Cable Forum
Page 5 of 86 1234 5 67891555 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

jfman 20-10-2020 15:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36054467)
thank the lord the pandemic is over.

I mean it's no longer a public health issue, just a financial settlement issue.
Well, there's no point asking people to isolate if they haven't got the means to pay their bills during that time. Similarly, it the Government are pushing contact tracing onto local authorities after the failure of the private sector the least they can do is recognise the value of this work. £10bn for one that doesn't work is a nice big pie to spread among local authorities and NHS boards.

Mick 20-10-2020 17:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Greater Manchester moves to Tier 3 from Midnight Thursday, the strictest of the lockdown tiers.

Damien 20-10-2020 17:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
The Government announced it during Burnham's press conference presumably thinking they'll catch him unawares but now BBC/Sky have footage they're replying of local leaders finding out about the lockdown via text messages.

Sephiroth 20-10-2020 17:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Is it right that Burnham turned down £60m and so ended up with £22m?

nomadking 20-10-2020 17:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36054486)
Is it right that Burnham turned down £60m and so ended up with £22m?
Looks like it.:D
Link

Quote:
Greater Manchester was offered £60m of central government to help support businesses under the new Tier 3 limits - but in a conversation with the prime minister, Mayor Andy Burnham suggested it was not possible to accept less than £65m.
Link

Quote:
And he says that Greater Manchester will receive £22m "on top of the £1bn we're providing in funding for local authorities across the whole country he says.

Damien 20-10-2020 17:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well he didn't turn down £60 million, he said he wanted £65 million.

Since the Government can ultimately decide to just impose these restrictions anyway it feels punitive to the people of Manchester to deny them the extra support as a punishment for their Mayor asking for more. Not sure Tories gloating about it well go down well.

papa smurf 20-10-2020 17:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Looks like Manchester got shafted.

Bojo asked 5 times about extra support and all he did was waffle.

jfman 20-10-2020 18:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36054488)
Well he didn't turn down £60 million, he said he wanted £65 million.

Since the Government can ultimately decide to just impose these restrictions anyway it feels punitive to the people of Manchester to deny them the extra support as a punishment for their Mayor asking for more. Not sure Tories gloating about it well go down well.
Indeed. There’s little funny about poor people struggling in a pandemic.

Mick 20-10-2020 18:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36054490)
Looks like Manchester got shafted.

Bojo asked 5 times about extra support and all he did was waffle.
And it is not as if he is being guided by the science because they were advising him on 21 September of a national lockdown or "circuit breaker" and he ignored them.

I voted for this man and his government, because he was the much better person than the opposition but he is absolutely out of his depth on this pandemic. Manchester and it's surrounding areas and towns have been in some form of lockdown for over two months, it has NOT worked and this Tier 3 will not work, people will defy him and I do not blame them if and when they do.

Damien 20-10-2020 18:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
£60 million 'still on the table' if the Mayor wants it.

Pierre 20-10-2020 18:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
The whole thing has degenerated into farce.

Mad Max 20-10-2020 18:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
The people are revolting. :shocked:

Sephiroth 20-10-2020 19:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36054490)
Looks like Manchester got shafted.

Bojo asked 5 times about extra support and all he did was waffle.
Looks like Burnham shafted Manchester if the £60m offer is true.


---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36054497)
£60 million 'still on the table' if the Mayor wants it.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/number-10-60m-deal-coronavirus-tier3-lockdown

According to the link, the £60m is for businesses. This may be a distinction with which Burnham is not content.


Damien 20-10-2020 19:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36054505)
According to the link, the £60m is for businesses. This may be a distinction with which Burnham is not content.
It was always for businesses, it's that Burnham wanted more for closing them down.

nomadking 20-10-2020 19:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
They shouldn't have been offered the £60m in the first place. There should be a standard formula. Otherwise:-
Link

Quote:
Ministers were reluctant to set a precedent of giving one region more, proportionately, than another, especially given ongoing talks with several other parts of the country which could also face tougher restrictions.

Julian 20-10-2020 19:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
As Mick quite rightly says the losers in this are the ordinary people. The vast majority of whom did not vote for either Burnham or Johnson’s party

Grown men politicking is neither helpful nor wanted.

As my dear departed dad used to say “ They need their heads banging together “

Paul 20-10-2020 19:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36054487)
Looks like it.:D
Its not that clear, as it says ;

Quote:
.... Greater Manchester will receive £22m "on top of the £1bn we're providing in funding for local authorities across the whole country.
So £22m + plus whatever the other amount comes to.
Was the £60m also 'on top of', or include the other (unspecified) amount.

nomadking 20-10-2020 19:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36054514)
Its not that clear, as it says ;



So £22m + plus whatever the other amount comes to.
Was the £60m also 'on top of', or include the other (unspecified) amount.
The £22m is specific to the Tier 3 lockdown. The £1bn is for all councils, whatever tier they are in.

1andrew1 20-10-2020 19:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36054503)
The whole thing has degenerated into farce.
That kind of sums up the BoJo years.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36054509)
They shouldn't have been offered the £60m in the first place. There should be a standard formula. Otherwise:-
Link
Totally agree.

Paul 20-10-2020 19:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Hmm, yes, Ive read a few more articles since, and it does seem that the £60m is extra to everything else, and apparently, still available to them.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054516)
That kind of sums up the BoJo years.
Hardly, hes not been in power a year yet.
However, its degenerated in the last few months.

For a party that supposedly supports business, they seem determined to destroy as many as they can.

nomadking 20-10-2020 19:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36054518)
Hmm, yes, Ive read a few more articles since, and it does seem that the £60m is extra to everything else, and apparently, still available to them.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------


Hardly, hes not been in power a year yet.
However, its degenerated in the last few months.

For a party that supposedly supports business, they seem determined to destroy as many as they can.
It's the actions of the people in those areas that are destroying any businesses. If they weren't going around in such a reckless manner, transmission would still be low.
If groups of 100+ are constantly getting together, then that is more than likely to increase infection rates.

1andrew1 20-10-2020 19:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36054518)
Hardly, hes not been in power a year yet.
However, its degenerated in the last few months.

For a party that supposedly supports business, they seem determined to destroy as many as they can.
To British business, it feels like years even if it's only been months! BoJo's elitist response to hard working British business people was "F-business".

That tells you all you need to know.

jfman 20-10-2020 19:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
If the Government was sincerely here to help business it'd have requested an extension to the negotiations on an EU trade deal and put in an adequate support package for businesses due to Covid.

The Poundland Pandemic Plan isn't going to work in the long term. Extending the pandemic, at greater cost to the economy in the long run.

Fundamentally the Government is here to hollow out further the shell of a state that exists - no deal and a pandemic will leave much of it to fall prey to international vultures - especially with all the cheap debt floating around.

1andrew1 20-10-2020 20:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054522)
If the Government was sincerely here to help business it'd have requested an extension to the negotiations on an EU trade deal and put in an adequate support package for businesses due to Covid.

The Poundland Pandemic Plan isn't going to work in the long term. Extending the pandemic, at greater cost to the economy in the long run.
Exactly. It's a bit like BoJo misheard and extended the pandemic and not the withdrawal agreement! :dunce:

Pierre 20-10-2020 21:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054522)
If the Government was sincerely here to help business it'd have requested an extension to the negotiations on an EU trade deal
Which has nothing to do with CV.
Quote:
and put in an adequate support package for businesses due to Covid.
which they did do, that was typically abused by many businesses.

By now most businesses should have a covid safe method of working in place, leaving those other businesses, such as in hospitality, access to funding should they shut down.

Typically, as is human nature, we’re not all in it together. When the chips are down we’re all in it for ourselves. Reason no. 2345 why socialism is bollocks.

Quote:
The Poundland Pandemic Plan isn't going to work in the long term. Extending the pandemic, at greater cost to the economy in the long run.
And lock downs shorten the pandemic do they?

Quote:
Fundamentally the Government is here to hollow out further the shell of a state that exists - no deal and a pandemic will leave much of it to fall prey to international vultures - especially with all the cheap debt floating around.
Wibble

jfman 20-10-2020 21:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36054528)
Which has nothing to do with CV. which they did do, that was typically abused by many businesses.
That may well be true - but you cannot legitimately claim to be the Government of business when you pursue an ideological goal regardless of the economic circumstances.

Quote:
By now most businesses should have a covid safe method of working in place, leaving those other businesses, such as in hospitality, access to funding should they shut down.
Eh? Most businesses? I assume you've never worked in warehouses, call centres, open plan glass buildings full of 'hot desking' with 80 staff sharing 1 microwave at lunch. And have no solution for the loss to the city centre economies from the default position of working from home for many.

Once again you're demonstrating an ignorance of the subject matter at hand and pushing your own agenda in absence of any real facts or scientific basis for doing so.

Quote:
Typically, as is human nature, we’re not all in it together. When the chips are down we’re all in it for ourselves. Reason no. 2345 why socialism is bollocks.

And lock downs shorten the pandemic do they?
It did for New Zealand, China, South Korea and many others.

Quote:
Wibble
I'm unsure the value and/or purpose of this comment - I presume you don't contend that this is the genuine aspiration of the Government but that begs the question of what it will do that is good for British jobs, the British economy, the taxpayer, living standards or any other barometer by which the country could conceivably be considered a 'success'.

It's little wonder you admire this Government so much given the parallels of you both floundering from one incoherent position to another with no real goal in mind.

241 deaths today - remind me how high does it have to go before you consider it a problem?

Pierre 20-10-2020 22:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054529)
Eh? Most businesses? I assume you've never worked in warehouses, call centres, open plan glass buildings full of 'hot desking' with 80 staff sharing 1 microwave at lunch. And have no solution for the loss to the city centre economies from the default position of working from home for many.
In a warehouse it should be easy to set up a safe system of working........amazon seem to be doing well don’t they? Call centres? absolutely, already being done successfully. Offices? Ours have already been back safely for weeks. Microwave? Make sandwiches at home, it’s not difficult.

Then those firms not using furlough, leave the funds available for the city centre cafes to access.

Quote:
Once again you're demonstrating an ignorance of the subject matter at hand and pushing your own agenda in absence of any real facts or scientific basis for doing so.
on the contrary you are the ignorant one. As evidenced in your above Paragraph
Citing how difficult it is for firms to employ safe systems of work, when they’ve already doing it.........

Quote:
I'm unsure the value and/or purpose of this comment - I presume you don't contend that this is the genuine aspiration of the Government but that begs the question of what it will do that is good for British jobs, the British economy, the taxpayer, living standards or any other barometer by which the country could conceivably be considered a 'success'.
It’s a pop culture reference, albeit a dated one, that means I regard your statement akin to deranged individual.

Quote:
It's little wonder you admire this Government so much given the parallels of you both floundering from one incoherent position to another with no real goal in mind.
just shows how much attention you actually pay, nearly all my posts on this issue about the government response have been critical.

Quote:
241 deaths today - remind me how high does it have to go before you consider it a problem?
No problem. 241 was a weekend bounce, but I agree rates have increased - an undeniable fact.

Highest daily total so far was 1,172 and at the peak of the pandemic, so we’re still approx at 25% of those levels

And then the NHS was not overwhelmed. Everybody that needed a bed had one, everybody that needed a ventilator had one. Current ICU beds occupied is around 620

At peak it was 3,281

So, yes I believe we have a way to go before it is a “ problem”

But what we will see now is politicians and scientific leaders actively willing numbers to go higher - otherwise they’ll look like they got it wrong or overreacted...........and we can’t have that.

1andrew1 20-10-2020 22:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Interesting insight from Christopher Hope, the Chief Political Correspondent and Assistant Editor, Daily Telegraph.
Quote:
Christopher Hope Politics is crazy right now. One Tory MP just told me: "We are on the cusp of having Andy Burnham carried shoulder-high through the streets of Manchester."He has demonstrated courage and principle, hope and determination and a spirit that the British people can be proud of."
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/...28832501432320

And just seen this too:
Quote:
Manchester Young Conservatives Boris has lied about helping us in the North. He needs to go.
https://twitter.com/MilneSeumas/stat...237057/photo/1

Pierre 20-10-2020 22:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054532)
Interesting insight from Christopher Hope, the Chief Political Correspondent and Assistant Editor, Daily Telegraph.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/...28832501432320

And just seen this too:

https://twitter.com/MilneSeumas/stat...237057/photo/1
So glad I’m not on Twitter

jfman 20-10-2020 22:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36054531)
In a warehouse it should be easy to set up a safe system of working........amazon seem to be doing well don’t they? Call centres? absolutely, already being done successfully. Offices? Ours have already been back safely for weeks. Microwave? Make sandwiches at home, it’s not difficult.

Then those firms not using furlough, leave the funds available for the city centre cafes to access.

on the contrary you are the ignorant one. As evidenced in your above Paragraph
Citing how difficult it is for firms to employ safe systems of work, when they’ve already doing it.........


It’s a pop culture reference, albeit a dated one, that means I regard your statement akin to deranged individual.

just shows how much attention you actually pay, nearly all my posts on this issue about the government response have been critical.



No problem. 241 was a weekend bounce, but I agree rates have increased - an undeniable fact.

Highest daily total so far was 1,172 and at the peak of the pandemic, so we’re still approx at 25% of those levels

And then the NHS was not overwhelmed. Everybody that needed a bed had one, everybody that needed a ventilator had one. Current ICU beds occupied is around 620

At peak it was 3,281

So, yes I believe we have a way to go before it is a “ problem”

But what we will see now is politicians and scientific leaders actively willing numbers to go higher - otherwise they’ll look like they got it wrong or overreacted...........and we can’t have that.
Your post falls down because, as ever, you’ve responded to the points you wanted to and not the one that was actually made.

You claimed “most businesses should have a covid secure way of working” citing a small number of examples, anecdotal evidence if you will, that may not be readily transferable across the entire economy.

The reality is the vast majority are now on furlough, reduced hours or working from home. This doesn’t make for a 2019 economy, and the experience of Sweden shows that economic decline comes with people voluntarily taking risk adverse choices.

Pierre 20-10-2020 22:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054534)
Your post falls down because, as ever, you’ve responded to the points you wanted to and not the one that was actually made.
and you fall down because you fail to respond to anything.

Quote:
You claimed “most businesses should have a covid secure way of working” citing a small number of examples, anecdotal evidence if you will, that may not be readily transferable across the entire economy.
I just responded to the small number of examples you cited.

Paul 20-10-2020 22:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Enough of the snipping at each other.

1andrew1 21-10-2020 11:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Good news for those impacted - gyms in Liverpool are re-opening!

Quote:
Gyms and leisure centres across Liverpool city region will be able to reopen after. Government u-turn on Tier 3 COVID-19 restrictions.
https://lbndaily.co.uk/mersey-gyms-r...ber-10-u-turn/

papa smurf 21-10-2020 12:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Boris Johnson sacks Tory MP Andrew Rosindell for voting against new COVID restrictions

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ictions-latest

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054559)
Good news for those impacted - gyms in Liverpool are re-opening!


https://lbndaily.co.uk/mersey-gyms-r...ber-10-u-turn/
This just makes the restrictions more bizarre :shrug:

nomadking 21-10-2020 12:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Lockdowns do work, IF PEOPLE OBEY THEM. That what is that worked for China and South Korea. Eg Daegu in South Korea, a city the size of Birmingham, went into VOLUNTARY lockdown because there was an outbreak caused by ONE person, who decided they weren't going to be tested or self-isolate.
New Zealand got away with things because they had LESS cases in the first place. Geography plays a part.
Link
Quote:
Covid-19 cases are rising in many parts of Canada, but one region - Nunavut, a northern territory - is a rare place in North America that can say it's free of coronavirus in its communities.
...
Natural isolation is likely to be part of the reason for the lack of cases - those communities can only be reached year-round by plane.
...
In late September, there was an outbreak linked to workers who flew in from the south to a remote gold mine 160km (100 miles) from the Arctic Circle.
(Those cases are currently being counted as infections in the miners' home jurisdictions, keeping the territory's official case count at nil).
That outbreak has "almost no chance" of spreading in the community because there hasn't been any travel between the mine and any of the communities for months, says Dr Patterson.

1andrew1 21-10-2020 12:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36054562)

This just makes the restrictions more bizarre :shrug:
It brings Liverpool into line with the other Level 3 regions. But it is another BoJo U-turn.

Sephiroth 21-10-2020 13:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054567)
It brings Liverpool into line with the other Level 3 regions. But it is another BoJo U-turn.
.... or adjustment?

Chris 21-10-2020 15:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36054566)
Lockdowns do work, IF PEOPLE OBEY THEM. That what is that worked for China and South Korea. Eg Daegu in South Korea, a city the size of Birmingham, went into VOLUNTARY lockdown because there was an outbreak caused by ONE person, who decided they weren't going to be tested or self-isolate.
New Zealand got away with things because they had LESS cases in the first place. Geography plays a part.
Link
New Zealand may have had fewer initial infections but don't underestimate the advantage of not being at the crossroads of the world, and not having a highly concentrated population. They have just 15 people per sq.km, while Scotland, with the same population, has 65. I happen to like Ms Ardern but I think she gats far too much credit for playing what was, in global terms, a very easy hand.

downquark1 21-10-2020 15:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
The discussion has to move beyond what works and into what is worth doing. We know lockdowns "work", it would invalidate germ theory if they didn't. But you need to decide how much you are going to tolerate to abolish a virus that seems to be getting less and less potent at killing people.

Damien 21-10-2020 17:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36054579)
We know lockdowns "work", it would invalidate germ theory if they didn't.
Always been a Miasma man myself.

Hugh 21-10-2020 17:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36054593)
Always been a Miasma man myself.
Living in London, that’s understandable... :D

jonbxx 21-10-2020 17:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36054593)
Always been a Miasma man myself.
Nothing a good application of leeches or trepanning can't fix...

Damien 21-10-2020 18:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
It's all been downhill since the 1850s.

jfman 21-10-2020 18:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36054579)
The discussion has to move beyond what works and into what is worth doing. We know lockdowns "work", it would invalidate germ theory if they didn't. But you need to decide how much you are going to tolerate to abolish a virus that seems to be getting less and less potent at killing people.
Is it getting less and less potent? Without the actual case numbers from March it’s not definitively possible to say. And it is recognised that it got into the care home system where it hit those most at risk.

Without restrictions when the NHS is overwhelmed - and I say when, not if, - restrictions become inevitable anyway. It’s better to be proactive than reactive.

What the real decision is to what extent the Government want to support people and businesses through the crisis. If it’s not willing to do either eventually it falls apart.

Fundamentally we’re all taxpayers and it’s cheaper to protect jobs (and businesses) in the interim than to lose millions to the dole for years.

heero_yuy 22-10-2020 13:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Quote from The Sun: Boris Johnson ruled out a half-term circuit breaker for good yesterday as he accused Labour of trying to “turn the lights out” with a national lockdown.

He stood firm after Sir Keir Starmer again insisted on the short break despite medics saying it would not work.

Hours earlier, an expert warned MPs of tens of thousands of deaths if Britain stuck with the PM’s three-tier system.

But the PM said it would be wrong to shut down the whole country when infection rates in South West England and parts of the South East are minuscule compared with the North.

Mr Johnson turned on Sir Keir, saying: “It is the height of absurdity that he attacks the economic consequences of the measures we are obliged to take across some parts of the country when he wants to turn the lights out with a full national lockdown.”
Any problem solving strategy concentrates most effort where it will have most effect. (Pareto Principle)

With COVID 19, clamping down on the hot spots whilst leaving the rest of the country functioning has to be the better solution?

Our area has 1/20th the rate of infection compared to some northern towns.

Unless like Kier Starmer you want to drag everybody down to the same miserable level for precious little extra gain.

jfman 22-10-2020 13:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Considering following the science the best time to lock down was September 21st for those areas with lower prevalence they'd still benefit from time limited restrictions despite having significantly lower levels than the worst areas. It pushes them further from Tier 2 for a longer period.

heero_yuy 23-10-2020 14:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Quote from The Sun: Nicola Sturgeon sparked more chaos and confusion today as she revealed a FIVE tiered coronavirus alert system for Scotland.

The First Minister outlined fresh systems which will come into place after the national circuit-breaker lockdown ends on November 2.

It features five levels of measures - from "level zero" to four - to be applied in different areas of Scotland depending on the spread of the virus.

The top level would be close to a full lockdown like back in March, but the aim is for schools to remain open at all times if possible.

The levels will be reviewed on a weekly basis.

Ms Sturgeon said today the new system "seeks to tackle the direct threat to life as a result of Covid."
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic] :D

nomadking 23-10-2020 14:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
If only people, and especially the media, spent more time trying to obey the rules or stick to the underlying principles, than desperately trying to find a way around the rules, there would be less cases and less of a problem.:mad:

1andrew1 23-10-2020 14:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36054724)
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic] :D
The Republic of Ireland's got five tiers so I wonder if they're the same?

papa smurf 23-10-2020 14:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36054724)
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic] :D
She always tries to look a bit taller than Boris,standing on two extra steps achieves this;)

nomadking 23-10-2020 14:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
People know only too well not to have 100+ gatherings, yet still they persist.

Chris 23-10-2020 14:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36054724)
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic] :D
For all her denials it’s just another tedious piece of Scottish exceptionalism of the sort Nats love and can never resist.

The lowest is “Tier Zero” for heaven’s sake ... which is supposedly less severe than the lowest English tier, which is itself called “medium” risk, and yet somehow not actually reflective of zero risk.

Tiers 1, 2 and 3 broadly equate to the English system of medium, high, v. high, and then at the top she’s added a 4th, which is near total lockdown but schools kept open if possible.

All of which amounts to an attempt to claim she is somehow simultaneously more lenient and caring (zero) while also willing to take tough decisions (4).

Tier zero is meaningless because either there’s a risk or there isn’t. If there’s a risk, and there are restrictions of any kind, then that doesn’t equate to zero. Tier 4 is meaningless because locking any city down that tightly without locking the whole country down makes it pretty much unenforceable, unless the police get extensive powers to stop and question people. Otherwise how do you determine who should be at home and who can be out?

Hugh 23-10-2020 15:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36054724)
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic] :D
0-4 rather than 1-5 because 1-3 are broadly similar to England’s tiers. So if you’re in 1-3 it’s similar and if you’re in 0 or 4 then they don’t exist in England anyway

0 - no restrictions
4 - total lockdown

pip08456 23-10-2020 16:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36054737)
0-4 rather than 1-5 because 1-3 are broadly similar to England’s tiers. So if you’re in 1-3 it’s similar and if you’re in 0 or 4 then they don’t exist in England anyway

0 - no restrictions
4 - total lockdown
Tier 0 - Indoor meetings allowed max 8 people from 3 households (that's a resriction), and 15 people from 5 households can meet outdoors (also a restriction)

Tier 4 - Closer to full lockdown as per UK end of March. Non essential shops to close. Some outdoor meetings still allowed. Schools stay open (not total lockdown).

Chris 23-10-2020 16:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36054737)
0-4 rather than 1-5 because 1-3 are broadly similar to England’s tiers. So if you’re in 1-3 it’s similar and if you’re in 0 or 4 then they don’t exist in England anyway

0 - no restrictions
4 - total lockdown
Except that 0 doesn't mean no restrictions and 4 doesn't mean total lockdown. Zero is akin to where we were in August, which was most definitely restricted as anyone who tried to enter a shop or get a table at a restaurant can attest. 4 makes somewhat more sense, except that it isn't the severe circuit breaker it is purported to be if the aspiration is to leave anything open (like schools).

The whole thing would have made more sense if it had been coded low, medium, high, very high, severe, but then that might have been needlessly similar to the English system, which is anathema to Nats and no doubt played its part in the decision making process.

papa smurf 23-10-2020 16:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36054737)
0-4 rather than 1-5 because 1-3 are broadly similar to England’s tiers. So if you’re in 1-3 it’s similar and if you’re in 0 or 4 then they don’t exist in England anyway

0 - no restrictions
4 - total lockdown
All that mansplaining and you got it wrong :)

Hugh 23-10-2020 17:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36054742)
Except that 0 doesn't mean no restrictions and 4 doesn't mean total lockdown. Zero is akin to where we were in August, which was most definitely restricted as anyone who tried to enter a shop or get a table at a restaurant can attest. 4 makes somewhat more sense, except that it isn't the severe circuit breaker it is purported to be if the aspiration is to leave anything open (like schools).

The whole thing would have made more sense if it had been coded low, medium, high, very high, severe, but then that might have been needlessly similar to the English system, which is anathema to Nats and no doubt played its part in the decision making process.
Thank you for the clarification - much appreciated.

Hugh 23-10-2020 17:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36054745)
All that mansplaining and you got it wrong :)
You think heero_yuy is a woman?

papa smurf 23-10-2020 17:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36054749)
You think heero_yuy is a woman?
Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".[1][2][3][4] Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness".[5] Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman".[6]

In its original use, mansplaining differed from other forms of condescension in that it was said to be rooted in the assumption that a man is likely to be more knowledgeable than a woman.[7] However, it has come to be used more broadly, often applied when a man takes a condescending tone in an explanation to anyone, regardless of the age or gender of the intended recipients: a "man 'splaining" can be delivered to any audience.[2] In 2010, it was named by the New York Times as one of its "Words of the Year".[8] American Dialect Society nominated Mansplaining as the “most creative” new word in 2012.[9]

Hugh 23-10-2020 19:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36054751)
Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".[1][2][3][4] Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness".[5] Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman".[6]

In its original use, mansplaining differed from other forms of condescension in that it was said to be rooted in the assumption that a man is likely to be more knowledgeable than a woman.[7] However, it has come to be used more broadly, often applied when a man takes a condescending tone in an explanation to anyone, regardless of the age or gender of the intended recipients: a "man 'splaining" can be delivered to any audience.[2] In 2010, it was named by the New York Times as one of its "Words of the Year".[8] American Dialect Society nominated Mansplaining as the “most creative” new word in 2012.[9]
Slight problem with your highlighted part of the definition - [2] references the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, which doesn’t have the highlighted part in it...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...nition-history

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mansplaining

The only references in Google to the highlighted part of your post are in Wikipedia (which appears to be incorrect, as the referenced article doesn’t have those words in it), and a couple of articles that reference the Wikipedia article.

Hope this helps... :)

But in response to what I think was your point, my comment was not intended to be "condescending" - if it was, my apologies to heero.

papa smurf 23-10-2020 19:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36054756)
Slight problem with your highlighted part of the definition - [2] references the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, which doesn’t have the highlighted part in it...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...nition-history

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mansplaining

The only references in Google to the highlighted part of your post are in Wikipedia (which appears to be incorrect, as the referenced article doesn’t have those words in it), and a couple of articles that reference the Wikipedia article.

Hope this helps... ;)
Thanks for mansplaining that and proving i'm right,enjoy trolling the internet for an irrelevant response, now i have more important things to do.it's beer 0clock.

Mad Max 23-10-2020 20:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Nicola Sturgeon sparked more chaos and confusion today as she revealed a FIVE tiered coronavirus alert system for Scotland.

The First Minister outlined fresh systems which will come into place after the national circuit-breaker lockdown ends on November 2.

It features five levels of measures - from "level zero" to four - to be applied in different areas of Scotland depending on the spread of the virus.

The top level would be close to a full lockdown like back in March, but the aim is for schools to remain open at all times if possible.

The levels will be reviewed on a weekly basis.

Ms Sturgeon said today the new system "seeks to tackle the direct threat to life as a result of Covid."
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic]


The Sun is wrong, there was never a national lockdown in Scotland.

jfman 23-10-2020 21:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Not like the Scottish hacks to create confusion.

Damien 24-10-2020 08:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36054737)
0-4 rather than 1-5 because 1-3 are broadly similar to England’s tiers. So if you’re in 1-3 it’s similar and if you’re in 0 or 4 then they don’t exist in England anyway

0 - no restrictions
4 - total lockdown
At least they start from 0. Proper counting system.

OLD BOY 24-10-2020 20:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36054759)
Nicola Sturgeon sparked more chaos and confusion today as she revealed a FIVE tiered coronavirus alert system for Scotland.

The First Minister outlined fresh systems which will come into place after the national circuit-breaker lockdown ends on November 2.

It features five levels of measures - from "level zero" to four - to be applied in different areas of Scotland depending on the spread of the virus.

The top level would be close to a full lockdown like back in March, but the aim is for schools to remain open at all times if possible.

The levels will be reviewed on a weekly basis.

Ms Sturgeon said today the new system "seeks to tackle the direct threat to life as a result of Covid."
People are already confused with 3 tiers, wee Kranky goes 2 better.

It'll all end in tiers [sic]


The Sun is wrong, there was never a national lockdown in Scotland.
The only thing that Scotland has in excess compared with England is tiers of restrictions.

Maybe the Scots need to think about that....

BenMcr 24-10-2020 20:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36054792)
The only thing that Scotland has in excess compared with England is tiers of restrictions.

Maybe the Scots need to think about that....
Or England does

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...e-restaurants/

Quote:
NEW “tier four” restrictions which would close restaurants and non-essential shops could reportedly be introduced if the current rules do not tackle the second wave of coronavirus.

The government is reportedly drawing up fresh plans to add an extra tier of Covid-19 restrictions in England if cases continue to rise.

pip08456 24-10-2020 20:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36054765)
At least they start from 0. Proper counting system.
Really? Zero implies no restrictions but that is not the case.

jfman 24-10-2020 20:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Can't help but think English people are setting out to be offended by Scotland. Align as much as possible by keeping Tier 1-3 an it's complicating matters. Someone suggested a colour coded system - this would have been simply dismissed as being different for the sake of it.

As someone in an area more likely to land in Tier 4 than Tier 0 in a hurry I'm not too worried about the numbering system. I suspect by the time we are at Tier 0 there will be a new system anyway!

1andrew1 24-10-2020 23:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
BoJo has been taking a different tone on Track and Trace recently so I wonder if this criticism has been authorised by No. 10?
Quote:
A top Tory MP and leading Boris Johnson ally is calling for Dido Harding, the beleaguered boss of NHS Test and Trace, to be axed.

Sir Bernard Jenkin, who chairs the powerful Liaison Committee of senior MPs, says Conservative peer Baroness Harding "should be given a well-earned break", adding that "the immediate priority is to fill the vacuum of leadership in Test and Trace".

His call comes just days after the prime minister and his chief scientific adviser publicly admitted for the first time that the system is not working effectively.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-role-12113820

papa smurf 25-10-2020 08:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054814)
BoJo has been taking a different tone on Track and Trace recently so I wonder if this criticism has been authorised by No. 10?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-role-12113820
She should take some of the scientists on holiday with here,the gov isn't led by science just led by the nose.

heero_yuy 25-10-2020 12:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Quote from Tony Parsons: (Sun opinion) BORIS and his boffins should wheel out a new daily graph that reveals the true cost of their obsession with lockdowns.

Where is the graph that tells us how many cancer sufferers have been unable to access treatment?

Where is the chart that show us how many children have had life-changing surgery postponed?

Where is the diagram that reveals how many of the desperately ill have missed chemotherapy sessions because this Government and its experts have only one thing on their minds?

Let’s have the big picture, please — not just the number of coronavirus cases and deaths, because that is only one part of our nation’s suffering.

Let’s also count how many beloved mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, husbands and wives have been lost because this Government and its scientific brains see only coronavirus.
:clap:

jfman 25-10-2020 12:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36054845)
:clap:
Be interesting to see the solutions that such a chart has to resolve the issues stated given there is no alternative where the NHS doesn’t becomes the Coronavirus Health Service.

nomadking 25-10-2020 12:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Didn't realise that everything has only affected England.:rolleyes:
Year-long waits have still to reach 2008 levels.
Regular seasonal flu has an impact, as does strikes by unions.

Hugh 25-10-2020 13:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36054757)
Thanks for mansplaining that and proving i'm right,enjoy trolling the internet for an irrelevant response, now i have more important things to do.it's beer 0clock.
:tu:

I trawl, you troll... ;)

downquark1 25-10-2020 14:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
This is the great reset. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElK7AxTW...g&name=900x900

Paul 25-10-2020 22:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
On the subject of the NHS, I finally got my eye appointment, 9 months late, but hey ....

nomadking 25-10-2020 23:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36054933)
On the subject of the NHS, I finally got my eye appointment, 9 months late, but hey ....
Mine has been delayed by just a couple of hours.

May have to cancel because the area is at risk of going into the Level 2 Tier. Don't see how indoor gatherings could be avoided. Not sure how quickly potential Glaucoma can take full effect.

Paul 26-10-2020 18:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Great, and now we have to suffer T3, despite being almost 10 miles from Nottingham. :mad:

(due to the stupid way local authority boundries were drawn up).
They should be based on affected locations, not ridiculous political boundries.

You have places physically attached to Nottingham that are still in T2.
(Becasue technically they fall under Derbyshire or Ashfield) and yet we suffer, when we are miles away, totally separate from the city.

I can walk across the Derbyshire border from my house in < 10 minutes (its a 0.5 mile walk).

nomadking 26-10-2020 19:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Derbyshire's figures aren't looking that great either. They are possibly having to move more of the county into tier 2.
They have to use easily definable areas, and that is by council not individual houses.

1andrew1 27-10-2020 00:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Final nail in the coffin for those believing in herd immunity.

Quote:
Covid-19 herd immunity theory dealt blow by UK research

Testing of more than 350,000 people shows that antibodies fade within a few months

The proportion of people in Britain with antibodies that protect against Covid-19 declined over the summer, according to research that adds to evidence that natural immunity can wane in a matter of months.

The number of people with antibodies fell by a quarter, from 6 per cent of the population in June to 4.4 per cent in September, according to a study of hundreds of thousands of people, one of the largest of its kind to date.

The results, from researchers at Imperial College London, are the latest sign that immunity to Covid-19 may be shortlived and cast further doubt on the idea that any population could develop herd immunity naturally.

The study suggests that the immune system’s response to the virus is similar to its reaction to influenza and other coronaviruses such as the common cold, which can be contracted annually.

“This is a really big challenge to the idea that herd immunity can be achieved through natural immunity,” said Helen Ward, professor of public health at Imperial, and study co-author.
https://www.ft.com/content/f75418a9-...2-758635e906b1

jfman 27-10-2020 00:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36055058)
Final nail in the coffin for those believing in herd immunity.

https://www.ft.com/content/f75418a9-...2-758635e906b1
Oh I’m sure they’ll still be out there howling at the moon with those who claim 5G is a mind control device run by the CIA.

nomadking 27-10-2020 00:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36055058)
Final nail in the coffin for those believing in herd immunity.

https://www.ft.com/content/f75418a9-...2-758635e906b1
:rolleyes:
1) The immune system works by eventually stopping production of antibodies, because they are no longer needed. The required antibody is "memorised" and produced, if and when it is needed. Think about it, it would be ridiculously wasteful of the immune system to constantly produce antibodies for something, it's never ever going to need again.
2) Seasonal flu reoccurs because the virus mutates and presents itself as a new virus. Think about it again, if each year it was the same virus, they wouldn't have to come up with a new flu vaccine each year. There would be just one that was used again and again.
3) Even if any vaccine only works for a few months, that should be long enough for the virus to die out. It would be unable to reproduce.
4) If herd immunity wasn't a fact, then people would've still been dying from Spanish Flu for the past 100 years.

1andrew1 27-10-2020 06:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36055060)
:rolleyes:
1) The immune system works by eventually stopping production of antibodies, because they are no longer needed. The required antibody is "memorised" and produced, if and when it is needed. Think about it, it would be ridiculously wasteful of the immune system to constantly produce antibodies for something, it's never ever going to need again.
2) Seasonal flu reoccurs because the virus mutates and presents itself as a new virus. Think about it again, if each year it was the same virus, they wouldn't have to come up with a new flu vaccine each year. There would be just one that was used again and again.
3) Even if any vaccine only works for a few months, that should be long enough for the virus to die out. It would be unable to reproduce.
4) If herd immunity wasn't a fact, then people would've still been dying from Spanish Flu for the past 100 years.
Agreed. In this context we're talking about the study showing that natural herd immunity for CV19 does not exist. ;) i.e., the belief that herd immunity can be acquired without a vaccine by letting Covid 19 run through the majority of the population unhindered in place of the current social-distancing, lockdowns, masks etc is called out as false by this study.

Damien 27-10-2020 08:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36055061)
Agreed. In this context we're talking about the study showing that natural herd immunity for CV19 does not exist. ;) i.e., the belief that herd immunity can be acquired without a vaccine by letting Covid 19 run through the majority of the population unhindered in place of the current social-distancing, lockdowns, masks etc is called out as false by this study.
Nomanking is right though that you don't necessarily need antibodies present to mount a immune response.

Pierre 27-10-2020 08:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36055058)
Final nail in the coffin for those believing in herd immunity.


https://www.ft.com/content/f75418a9-...2-758635e906b1
Is it?

Or just more unproven speculation?

http://news.sky.com/story/coronaviru...overy-12115510

Then when you actually look behind the headline

Quote:
Professor Wendy Barclay, an infectious diseases specialist and one of the researchers, said antibodies peak three to four weeks after symptoms and then drop away, as they do for related viruses.

She said: "Seasonal coronaviruses that circulate every winter and cause common colds can re-infect people after six to 12 months.

"We suspect that the way the body reacts to infection with this new coronavirus is similar to that."

There have so far only been a handful of documented cases of re-infection.

Dr Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading, said: "What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the virus a second time.

"It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory.

"So even if the rapid antibody test is no longer positive, the person may still be protected from re-infection."

The study, which is yet to be peer reviewed, only measured antibodies.

It is possible that another arm of the immune system called T-cells, may remain active, but there is currently no available test for them.
I would put the nails away based on that

BenMcr 27-10-2020 08:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36055060)
4) If herd immunity wasn't a fact, then people would've still been dying from Spanish Flu for the past 100 years.
My reading of it is that it was the associated health complications and recent world events which contributed to the high mortality rate. The Swine Flu outbreak in 2009 is the same strain as the Spanish Flu but I think the outcome was different because of its management.

How much 'herd immunity' factors into that I think it still up for review.

However although we are better at treating effects, the argument is still that we should try and stop it pandemics happening - not aim for 'herd immunity':

https://www.clinicalcorrelations.org...es-a-weakness/
Quote:
Still, most of the deaths from the influenza of 1918 were due to bacterial pneumonia, for which we now have antibiotics. Currently, it is resistance that is the dilemma. In some parts of the United States, 35% or more of pneumococcal infections are resistant to the antibiotic of choice.[1] ARDS has a poor prognosis: despite advances in understanding its physiopathology, mortality rates remain as high as 40-46%.4 Though it is difficult to imagine a disaster on the scale of the 1918 infuenza almost a century later, a pandemic is not improbable. Now, in the face of a possible threat, efforts should be directed at prevention, which may be our best tool.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/195/7/1018/800918
Quote:
The weight of evidence, supported by mathematical modeling data [98], suggests that if a novel virus as pathogenic as that of 1918 were to reappear today, a substantial proportion of a potential 1.9 million fatalities (assuming 1918 attack and case-fatality rates in the current US population) could be prevented with aggressive public-health and medical interventions. In an age of frequent air travel, we might expect global spread to proceed rapidly and to be difficult to control, but hardly much more so than the 1918 pandemic, in which most of the world was affected by W2 within a matter of a few weeks.

jfman 27-10-2020 08:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36055068)
Is it?

Or just more unproven speculation?

http://news.sky.com/story/coronaviru...overy-12115510

Then when you actually look behind the headline

I would put the nails away based on that
It’s still a nail in the coffin for herd immunity either way. It means protecting the vulnerable is impossible unless you propose to lock them up forever.

What happens when you catch it a second, third, fourth time are unknown. Plus giving it billions of opportunities to mutate every year is a significant dice roll.

nomadking 27-10-2020 10:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
Immunity DOESN'T mean the virus never ends up in your bloodstream again. After all, how else is the immune system meant to deal with it, if it's not in the blood?:rolleyes:
Once somebody becomes infected for the first time or reacquires the virus, there is a window of time before that person becomes infectious and can pass it onto others. With a first time infection, the immune system takes too long to acquire immunity, and so people reach the infectious stage. With immunity and picking the virus up again, the immune system responds much quicker, and is likely to eliminate it before the person becomes infectious and can pass it onto others.
Herd immunity is about reducing transmission levels. The fewer people who reach the infectious stage, the fewer can become further infected.

BenMcr 27-10-2020 11:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36055102)
Herd immunity is about reducing transmission levels. The fewer people who reach the infectious stage, the fewer can become further infected.
However we've never got herd immunity just by letting a disease spread.

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html

Quote:
How have we achieved herd immunity for other infectious diseases?
Measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox are examples of infectious diseases that were once very common but are now rare in the U.S. because vaccines helped to establish herd immunity. We sometimes see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with lower vaccine coverage because they don’t have herd protection. (The 2019 measles outbreak at Disneyland is an example.)

For infections without a vaccine, even if many adults have developed immunity because of prior infection, the disease can still circulate among children and can still infect those with weakened immune systems. This was seen for many of the aforementioned diseases before vaccines were developed.

nomadking 27-10-2020 11:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Herd immunity isn't about zero transmission, it's about greatly reducing the chances for transmission.
If only 1 in 100,000 people don't have immunity, then the chance of an infected person passing it on to somebody who isn't yet immune, is a lot less than where only 1 in 10 doesn't.
From your link.

Quote:
What is herd immunity?
When most of a population is immune to an infectious disease, this provides indirect protection—or herd immunity (also called herd protection)—to those who are not immune to the disease.
For example, if 80% of a population is immune to a virus, four out of every five people who encounter someone with the disease won’t get sick (and won’t spread the disease any further). In this way, the spread of infectious diseases is kept under control. Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 50% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity.
How have we achieved herd immunity for other infectious diseases?
Measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox are examples of infectious diseases that were once very common but are now rare in the U.S. because vaccines helped to establish herd immunity. We sometimes see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with lower vaccine coverage because they don’t have herd protection. (The 2019 measles outbreak at Disneyland is an example.)
The outbreaks arise from those who don't have herd protection.

BenMcr 27-10-2020 12:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
My point is that acceptable and lasting herd immunity isn't something that has been achieved without a vaccine, which is what the link above says. Current proponents of herd immunity for Covid-19 want it to happen 'naturally' as an argument for lifting most restrictions before a vaccine is available.

From the 'Great Barrington Declaration':

Quote:
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
...
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

OLD BOY 27-10-2020 16:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36055072)
It’s still a nail in the coffin for herd immunity either way. It means protecting the vulnerable is impossible unless you propose to lock them up forever.

What happens when you catch it a second, third, fourth time are unknown. Plus giving it billions of opportunities to mutate every year is a significant dice roll.
Not in my opinion. Herd immunity has not been disproved. Worldwide, only a handful of people have succumbed a second time, and the reasons for that are unclear.

Protecting the vulnerable as I meant it does not require locking them up forever, but protecting them until the healthy population has had the virus run through them. This would get us more or less to where we need to be for us all to get back to normal.

Do that, and you minimise the risk of the virus reinfecting people as our defences wear down again, if indeed they do. These lockdowns are increasing these risks by keeping the virus alive for longer. Lockdowns are also increasing the risks of mutation.

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36055062)
Nomanking is right though that you don't necessarily need antibodies present to mount a immune response.
Correct.

jfman 27-10-2020 16:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
If there was someone still clutching onto the end of that straw I’d have bet every penny I had on it being Old Boy.

1andrew1 27-10-2020 17:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Grim figures.
Quote:
Coronavirus: 367 more COVID-19 deaths in UK - highest daily figure since May

Key points:
  • UK records 22,885 more coronavirus cases and further 367 deaths
  • Herd immunity hopes dashed as study shows COVID-19 antibodies fall rapidly after recovery
  • Warrington enters Tier 3 restrictions - Nottingham, Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe to follow suit on Thursday
  • Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham tells Lords that Tesco 'haven't taken a responsible attitude' towards making sure people wear face masks
  • SAGE professor says only full lockdown has managed to contain virus so far
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...e-may-12116066

Hugh 27-10-2020 17:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36055146)
Not in my opinion. Herd immunity has not been disproved. Worldwide, only a handful of people have succumbed a second time, and the reasons for that are unclear.

Protecting the vulnerable as I meant it does not require locking them up forever, but protecting them until the healthy population has had the virus run through them. This would get us more or less to where we need to be for us all to get back to normal.

Do that, and you minimise the risk of the virus reinfecting people as our defences wear down again, if indeed they do. These lockdowns are increasing these risks by keeping the virus alive for longer. Lockdowns are also increasing the risks of mutation.

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------



Correct.
It’s a conundrum who to have more belief in - two epidemiological experts, with Ph.Ds from Johns Hopkins, whose primary research interests are in infectious disease, risk behaviors, and translational epidemiology, & infectious disease modeling, health economics, operational and implementation science, and classical epidemiology, or OLD BOY, whose primary research interest in pushing herd immunity with no supporting evidence whatsoever...

btw, witchcraft and wizardry have not been disproved, but due the lack of evidence (much like your position about herd immunity), very few people would put faith in them when treating infectious diseases...;)

denphone 27-10-2020 17:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36055157)
Given that Professor Chris Whitty stated that we were on course for 200 deaths a day by mid November that is a pretty grim figure.

Mad Max 27-10-2020 18:19
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36055164)
Given that Professor Chris Whitty stated that we were on course for 200 deaths a day by mid November that is a pretty grim figure.
Even if there were 200 deaths a day, which is awful in its own right, it will be far lower than the deaths in one week at its peak in April of just over 8000.

Mick 27-10-2020 19:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Cristiano Ronaldo has tested positive for coronavirus today and will miss tomorrow's Champions League clash against Barcelona.

denphone 27-10-2020 19:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36055183)
BREAKING: Cristiano Ronaldo has tested positive for coronavirus today and will miss tomorrow's Champions League clash against Barcelona.
And our match against Accrington Stanley is called off as well this Saturday as one suspects all clubs will get hit by Covid 19 in one or another.

jfman 27-10-2020 19:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36055183)
BREAKING: Cristiano Ronaldo has tested positive for coronavirus today and will miss tomorrow's Champions League clash against Barcelona.
Has he not had it?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:22.
Page 5 of 86 1234 5 67891555 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum