Jump to content

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Hendo said:

I know, 50,000 a day in October according to Vallance, which will double every week. If that carries on, by Christmas that will be more than 6 million a day and more people than exist will have been infected.

We're all doomed.

Just seen this clown say that out loud, 50,000 a fecking DAY.  :1eye

As I said in the post above, these people have no fecking idea, yet some will swallow it.

Absolutely stunning these complete lunatics are calling the shots in the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

They, experts, did and some gullible punters on here lapped it up.

Where is @Lord Pityme

PS I'm not convinced these experts use this as a tactic, I think they don't have an ounce of common sense and believe the shite they come up with. 

The experts predicted up to 250,000 deaths if we did nothing with the lower end of that range being between 100,000 and up . 

 

The flaw in your argument is that we did something. We still had @50,000 deaths. In a year we normally get @500,000 deaths.  And the possibility of a further wave of deaths can't be ruled out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to a very strange conversation on the radio coming home from work, BBC Scotland had a Scottish research worker on. She works for a big pharmaceutical company in the states that is close to having a vaccine ready. When asked who would get the vaccine first she said, NHS staff (makes sense) I expected her to then say the elderly and health compromised, but no she said the next in line would be delivery drivers, shop workers, etc. I found this very strange given that in general terms older health comprised people are in a high risk group and your delivery driver etc in a lower risk group. It sounded like she was saying that the economy was more important than older people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of what the scientific experts are saying, where was the invisible man during this briefing, whether or not he contributed to the content of briefing, the gravity of the situation warranted the presence of the PM to support his experts, as usual he was no where to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, insaintee said:

The experts predicted up to 250,000 deaths if we did nothing with the lower end of that range being between 100,000 and up . 

 

The flaw in your argument is that we did something. We still had @50,000 deaths. In a year we normally get @500,000 deaths.  And the possibility of a further wave of deaths can't be ruled out. 

Can you get NOTHING right...........................as I said, experts coming out of the woodwork in the last 6 months, with predictions ranging from probable to absolutely impossible. 

PS I said at the time this figure for deaths was ludicrous, I'm also saying 50,000 cases a day is utter shite, what do you think? 

On March 16, a 20‐page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered enormous attention by producing enormous death estimates. 

The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain,

Edited by Long John Baldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

Can you get NOTHING right...........................as I said, experts coming out of the woodwork in the last 6 months, with predictions ranging from probable to absolutely impossible. 

On March 16, a 20‐page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered enormous attention by producing enormous death estimates. 

The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain,

I get every thing right.  You mean this paper I assume.  If you read it you will see there is a range of predictions and also we did not have an uncontrolled outbreak. In view of the deaths we've had, an assumption of 250,000 and middle estimate is not an unreasonable  guess for what would have happened 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Edited by insaintee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, insaintee said:

I get every thing right.  You mean this paper I assume.  If you read it you will see there is a range of predictions 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Which part of over half a million are you not getting? :1eye

You clearly posted..............

34 minutes ago, insaintee said:

The experts predicted up to 250,000 deaths if we did nothing

I get every thing right. 

PS any twat coming out with that statement is, well, a twat...........:lol:

Edited by Long John Baldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Listened to a very strange conversation on the radio coming home from work, BBC Scotland had a Scottish research worker on. She works for a big pharmaceutical company in the states that is close to having a vaccine ready. When asked who would get the vaccine first she said, NHS staff (makes sense) I expected her to then say the elderly and health compromised, but no she said the next in line would be delivery drivers, shop workers, etc. I found this very strange given that in general terms older health comprised people are in a high risk group and your delivery driver etc in a lower risk group. It sounded like she was saying that the economy was more important than older people? 

You would first vaccinate the likely vectors of spread. people that have the most contacts with other people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Long John Baldy said:

Which part of over half a million are you not getting? :1eye

You clearly posted..............

I get every thing right. 

PS any twat coming out with that statement is, well, a twat...........:lol:

It's a top end estimate. of a range of predictions. The working assumptions are based on more than one paper. 

I'm really not sure what your trying to prove? That we had an intervention and avoided worse case scenarios is surely a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, insaintee said:

It's a top end estimate. of a range of predictions. The working assumptions are based on more than one paper. 

I'm really not sure what your trying to prove? That we had an intervention and avoided worse case scenarios is surely a good thing.

Squirm squirm, wriggle wriggle.

I was replying to a post that stated some clown/expert had predicted 500,000 deaths.

You said the worst case scenarios was UP TO half that figure. You were WRONG. 

I'm not trying to prove anything, I stated my view on these early predictions and have since stated my view on todays latest scaremongering figure of 50,000 cases a day, what do you think on that as a possible outcome? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Listened to a very strange conversation on the radio coming home from work, BBC Scotland had a Scottish research worker on. She works for a big pharmaceutical company in the states that is close to having a vaccine ready. When asked who would get the vaccine first she said, NHS staff (makes sense) I expected her to then say the elderly and health compromised, but no she said the next in line would be delivery drivers, shop workers, etc. I found this very strange given that in general terms older health comprised people are in a high risk group and your delivery driver etc in a lower risk group. It sounded like she was saying that the economy was more important than older people? 


Or maybe shop workers and delivery drivers come into "contact" with more people (including those at higher risk) and are therefore more likely to contract or spread it.

As I've said before, the big picture is a numbers game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I think it's gaps in the NHS that are more of an issue.
I have seen at first hand the reduced services now given to those with non Covid related conditions. Everything is about Covid, and other conditions have been entirely forgotten about.


About Covid, that's not entirely true. I can only go on the evidence I've seen first hand with my own mother who collapsed months ago from a suspected stroke and was subsequently required to get scans for cancer following a couple of visits to her GP. Thankfully in her case all have came back with her clear of cancer but a few minor ailments that at her age are to be expected.

From the start to the all clear was 6 long weeks.

Probably the main reason why I've been so sh1t scared of folk getting and passing Covid19 on after seeing others losing their own parents from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

And then

When he returned two months later with the same problems and rectal bleeding he was given more antibiotics and told he was unable to be referred to a hospital specialist “because of Covid-19”.

but you missed this out because it doesn’t fit your agenda 

Utter nonsense. If he presented with abdominal pain and rectal bleeding, any GP worth his salt would not have diagnosed prostatitis but would have referred him for investigation under the 2 week rule which is still in existence. Covid was not to blame for the delayed diagnosis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

New paper out which demonstrates that social distancing can INCREASE the number of deaths

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0296

A long and complicated paper which concludes

"However, the aim of our paper is to show, in a theoretical context, that rational individual-level preventive measures can have counterintuitive consequences for the population-level. Public health interventions that aim at changing individual behaviour through social distancing could have adverse consequences, for example, school closures could reduce social contacts between children in the school classes but may (partly) be replaced by social contacts outside of school. But similarly, these measures could be beneficial for the population. As our results show, it is not necessarily straightforward what effects such behaviour may have at the population level, where much may depend on the disease and population under consideration. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the properties of disease-specific contact networks and modelling individual-level behavioural changes in response to an epidemic to understand infectious disease dynamics."

I love your stress on the word INCREASE wheras the paper says that rational individual-level preventive measures can have counterintuitive consequences for the population-level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Listened to a very strange conversation on the radio coming home from work, BBC Scotland had a Scottish research worker on. She works for a big pharmaceutical company in the states that is close to having a vaccine ready. When asked who would get the vaccine first she said, NHS staff (makes sense) I expected her to then say the elderly and health compromised, but no she said the next in line would be delivery drivers, shop workers, etc. I found this very strange given that in general terms older health comprised people are in a high risk group and your delivery driver etc in a lower risk group. It sounded like she was saying that the economy was more important than older people? 

The logic is that people in essential services such as shop workers, delivery drivers, police and emergency services are exposed to frequent contact with many members of the public and, if unvaccinated, are much more liable to spread the virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

Wealth of US billionaires grows by a third, all while millions around the world are dying and thrown into poverty

Looks like the rich are eating the poor @Bud the Baker

profits before people 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/17/wealth-of-us-billionaires-rises-by-nearly-a-third-during-pandemic

I predicted this would happen 4 months ago on P169

Quote

These'll do for a start...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/19/unions-call-national-recovery-council-rebuild-uk-economy

Maybe you want us to tug our forelocks to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg whose investment company stated that the current pandemic was a chance to make "super normal returns" or perhaps you admire the brass-necked founder of Matalan who is currently suing his tax consultants after having to pay back £35M with another £84M under review while claiming tax deferrals, business rates exemptions worth £40M and cheap government loans - but hey "we're all in it together". 

Meanwhile you've bought into the gammon fantasy being pedalled by professional Alt-right commentators that the the UK could have avoided the lockdown and emerged with a lesser loss of lives.

Who pays for these ALT-right visionaries - the oligarchy!  

So once again I say "eat the rich". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

255 “cases” in Scotland today and “Interim chief medical officer Dr Gregor Smith said the number of Covid cases was now doubling every 7 to 9 days in Scotland.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18736010.sturgeon-announce-further-urgent-action-covid-within-48-hours/
 

Here are the number of “cases” in Scotland over the past number of days:

19th - 222

18th - 256

17th - 264

16th - 280

15th - 238

14th - 186

13th - 178

12th - 213

10th - 216

9th - 231

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

Either Dr Gregor Smith is innumerate or he is lying.

I suspect it’s both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Listened to a very strange conversation on the radio coming home from work, BBC Scotland had a Scottish research worker on. She works for a big pharmaceutical company in the states that is close to having a vaccine ready. When asked who would get the vaccine first she said, NHS staff (makes sense) I expected her to then say the elderly and health compromised, but no she said the next in line would be delivery drivers, shop workers, etc. I found this very strange given that in general terms older health comprised people are in a high risk group and your delivery driver etc in a lower risk group. It sounded like she was saying that the economy was more important than older people? 

I see what you mean. It's quite a dilemma. Should we give the vaccine to people who deliver medical supplies, food,  petrol and other essentials that keep society operating, or 95 year old geriatrics, so that they can spend another two years sitting in their chairs, dribbling...? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GMan said:

I see what you mean. It's quite a dilemma. Should we give the vaccine to people who deliver medical supplies, food,  petrol and other essentials that keep society operating, or 95 year old geriatrics, so that they can spend another two years sitting in their chairs, dribbling...? 

You mean like Captain Tom Moore 100 years old who raised nearly 40 million quid for the NHS 

How much did you raise 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smcc said:

The logic is that people in essential services such as shop workers, delivery drivers, police and emergency services are exposed to frequent contact with many members of the public and, if unvaccinated, are much more liable to spread the virus.

Fair point, however if these people (delivery drivers etc) are in more contact and therefore more likely to catch and spread Covid then why are they not targeted every year for the influenza vaccine? As it kills lots of elderly and health comprised people every year. It just doesn’t make sense (Moral sense) to leave those it’s most likely to kill (over 80s) to last. I would have thought you would be best vaccinating the most vulnerable first and then everyone else (given that you would not be under a time constraint) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GMan said:

I see what you mean. It's quite a dilemma. Should we give the vaccine to people who deliver medical supplies, food,  petrol and other essentials that keep society operating, or 95 year old geriatrics, so that they can spend another two years sitting in their chairs, dribbling...? 

Well given that most working age people will only have very mild symptoms if any, then yes, the over 80s and health comprised (my word of the day) should be prioritised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

255 “cases” in Scotland today and “Interim chief medical officer Dr Gregor Smith said the number of Covid cases was now doubling every 7 to 9 days in Scotland.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18736010.sturgeon-announce-further-urgent-action-covid-within-48-hours/
 

Here are the number of “cases” in Scotland over the past number of days:

19th - 222

18th - 256

17th - 264

16th - 280

15th - 238

14th - 186

13th - 178

12th - 213

10th - 216

9th - 231

http
 

s://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

Either Dr Gregor Smith is innumerate or he is lying.

I suspect it’s both. 

If you had looked at the figures on the gov.scot website you would have seen that the number of positive tests in the 7 days leading up to Sept 8 was 1087 out of a total of 67290 first tests; in the 7 days to Sept 14, 1206 positives out of 48165 tests; in the 7 days to Sept 21, 1877 positives out of 41850 tests - a marked increase in both the number and the percentage of positive tests.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-trends-in-daily-data/

Edited by smcc

Share this post


Link to post
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...