Coronavirus

[faraway saint]

15 minutes ago, Hendo said:

I wonder when governments will realise this constant cycle of lockdown - release - repeat doesnt work?

Are you suggesting we should have stayed in full lockdown since March? 

[shull]

Treat it as a hoax and open the Country up now.

Jail the Fascists.

[ALBIONSAINT]

1 minute ago, shull said:

Treat it as a hoax and open the Country up now.

Jail the Fascists.

So just let all those people who are susceptible because of their genetic makeup die? 
That sounds like a facist methodology to me. 

[shull]

3 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

So just let all those people who are susceptible because of their genetic makeup die? 
That sounds like a facist methodology to me. 

Die of what ?

[ALBIONSAINT]

5 minutes ago, shull said:

Die of what ?

The effects of Covid, what else would I be talking about on a Covid thread? 

[shull]

No Covid 

Change Thread Title to

THE SEASON OF INFLUENZA

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

The effects of Covid, what else would I be talking about on a Covid thread? 

You should know better than trying to debate with a moron. 

[shull]

10 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

You should know better than trying to debate with a moron. 

Indeed ye idiot..

[Sue Denim]

UNICEF estimates that lockdowns will kill 1.2 million children of hunger

Their death, the middle class left’s virtue 

[Hendo]

6 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Are you suggesting we should have stayed in full lockdown since March? 

No, i'm suggesting that after the first necessary lockdown, they should have grounded all passenger flights in or out of the country, or had strict quarantine measures for those travelling akin to Australia or New Zealand. If theyd done that, there would have been no more need for lockdowns and we'd be back to normal by now. This also seems to be backed up by last weeks report into why the second wave happened.

It would also have the added bonus of being good for the environment and annoying Richard Branson.

[faraway saint]

9 minutes ago, Hendo said:

No, i'm suggesting that after the first necessary lockdown, they should have grounded all passenger flights in or out of the country, or had strict quarantine measures for those travelling akin to Australia or New Zealand. If theyd done that, there would have been no more need for lockdowns and we'd be back to normal by now. This also seems to be backed up by last weeks report into why the second wave happened.

It would also have the added bonus of being good for the environment and annoying Richard Branson.

While I think that would have helped I doubt it would have us "back to normal" or "no more need for lockdowns" but that's speculation on my part. 

You do know Australia are still having targeted lockdowns/circuit breakers? 

While New Zealand had a very strict lockdown at the start, including strict quarantine measures for people entering the country, they are relying on robust science to maintain the low numbers. 

It's going back to apples and oranges which was discussed here way back.

That's not to say we, the UK, shouldn't have done better or learned from other countries. 

Edited December 13, 2020 by faraway saint

[oaksoft]

6 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

So just let all those people who are susceptible because of their genetic makeup die? 
That sounds like a facist methodology to me. 

You are not doing yourself any favours by debating at shull's level.

 

[faraway saint]

6 hours ago, faraway saint said:

You should know better than trying to debate with a moron. 

Aye, finger on the pulse. 

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are not doing yourself any favours by debating at shull's level.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by faraway saint

[shull]

Judas & Up His Own Arse Oaky

Let's Talk Your Greatest St Mirren Memories ?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

 

On THE St Mirren Forum

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

UNICEF estimates that lockdowns will kill 1.2 million children of hunger

Their death, the middle class left’s virtue 

That wouldn't be due to the lockdown, it would be the political stances surrounding it. There is more than enough resources to feed every man, woman and child on earth, lockdown or otherwise. 

[Bud the Baker]

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

UNICEF estimates that lockdowns will kill 1.2 million children of hunger

Their death, the middle class left’s virtue 

 

Better than the faux virtue of a deranged gammon who didn't give a flying fuck about starving children last year and won't next year, eh Cap'n...

[bazil85]

On 12/12/2020 at 11:10 AM, faraway saint said:

Oh aye, that makes sense.  

You're the clown who thought the early predcition of 500,000 deaths in the UK was a possibilty.

Even more recent, 100,000 by the end of the year. 

Come back when you find an ounce of common sense. 

 

 

Let's not forget you used such wording as clown, lack of common sense, fool, not understanding probability, and simpleton when I gave my view that deaths would go over 80k by end of second week in January. It's becoming likely we will be over that or pretty close despite my prediction coming before a second lockdown in England and increased restrictions practically everywhere else in the UK. 

You post like you are incapable of being wrong but that's obviously far from the case, as sad as this situation is. Imagine my surprise when it turned out you didn't know better than experts in various fields predicting these numbers. 😒

[smcc]

9 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

See thats Germany back into national lockdown until the 10th January 😷😩☹️

Must be their fascist government.

[faraway saint]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Let's not forget you used such wording as clown, lack of common sense, fool, not understanding probability, and simpleton when I gave my view that deaths would go over 80k by end of second week in January. It's becoming likely we will be over that or pretty close despite my prediction coming before a second lockdown in England and increased restrictions practically everywhere else in the UK. 

You post like you are incapable of being wrong but that's obviously far from the case, as sad as this situation is. Imagine my surprise when it turned out you didn't know better than experts in various fields predicting these numbers. 😒

All of the above are pretty close to the truth, although I was being polite.

No it's not, currently the UK are just over 64k, even a ghoul like you would admit we will not reach 80,000 by mid January.

It's plain that you are a simpleton if you didn't think the UK government, and all the other nations, wouldn't step in to reduce the spread. 

I've never said I knew better but what I ave done is disagree using my own "common sense", go look that up. 

Now. jog on, you have served your purpose. 🤡

 

 

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

All of the above are pretty close to the truth, although I was being polite.

No it's not, currently the UK are just over 64k, even a ghoul like you would admit we will not reach 80,000 by mid January.

It's plain that you are a simpleton if you didn't think the UK government, and all the other nations, wouldn't step in to reduce the spread. 

I've never said I knew better but what I ave done is disagree using my own "common sense", go look that up. 

Now. jog on, you have served your purpose. 🤡

 

I would still be surprised (and relieved) if we didn't hit 80,000 by mid-January but your defense mechanism is again coming out. Instead of just preparing to put your hands up and admit you were wrong to view the prediction as near impossible (If we don't hit 80,000 I will be very happy to say I was wrong) and apologising for some of the words you used like a bigger person would do, you are continuing your fabricated narrative that a prediction somehow means a want.

My overarching point is your response to my prediction was that it was so unlikely it was the thoughts of a "clown" or a simpleton" if I had said "over 75,000" or "over 77,000" do you claim you'd have went "aye that'll be close to spot on" 

At the time, it seemed pretty unlikely Bojo would cave into a national lockdown, you were also pushing your own view that deaths were leveling out before they actually were (when one day of figures suggested it... twice). I thought my post to you might act as something of an olive branch for you to admit your response was a wee bit OTT. I should have known better than to think that was a possibility.  

Edited December 13, 2020 by bazil85

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I would still be surprised (and relieved) if we didn't hit 80,000 by mid-January but your defense mechanism is again coming out. Instead of just preparing to put your hands up and admit you were wrong to view the prediction as near impossible (If we don't hit 80,000 I will be very happy to say I was wrong) and apologising for some of the words you used like a bigger person would do, you are continuing your fabricated narrative that a prediction somehow means a want.

My overarching point is your response to my prediction was that it was so unlikely it was the thoughts of a "clown" or a simpleton" if I had said "over 75,000" or "over 77,000" do you claim you'd have went "aye that'll be close to spot on" 

At the time, it seemed pretty unlikely Bojo would cave into a national lockdown, you were also pushing your own view that deaths were leveling out before they actually were (when one day of figures suggested it... twice). I thought my post to you might act as something of an olive branch for you to admit your response was a wee bit OTT. I should have known better than to think that was a possibility.  

Beep beep beep, watch out, reversing. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Beep beep beep, watch out, reversing. 

"I would still be surprised (and relieved) if we didn't hit 80,000 by mid-January"

Incorrect, nice wee bit of deflection. 

[faraway saint]

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

"I would still be surprised (and relieved) if we didn't hit 80,000 by mid-January"

Incorrect, nice wee bit of deflection. 

Listen Bazil, stupid name for starters, it's not about right or wrong, it's shown you have no clue on how to read the trend and probability of where things will go.

It's not a science, despite the numerous absolute twats who call themselves "scientists" have fed us utter shite since day one.

There's been some classic numbers produced, dimwits like Oaky have regurgitated them, along with his now famous graph, with NO IDEA on how likely they are to materialise. 

Then he hides behind the classic, "It wasn't me that said it" line. 

Quite why you choose 80,000 as likely, or whatever other vague support you gave it, is beyond me. 

Yeah, you throw in "relieved" as some sort of safety valve, usual tactic many use to cover their arse. 

You've shown on various threads on this forum you are a one trick pony, unswerving and follow an idea, no matter the opinions of the majority, with no ability to understand or accept things might be different to your "view".

In fact, the type pf person I couldn't "stick" for more than 10 minutes.

 

 

[Bud the Baker]

39 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

"I would still be surprised (and relieved) if we didn't hit 80,000 by mid-January"

Incorrect, nice wee bit of deflection. 

We're already at 80,000 premature deaths if you believe GPs & the ONS neither of whom have any reason to lie, but that's all rather academic compared to our both our national and devolved governments loosening restrictions & taking a gamble with fuck knows how many more - see the connection.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

We're already at 80,000 premature deaths if you believe GPs & the ONS neither of whom have any reason to lie

Regardless of which side of the argument you take, this bit in bold is unbelievably naive. Do you know anything about politics and power? Anything at all?

Edited December 14, 2020 by oaksoft