Coronavirus

[shull]

Listen to Roger ( He's on the Internet )

https://www.bitchute.com/video/u1GZJ14KbtLn/

[ALBIONSAINT]

26 minutes ago, shull said:

Listen to Roger ( He's on the Internet )

https://www.bitchute.com/video/u1GZJ14KbtLn/

 

[faraway saint]

I see talks are taking place today about the already agreed Christmas rules.

Do they, all governments, REALLY think that people are going to change plans at this stage?

If it looks like it's been a bad decision, so be it, too late IMO for people to change arrangements.

 

[shull]

Postings from two idiots on the Internet  

7 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I see talks are taking place today about the already agreed Christmas rules.

Do they, all governments, REALLY think that people are going to change plans at this stage?

If it looks like it's been a bad decision, so be it, too late IMO for people to change arrangements.

 

 

12 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

 

 

[Bud the Baker]

13 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I see talks are taking place today about the already agreed Christmas rules.

Do they, all governments, REALLY think that people are going to change plans at this stage?

If it looks like it's been a bad decision, so be it, too late IMO for people to change arrangements.

 

It looked like a bad decision at the time.

Word on the street is that Westminster wants to go ahead on the current terms but with "tougher messaging" no doubt blaming us for the inevitable increase in infections, hospitalizations & deaths whereas the three devolved administrations want to reduce either the length of the window or the size of bubbles allowed.

Genuine question faraway, you've been quite vocal that you've followed all the guidelines - what if Holyrood toughens it's guidelines and this cuts across your plans but Westminster doesn't, which set of rules will you follow? 

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said:

It looked like a bad decision at the time.

Word on the street is that Westminster wants to go ahead on the current terms but with "tougher messaging" no doubt blaming us for the inevitable increase in infections, hospitalizations & deaths whereas the three devolved administrations want to reduce either the length of the window or the size of bubbles allowed.

Genuine question faraway, you've been quite vocal that you've followed all the guidelines - what if Holyrood toughens it's guidelines and this cuts across your plans but Westminster doesn't, which set of rules will you follow? 

As I don't know what these guidelines could be I can't answer.

I've already stated we're going to have a reduced number on Christmas day, and that's only because my wife has childminding duties so we're already in that bubble ( I hate the fecking word bubble) 

if it wasn't for that we'd be having Christmas on our own.

My son, his partner and 2 grandchildren won't be joining us, so that' my stand on the current guidelines. 

Taking all the above into account I doubt there's anything ANY government will do that will alter that. 

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Yflab said:

We are having Christmas just ourselves. Not willing to risk the health of my mother or others who have been shielding.

I read today that over 60% of English homes are currently at the highest tier yet in 9 days time three households can meet up. It’s feckin madness.

“Madness madness they call it Madness”

As the saying goes "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should".................................

[Bud the Baker]

11 hours ago, Slarti said:

At least say why you think it is bogus.

The rest is totally irrelevant to what I said as I am not denying how they count the cases/deaths or arguing with the numbers they come up with. What don't you understand about that?

A hypothetical scenario:

Someone who is diagnosed with terminal cancer, and only predicted to survive a few weeks, contracts covid while wasting away in a hospital bed a few days before they die. Covid would probably be mentioned on the death certificate and it would therefore be counted in those numbers. Would you regard that inclusion as accurate?

 

I have said why I think it's bogus, more times than I care to remember but I'll say it again, the GPs, ONS and experts who have commented on the issue have no axe to grind and I agree with what their conclusions. In contrast the government's at Westminster and to a (slightly) lesser extent Holyrood have plenty reasons  to obscure the correct death toll due to Covid.

Feel free to continue to indulge yourself in fantasy but I retain my opinion - again as I've said before  take it up wi Gabe...

Quote

Prof Gabriel Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine, said the government’s figures, while not giving the complete picture of deaths, acted as a “sentinel system” for the impact of the disease.

“The purpose of it is to act as a sort of monitoring tool so you can see trends against exactly the same data which is very easily computed data,” he said. “It gives you a number where you can watch it speeding up, slowing down, so it’s very good for monitoring trends.

“If you want to know the actual number of deaths, well then you have to go to death certification, which is really the best data.”

It's not hard to understand what I've been saying, there really is no need to continue with the dance...

[Slarti]

2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I have said why I think it's bogus, more times than I care to remember but I'll say it again, the GPs, ONS and experts who have commented on the issue have no axe to grind and I agree with what their conclusions. In contrast the government's at Westminster and to a (slightly) lesser extent Holyrood have plenty reasons  to obscure the correct death toll due to Covid.

Feel free to continue to indulge yourself in fantasy but I retain my opinion - again as I've said before  take it up wi Gabe...

It's not hard to understand what I've been saying, there really is no need to continue with the dance...

What you are saying is in no way relevant to what I said,  You are arguing against a strawman that you have created.  People who have "no axe to grind" can be right, wrong, using a flawed methodology, etc.  The fact that they are unbiased is, to a large extent, irrelevant and also has no relation to what I said.  You have jumped in with both feet to argue against a position that I was not advocating and, no matter how many times I have told you this, you are still intent on this line of "discussion".  So, yeah, you're right, there is no need to continue because I will not indulge you and your strawman. 

[shull]

 

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, Yflab said:

We are having Christmas just ourselves. Not willing to risk the health of my mother or others who have been shielding.

I read today that over 60% of English homes are currently at the highest tier yet in 9 days time three households can meet up. It’s feckin madness.

“Madness madness they call it Madness”

We are in a bit of a conundrum for Christmas. The immediate family between my parents, brothers, etc is over four separate households, add in grandchildren that would normally be visiting both sets of grandparents and my mother and father in law. All in all I counted if we only touched base with the immediate family only, it could still essentially be eight households mixing over the period.  

It's such a shame but we all need to make sacrifices, sadly the reality is many wont & lives will be lost directly linked to the Christmas period. I think that would be the case regardless of government advice, legislation or otherwise. The last two would of course go someway to limiting it though. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Do you not understand the rules Baz? It’s a maximum of three. 

What part of my post suggests to you I don't understand that? I would suggest you read the first sentence again, google is your friend if you don't understand the meaning of certain words. 

[WeeBud]

12 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Do you not understand the rules Baz? It’s a maximum of three. 

You could always throw in the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" bit too Yflab.........

Edited December 16, 2020 by WeeBud
stupid spelling mistake!!

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Yflab said:

I was surprised you could spell conundrum.

Google is a friend with that for sure... That word is ultimately the sticking point for your previous question though isn't it? Nae luck. 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Yflab said:

So how are you going to solve your problem then Baz? What’s so difficult to understand about the (absurd) rules?

We'll solve it by not seeing our loved one at Christmas time. 

It isn't difficult to "understand" there is nothing in my post that suggests I'm finding it difficult to understand. It's difficult to implement given the hurt linked to not seeing people you care about at Christmas. 

Do you understand my point yet?

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Only one? Don’t moan about it being a conundrum if you have already got the solution. 😜

ones* Wee bit of straw clutching eh? 

It is a conundrum as it's very difficult to make those decisions for me and my family. Maybe it was easy for you to know exactly who you would or wouldn't see, doesn't mean it is for everyone. 

Another fair post from me that you've felt the need to make into an argument. 🤣

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, Slarti said:

What you are saying is in no way relevant to what I said,  You are arguing against a strawman that you have created.  People who have "no axe to grind" can be right, wrong, using a flawed methodology, etc.  The fact that they are unbiased is, to a large extent, irrelevant and also has no relation to what I said.  You have jumped in with both feet to argue against a position that I was not advocating and, no matter how many times I have told you this, you are still intent on this line of "discussion".  So, yeah, you're right, there is no need to continue because I will not indulge you and your strawman. 

You're the one who jumped into the argument with self-indulgent fantasies 2/3 days ago. What I've been saying for months is that the current figure preferred by the Westminster/Holyrood governments after several revisions  is unsurprisingly the lowest one they can get away with without overwhelming national derision - it's a political choice and their figure is not as accurate as the one compiled by the ONS and released on a weekly basis and that's not just my opinion...

Quote

Prof Gabriel Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine, said the government’s figures, while not giving the complete picture of deaths, acted as a “sentinel system” for the impact of the disease.

“The purpose of it is to act as a sort of monitoring tool so you can see trends against exactly the same data which is very easily computed data,” he said. “It gives you a number where you can watch it speeding up, slowing down, so it’s very good for monitoring trends.

“If you want to know the actual number of deaths, well then you have to go to death certification, which is really the best data.”

 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Maybe if you’d stop being so obtuse....

My response was completely fair and on topic regarding your post. There was nothing obtuse about it, you just got your back up as usual. 

[antrin]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

We are in a bit of a conundrum for Christmas. The immediate family between my parents, brothers, etc is over four separate households, add in grandchildren that would normally be visiting both sets of grandparents and my mother and father in law. All in all I counted if we only touched base with the immediate family only, it could still essentially be eight households mixing over the period.  

It's such a shame but we all need to make sacrifices, sadly the reality is many wont & lives will be lost directly linked to the Christmas period. I think that would be the case regardless of government advice, legislation or otherwise. The last two would of course go someway to limiting it though. 

Xmas is an indulgence:  Xmas day is a meaningless cartoonish creation - a novelty that has developed (in Scotland) only in the decades since the 1960s.  Before that everyone worked on Xmas day(unless it was a weekend).

It's a wholly commercial construct into which too many gullible people have been sadly seduced.

This idea that it is a time for family and that all generations should/must mix is a nonsense.

 

I accept that the english have done so for longer than Scotland and that - as they didn't have the Ne'erday celebrations to "enjoy". (Again, it's only in recent years - in England - that the Ne'erday was 'granted' as a holiday). 

 

There is no sacrifice. 

You should actually all be seeing your family members whenever you can.  This formalising of visits around an arbitrary day co-opted to be a big selling day is actually rather pathetic and disgusting.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by antrin

[Slarti]

36 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Only one? Don’t moan about it being a conundrum if you have already got the solution. 😜

As he's previously admitted, he uses his own definitions of words, so you're wasting your time. 

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, Yflab said:

I think I will pour myself a drink....

3/4 ounce gin

3/4 ounce green Chartreuse

3/4 ounce maraschino liqueur

3/4 ounce lime juice, freshly squeezed

I wonder what I could call this cocktail? 
 

Maybe The Last Word.....

"Second to last word"

Sounds better to me

1 minute ago, antrin said:

Xmas is an indulgence:  Xmas day is a meaningless cartoonish creation - a novelty that has developed (in Scotland) only in the decades since the 1960s.  Before that everyone worked on Xmas day(unless it was a weekend).

It's a wholly commercial construct into which too many gullible people have been sadly seduced.

This idea that it is a time for family and that all generations should/must mix is a nonsense.

I accept that the english have done so for longer than Scotland and that - as they didn't have the Ne'erday celebrations to "enjoy". (Again, it's only in recent years - in England - that the Ne'erday was 'granted' as a holiday). 

There is no sacrifice. 

You should actually all be seeing your family members whenever you can.  This formalising of visit around an arbitrary day co-opted to be a big selling day is actually rather pathetic and disgusting.

I hope this helps.

 

It doesn't sorry. I do appreciate where you are coming from but for many youngsters like me it's all we have ever known and commercialisation/ family meetings varies from group to group. 

Good engagement though (if a bit miserable). More welcome than Ylab's moaning or Slarti's hiding behind the tap out, I mean ignore function 

The five step ignore guide to BAWA

1. Say you're going to stop responding and arguing with the person
2. Keep responding and arguing with them a bit longer
3. Put the person on ignore (make sure you announce it to everyone)
4. Still follow almost every response to the person and bring the person up in completely unrelated topics, often bringing up long dead argument points you already said you’d stop arguing with them over
5. Take the person off ignore and repeat from step one

 

[antrin]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

 I do appreciate where you are coming from but for many youngsters like me it's all we have ever known and commercialisation/ family meetings varies from group to group. 

That's what the Hitler Youth Group members used to say...   

 

[Sue Denim]

From today’s NRS stats

First graph shows non covid excess deaths on the rise until the start of September and the “second wave”. From this point on, non covid excess deaths have declined while covid deaths have soared.

Non covid excess deaths are now at a level not seen in the past decade.....

Second graph compares with other respiratory deaths, including flu and pneumonia.

As can be seen, respiratory deaths were well below the average until the start of the pandemic. They have continued to be steady thereafter, tracking just below the average.

All the lockdowns and restrictions have made no difference whatsoever to the trajectory of these deaths.

If lockdowns and restrictions worked then they’d have made a noticeable difference.

You can also see the gap between respiratory deaths and the average begin to widen as covid deaths increased. 

[Sue Denim]

First table below shows latest excess deaths in Scotland.

Covid deaths total 195 yet excess deaths only total 40. This gives a total of -155 non covid excess deaths last week.... the lowest for a decade..... and at a time when the NHS has been shut for many. Implausible. 
 

Second table shows excess deaths in Scottish care homes last week.

60 covid deaths in care homes last week yet excess deaths were -37.....

[Slarti]

18 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

You're the one who jumped into the argument with self-indulgent fantasies 2/3 days ago. What I've been saying for months is that the current figure preferred by the Westminster/Holyrood governments after several revisions  is unsurprisingly the lowest one they can get away with without overwhelming national derision - it's a political choice and their figure is not as accurate as the one compiled by the ONS and released on a weekly basis and that's not just my opinion...

 

I never "jumped into the argument".  There is my first post below and also your response.  You had said Faraway Saint had not demonstrated where the flaw was, I was giving a scenario that demonstrated the flaw.  After I posted you said I hadn't explained why all they people/organisations were wrong, when my post had nothing to do with anyone being "wrong", it was only demonstrating the flaw in the method they use.  Maybe it is the most accurate method, maybe it is impossible to get it any more accurate, maybe it is the method with the least number of flaws - none of that changes the fact that the method is flawed.  Simply, "most accurate" does not necessarily mean "accurate" or even "accurate enough".

 

They were not "fantasies", they were examples/scenarios to show the type of situation that would/could result in an error in the count.

 

Anyway, as I said in my last reply to you, 

 

On 12/14/2020 at 8:22 PM, Slarti said:

The obvious flaw can be demonstrated thusly.

If ten people were to die and they all had covid on the death certificate and 5 of them also had influenza on the death certificate, it could be claimed that 10 people died of covid and 5 died of influenza - a total of 15 deaths, but there were only 10.

That is the issue with counting every death where covid is mentioned as caused by covid. Every person dies because their heart stops beating for too long, therefore covid kills nobody and hearts stopping kills everybody. See how silly it can get?

 

On 12/14/2020 at 8:26 PM, Bud the Baker said:

Nope that's exactly what @faraway saint is saying - that it's a different method.

You haven't explained why 51.000 GPs. the ONS & president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine are wrong - is it a sinister conspiracy theory to make Boris & Nicola look shady?