffoon and his inept coterie...
Watch this.
 
 

I thought you were being a tad over optimistic in your previous post where you hoped it might make then act. more responsibly

Aye.... I should have suggested it was a call, a wish, a desire or plea for The Buffoon and Cum to be more cautious...   :(

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sue Denim said:

Sorry, it’s you who is guilt of the will rather than could

your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy regarding lockdown being a classic example

Regarding your last paragraph, Vallance is simply stating what I’ve said all along. They haven’t got a clue, have no idea what will happen and have been making it up as they go along.

What we do know for certain now is that initial estimates of what would happen were wildly exaggerated and by an order of magnitude.

Measures were taken without any scientific evidence to back them up in order to ensure the NHS would not be overwhelmed. These were medieval measures which were no better than measures based on superstition.  As it turns out, the NHS  didn’t come close to being overwhelmed and based on the example of Sweden, we know that it never would have.

And we now also know that Covid is no different from the flu.

On this basis, every single measure should be stopped. 

 

Lock down being the right call is practically beyond doubt, that's the view of the overwhelming majority of experts. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/05/lockdown-really-worth-telegraph-writers-experts-give-verdict/

You holding onto a view that you were categorically wrong about doesn't change anything. If you're saying "haven't got a clue" why are you so sure they're all wrong and you're right? It defies logic, you've shown you're in no way equipped to make such a sure statement as you have done many times. 

As for scientific evidence to back it up, how could we possibly have had that? We acted with caution which is the right approach when it comes to human life. To have a view that they should have gambled with this virus to save the economy is ridiculous and failed in countries like Sweden where the economic protection is highly questionable. Look at USA as well, they gambled, they are going back into lockdown in many states, the gamble didn't pay off, why should ours? 

The NHS would have been overwhelmed, all evidence points to it, it's fact that more contact = more cases. Hospitals were still busy for a time with a lockdown, if there had been none, factually more people would have passed on the virus and more people would end up in hospital, you not understanding that is staggering.

Again Sweden can't be used as a direct comparison, it's a country bigger than the UK with a fraction of our population density among other caveats. What we do know about Sweden is no lockdown did not save their economy from a big hit. 

If Covid was no different from the flu, it wouldn't have been treated as such. Your view defies logic and scientific evidence. 

If every measure is stopped, we end up worse than USA & Brazil, countries where some measures are in place but Covid19 is still running wild, your claim is again beaten by evidence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

A FOI request has gone in for Nicola Sturgeon to release the scientific advice she has received throughout the crisis

Following the FOI request, it was revealed that the First Minister did not have any written scientific advice during the first few months of the coronavirus outbreak, and so none could be made available to the public.

Nicola Sturgeon said instead that the scientific advice that she had received had all been orally, by the National Clinical Director, Jason Leitch, and the Scottish Chief Medical Officer at the time, Catherine Calderwood, and so there was nothing to be released.

Deary me

As I suspected. There is no scientific advice and they’ve just been making it up as they go along.

Well they did a feckin better job with that "made up" science than the UK did with alltheir experts jumping as high as Cummings demanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sue Denim said:

That’s my interpretation of events.

At the very least, it’s quite incredible that I’m the biggest crisis of our lifetimes, the Scottish Government is making health interventions based on nothing more than conversations with nothing written down.

They’ve just been making it up as they go along.

You fool! 😜

It's common knowledge that intelligent people can understand the meaning of a conversation and act on it without actually having to read it. The act of writing it down would be merely to keep a record. I've written this down so YOU might understand this.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

Now that we’ve had the ‘first wave’ and we now know it’s nothing more than the flu, I think these latest predictions can go straight in the bin

Lets stop the madness and get back to normality 

We can look at a very real example of a country that has failed regarding coronavirus to prove you wrong. 

USA

Flu P/A  -

9 - 45 million illnesses,

145k - 810k hospitalisations,

12k - 61k deaths  

Coronavirus since 20th January (less than six months) -

3.43 million illnesses,

264,651 hospitalisations,

138k deaths. 

this is despite lockdown and social distancing measures that have outweighed any flu season in history by far. We aren't even six months since the first recorded virus in that country and it has been a present factor in almost 140k (properly recorded) deaths.

Far few recorded cases so far and far higher death rates than the flu. To think it's "nothing more than the flu" is simply and categorically wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, antrin said:

I'll explain a wee  bit about science and the scientific method  to you.

 

I'm going to stop you right there.

Given that you appear to have no idea what a peer reviewed journal article is, I'm hardly going to be interested in listening to you bumbling and fumbling your way through a description of the scientific method. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I'm going to stop you right there.

Given that you appear to have no idea what a peer reviewed journal article is, I'm hardly going to be interested in listening to you bumbling and fumbling your way through a description of the scientific method. :lol:

Straightforward question Oaky and I don't mean this in any pejorative way. Are you on the autistic spectrum? I only ask as you seem only to view the world from one single, comfortable and comforting for you, viewpoint 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:
11 hours ago, oaksoft said:
UK scientists are warning that a second wave of covid in winter will see 120,000 deaths.
They are even talking about 250,000 by next February.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53392148
I wonder what they've corrected in their modelling to be confident of those numbers.

According to you yesterday, these folk would die anyway.

I personally can't wait for a winter of virtue signalling, moral high ground grabbing and emoting at will from you and bazil.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I personally can't wait for a winter of virtue signalling, moral high ground grabbing and emoting at will from you and bazil.

 

Scientific Donald?. 

A smokescreen for your inability to argue your case more like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stlucifer said:

It's common knowledge that intelligent people can understand the meaning of a conversation and act on it without actually having to read it. The act of writing it down would be merely to keep a record. I've written this down so YOU might understand this.

Wait a wee minute, are you seriously try to say that, if this was true, a government would have made a decision off the back of a telephone call?  :blink:

I know of no business that would make a decision like that with no clarification in black and white, let alone a government making a decision that would impact on millions of people.

Take yer tartan specs off and think about it before getting defensive. :byebye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I personally can't wait for a winter of virtue signalling, moral high ground grabbing and emoting at will from you and bazil.
 
I can't wait for you to show some empathy and avoid making statements that make you sound like Dominic Cummings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Wait a wee minute, are you seriously try to say that, if this was true, a government would have made a decision off the back of a telephone call?  :blink:

I know of no business that would make a decision like that with no clarification in black and white, let alone a government making a decision that would impact on millions of people.

Take yer tartan specs off and think about it before getting defensive. :byebye

Who mentioned telephone conversations?

Take off your tory/unionist specs.

In reality the way that these things work, as most sane individuals well know,is that there is a team of scientific advisors who study the evidence and come to a collective decision. This is then communicated to the first minister, who is not a scientific expert, by the incumbent chief medical officer/national clinical director, most likely in the form of a briefing either in person or by an online conference call.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Wait a wee minute, are you seriously try to say that, if this was true, a government would have made a decision off the back of a telephone call?  :blink:

I know of no business that would make a decision like that with no clarification in black and white, let alone a government making a decision that would impact on millions of people.

Take yer tartan specs off and think about it before getting defensive. :byebye

I'm saying a decision was made by a collective within government taking into consideration all professional input. There will be a paper trail of those meetings. The scientific input would have only been part of that decision making process and would not necessarily have been given during that meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was someone on Breakfast this morning - can't remember who, a scientist, maybe? - who used the phrase "reasonable worst case".

As a layman with a decent understanding of English, could one of the many, many, over-qualified sciencers on here explain that phrase to me, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Who mentioned telephone conversations?

Take off your tory/unionist specs.

In reality the way that these things work, as most sane individuals well know,is that there is a team of scientific advisors who study the evidence and come to a collective decision. This is then communicated to the first minister, who is not a scientific expert, by the incumbent chief medical officer/national clinical director, most likely in the form of a briefing either in person or by an online conference call.

 

 

 

Apologies, a conversation.........................that makes a big difference. 

Again, if you are trying to say there was no "paper trail" and she made a decision on the "hoof" with no in depth study then you need a holiday......................oh wait. 

PS You've got me all  wrong on the specs thing, I don't wear specs. :byebye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

There was someone on Breakfast this morning - can't remember who, a scientist, maybe? - who used the phrase "reasonable worst case".

As a layman with a decent understanding of English, could one of the many, many, over-qualified sciencers on here explain that phrase to me, please.

I'm too busy, one of my advisers will be along sometime soon. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...