Coronavirus

[Bud the Baker]

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

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?

Enough to recognize the facts being manipulated for political reasons when I see it.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[Bud the Baker]

....anyway congratulations to Greenwich council for having the bollox to close it's schools and subvert the Westminster (and to a lesser extent Holyrood) view that we've got to pander to the gammonistas and pretend we're in control of the situation and should relax current restrictions.

I believe BJ is set to review English Tiers for implementation on the 16th - he really should put London into Tier 3.

*******************

Um, a bit late with this one but I just saw footage of Matt Hancock "crying" on GMB at news of vaccine being delivered - comedy gold! 

[Bud the Baker]

Right well I'm gonna have to lower the tone of the thread and say that that (sic) Ursula von der Layen is a bit of a babe for a 62-y-o with 7 kids - certainly aged better than 56-yo BJ who looks more & more like King Louis from The Jungle Book these days...

 

[antrin]

3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

 

I believe BJ is set to review English Tiers for implementation on the 16th - he really should put London into Tier 3.

*******************

Oi!

it’s the 17th for the announcement.

(I’m going to the new WonderWoman on 17th. Maybe...)

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Enough to recognize the facts being manipulated for political reasons when I see it.

So why would you use a phrase like "neither of whom have any reason to lie" when talking about ANY organisation?

You should never blindly trust any source of information. This is how charities got away with prostitution problems recently in third world countries and it's how the Catholic church ended up stuffed to the rafters with child-rapists - people blindly assuming by default that these types of organisations could never be full of bad people.

Edited December 14, 2020 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

....anyway congratulations to Greenwich council for having the bollox to close it's schools and subvert the Westminster (and to a lesser extent Holyrood) view that we've got to pander to the gammonistas and pretend we're in control of the situation and should relax current restrictions.

 

Did Greenwich council do this after studying test results amongst children in their school and seeing massive levels of infections amongst pupils? Or did they just do it for political gain? Or perhaps in a wave of virtue signalling? I ask because there is a growing number of universities announcing almost no infections amongst their student population after mass testing.

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

So why would you use a phrase like "neither of whom have any reason to lie" when talking about ANY organisation?

You should never blindly trust any source of information. This is how charities got away with prostitution problems recently in third world countries and it's how the Catholic church ended up stuffed to the rafters with child-rapists - people blindly assuming by default that these types of organisations could never be full of bad people.

Because neither GPs or the ONS have any interest in providing false or misleading information - I don't see any difference in what I was saying over the  two posts but for the sake of consistency I'll use lie in all future cases.

I don't blindly trust any source of information but I have made an assessment and decided that the GP/ONS figures better reflect the reality of the pandemic than the government's preferred model. 

I fail to see the relevance of your Catholic church analogy.

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Did Greenwich council do this after studying test results amongst children in their school and seeing massive levels of infections amongst pupils? Or did they just do it for political gain? Or perhaps in a wave of virtue signalling? I ask because there is a growing number of universities announcing almost no infections amongst their student population after mass testing.

The council are following the advice of Public Health England - the schools would've been closing on Thursday anyway - the date when the capital should be entering Tier 3 if BJ can manage to stand up to the extremists within the Tory party. London Mayor Sadiq Khan is also calling for early closure of secondary schools amid "significant" Covid outbreaks among 10-19 year olds in the capital.

This is the inevitable outcome of of sticking London into Tier 2 when it was recognized that the ensuing restrictions would result in an increase in Covid cases so it's not virtue signalling just despair at seeing a complacent government allowing people to die unnecessarily.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[Sue Denim]

27 year old father of 2 dies due to the lockdown

Just one of tens of thousands of non covid excess deaths caused by lockdown

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-father-of-two-dies-of-cancer-after-mri-scan-delayed-by-coronavirus-crisis-12160698
 

His death, the middle class left’s virtue 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

Because neither GPs or the ONS have any interest in providing false or misleading information - I don't see any difference in what I was saying over the  two posts but for the sake of consistency I'll use lie in all future cases.

I don't blindly trust any source of information but I have made an assessment and decided that the GP/ONS figures better reflect the reality of the pandemic than the government's preferred model. 

I fail to see the relevance of your Catholic church analogy.

The council are following the advice of Public Health England - the schools would've been closing on Thursday anyway - the date when the capital should be entering Tier 3 if BJ can manage to stand up to the extremists within the Tory party. London Mayor Sadiq Khan is also calling for early closure of secondary schools amid "significant" Covid outbreaks among 10-19 year olds in the capital.

This is the inevitable outcome of of sticking London into Tier 2 when it was recognized that the ensuing restrictions would result in an increase in Covid cases so it's not virtue signalling just despair at seeing a complacent government allowing people to die unnecessarily.

2 things.

1) Regarding your GP comment. Harold Shipman.

2) Regarding your last paragraph. Covid is not a moral issue. It is a health issue and a fine balance between practicality and lives being lost. There is no solution which avoids deaths. Trying to turn it into a false moral high ground issue is both intellectually bankrupt and immoral in itself. Would you fancy the job of explaining to the family of a child with cancer why that kid has been denied timely treatment and has suffered an early death because everyone is trying to save the lives of a tiny handful of 80 year olds?

Edited December 14, 2020 by oaksoft

[Sue Denim]

Cases, hospital admissions, death, all in sync, all peak and decline at the same time, no time lag.

And no accompanying excess deaths.

Pseudo epidemic that is causing thousands of collateral deaths in the U.K. and millions worldwide.

Their death, the middle class left’s virtue 

[Sue Denim]

ONS stats out tomorrow. The pseudo epidemic will become more apparent with every passing week

[oaksoft]

8 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

27 year old father of 2 dies due to the lockdown

Just one of tens of thousands of non covid excess deaths caused by lockdown

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-father-of-two-dies-of-cancer-after-mri-scan-delayed-by-coronavirus-crisis-12160698
 

His death, the middle class left’s virtue 

And I know for a fact that this man is not the only person to have gone through this.

People like Bazil need to explain why the family of this man should just (and I'm quoting Bazil directly) "suck it up" as regards ongoing restrictions. Then he needs to explain why it is better that a handful of 80 year olds with underlying health conditions are saved in preference to people like this man.

Tricky thing this moral high ground grabbing.

Edited December 14, 2020 by oaksoft

[Sue Denim]

How will they end the pseudo epidemic 

The vaccine won’t stop the virus or transmission. It’s only stops symptoms. The virus is driven by asymptomatic spread. 
 

Cases, admissions and deaths will fall as we head into the summer next year but they will rise again next winter.

The same pseudo epidemic will occur. The only it can end is to stop testing or to use the lateral flow test.

This winter is as I predicted in the summer 

[oaksoft]

3 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

 

The vaccine won’t stop the virus or transmission. It’s only stops symptoms. The virus is driven by asymptomatic spread. 
 

Prove it.

I think you are probably right but you're making the same mistake as those you are arguing against. You just make statements without feeling the need to either qualify them or back them up with evidence which you haven't manipulated first.

[Sue Denim]

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

And I know for a fact that this man is not the only person to have gone through this.

People like Bazil need to explain why the family of this man should just (and I'm quoting Bazil directly) "suck it up" as regards ongoing restrictions. Then he needs to explain why it is better that a handful of 80 year olds with underlying health conditions are saved in preference to people like this man.

Tricky thing this moral high ground grabbing.

People like @bazil85 thought that what they were supporting would have no downside.

It was an opportunity to force their political agenda, to trash the economy and big business, blame the government and to signal their virtue.

In reality, they have saved no-one, been complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands in the U.K., millions worldwide and ruined the livelihoods of millions of the working class and the poor.

Meanwhile the rich have got richer.

Lockdown is an assault on the working class by the middle class left working from home on full pay whilst offloading the burden of the pandemic into the poor and the vulnerable. 

[Sue Denim]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Prove it.

I think you are probably right but you're making the same mistake as those you are arguing against. You just make statements without feeling the need to either qualify them or back them up with evidence which you haven't manipulated first.

I can’t prove it. It’s my opinion based on my extensive reading.

The fact is that no-one really knows what drives the spread, hence why lockdowns and restrictions are even more unjustifiable. 
 

This book by Edgar Hope-Simpson is a long read and is primarily about influenza. 
 

This, more than anything has shaped my view

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306440731

Incidentally, most lockdown sceptics do not believe that asymptomatic spread is real. 
 

 

 

[Bud the Baker]

47 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

2 things.

1) Regarding your GP comment. Harold Shipman.

2) Regarding your last paragraph. Covid is not a moral issue. It is a health issue and a fine balance between practicality and lives being lost. There is no solution which avoids deaths. Trying to turn it into a false moral high ground issue is both intellectually bankrupt and immoral in itself. Would you fancy the job of explaining to the family of a child with cancer why that kid has been denied timely treatment and has suffered an early death because everyone is trying to save the lives of a tiny handful of 80 year olds?

Conflating 1 GP with the 51,000 currently in the UK is the weakest argument I've ever heard on BAWA.

Agreed Covid is not a moral issue but the spread & control of it are.

A child dying of cancer is a tragedy and no I would not like to be the person making the decisions as to who should have the medical priority but that's a different issue to the government lying about the true number of premature fatalities. The pandemic has killed 80,000 people and infected at least 2,000,000 in this country with many of  the latter suffering long term affects (not all old & some of whom I know personally) that desperately needs to be controlled. You keep adding additional elements to the debate as if in some way this will change the nature of the initial ones.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[Sue Denim]

@oaksoft, the theory of Edgar Hope Simpson is not just that asymptotic spread is the main driver

Its also that the virus is carried latently in a sub population and reactivated by a seasonal stimulus. And these spreaders will churn out mutations which will infect non immune companions. 
 

This would lay waste to the uttering of Sturgeon that new strains were imported by folk coming back from holidays.

As I say, it’s a long read but very much worth the time.

It makes a lot of what is going on seem clearer. 
 

And would explain this 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-argentina-fishermen-trawler-ushuaia-covid-19-echizen-maru-a9621716.html?amp

[Slarti]

52 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Conflating 1 GP with the 51,000 currently in the UK is the weakest argument I've ever heard on BAWA.

Agreed Covid is not a moral issue but the spread & control of it are.

A child dying of cancer is a tragedy and no I would not like to be the person making the decisions as to who should have the medical priority but that's a different issue to the government lying about the true number of premature fatalities. The pandemic has killed 80,000 people and infected at least 2,000,000 in this country with many of  the latter suffering long term affects (not all old & some of whom I know personally) that desperately needs to be controlled. You keep adding additional elements to the debate as if in some way this will change the nature of the initial ones.

Did you never read Dickson's posts? 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

I can’t prove it. It’s my opinion based on my extensive reading.

The fact is that no-one really knows what drives the spread, hence why lockdowns and restrictions are even more unjustifiable. 
 

Then don't state it as fact then.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Conflating 1 GP with the 51,000 currently in the UK is the weakest argument I've ever heard on BAWA.

Agreed Covid is not a moral issue but the spread & control of it are.

A child dying of cancer is a tragedy and no I would not like to be the person making the decisions as to who should have the medical priority but that's a different issue to the government lying about the true number of premature fatalities. The pandemic has killed 80,000 people and infected at least 2,000,000 in this country with many of  the latter suffering long term affects (not all old & some of whom I know personally) that desperately needs to be controlled. You keep adding additional elements to the debate as if in some way this will change the nature of the initial ones.

I'd say that the weakest argument on BAWA is the one where you try to attach morals to any part of the covid issue.

It's enough for me to hear you finally agree that covid is not a moral issue. I can easily (and just as wrongly) argue though that covid restrictions are immoral and I've given you one of countless examples of young people dying because of those. Because of that, the spread and control of it clearly can't be a moral issue either.

My view on this is that as sad as premature deaths are from covid, death is part and parcel of life. It's always a fine balance between stopping covid and having restrictions cause unintended side effects.

My point is that morals have no business appearing in a debate where there are no black and whites. It's grey areas throughout. You think more restrictions should be applied. I think we've gone way too far. Your stance is no more or less moral than mine.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

@oaksoft, the theory of Edgar Hope Simpson is not just that asymptotic spread is the main driver

Its also that the virus is carried latently in a sub population and reactivated by a seasonal stimulus. And these spreaders will churn out mutations which will infect non immune companions. 
 

This would lay waste to the uttering of Sturgeon that new strains were imported by folk coming back from holidays.

As I say, it’s a long read but very much worth the time.

It makes a lot of what is going on seem clearer. 
 

And would explain this 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-argentina-fishermen-trawler-ushuaia-covid-19-echizen-maru-a9621716.html?amp

The flaw in your argument is that Simpson is talking about the flu virus and covid isn't the flu.

Your conclusion about asymptomatic spreaders might or might not be correct but you've reached it using false logic.

Edited December 14, 2020 by oaksoft

[Bud the Baker]

21 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I'd say that the weakest argument on BAWA is the one where you try to attach morals to any part of the covid issue.

It's enough for me to hear you finally agree that covid is not a moral issue. I can easily (and just as wrongly) argue though that covid restrictions are immoral and I've given you one of countless examples of young people dying because of those. Because of that, the spread and control of it clearly can't be a moral issue either.

My view on this is that as sad as premature deaths are from covid, death is part and parcel of life. It's always a fine balance between stopping covid and having restrictions cause unintended side effects.

My point is that morals have no business appearing in a debate where there are no black and whites. It's grey areas throughout. You think more restrictions should be applied. I think we've gone way too far. Your stance is no more or less moral than mine.

............and I stand by my opinion that the spread and control of the disease is a moral issue.

There obviously are grey areas about what levels of restrictions are required but not in the parts of London where the virus is currently spreading so rapidly that the implementation of Tier 3 restrictions have had to be brought forward. It is the obvious result of easing the Covid restrictions too much, too soon and not a "hindsight conclusion".

Not quite 3 weeks since BJ gave us his "be jolly, but not to jolly" and predictably we see politicians north & south of the border backtracking on the message.

'

Edited December 14, 2020 by Bud the Baker

[oaksoft]

2 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

............and I stand by my opinion that the spread and control of the disease is a moral issue.

There obviously are grey areas about what levels of restrictions are required but not in the parts of London where the virus is currently spreading so rapidly that the implementation of Tier 3 restrictions have had to be brought forward. It is the obvious result of easing the Covid restrictions too much, too soon and not a "hindsight conclusion".

Not quite 3 weeks since BJ gave us his "be jolly, but not to jolly" 

You can take whatever stance you like but you are still wrong.

Oh and the 80,000 figure you mentioned is excess deaths. The problem with relying on that number is that it  includes people who have died because they've been denied treatment due to restrictions. It's looking like that number is about 20,000 avoidable deaths. Like I said, tricky business this moral high ground grabbing.

Edited December 14, 2020 by oaksoft

[Sue Denim]

Compare and contrast the NHS data for people actually reporting with symptoms versus positive tests

pseudo epidemic