Re: Coronavirus
 

Some good but not unexpected news - Oxford trial has resumed ;)
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...fects-12069919

Re: Coronavirus
 

We should pay young people who catch Coronavirus a reward for doing so. Herd immunity, after all...

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D:D:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes and watch them take it home to granny,aunty and everyone vulnerable at home. You be a guinea pig if you like. Keep me out of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It wasn’t a serious suggestion. We all, or almost all, know herd immunity is a bad idea and doesn’t protect the economy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boo not fair . . . unless they also pay us older folk a nice bonus for not catching it. :PP: ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Claw back 25% for everyone they infect over 40, fining them 25% of the value if they infect 5 people. Fair? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Deal . . if I don't put my own bins out :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well according to this scientist, and former chief advisor, we already had 30-50% herd immunity, and there is no second wave coming.

Other opinions are available but he doesn’t come across as some quack that the likes of Fox News would usually wheel in.

https://youtu.be/Su0wMysBYPM

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet he's in direct contradiction of the current Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government who view it as a serious risk without mitigation.

The proof will be in the pudding I suppose, not long til we find out. Cases rising and it's not simply due to testing rising according to Whitty. Maybe it's just a blip. Hopefully.

Other countries are in a second wave and Israel is into a second lockdown. Why will it be different for us?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oxford Uni Professor of Evidence Based Medicine ⁦@carlheneghan recommends watching this video.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Started watching, got bored. Let me guess open everything back up and we will be fine because someone manipulated a couple of graphs and selectively compared sets of data that aren't directly comparable with each other?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fer gawds sake, don't open the can of worms that is "manipulated graphs and selectively compared sets of data"

People will be accusing the media of bias next :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Masks to be a legal requirement to enter shops and indoor public areas in Wales as of tomorrow. The Labour-led Welsh assembly has been dragging its feet over this for several weeks.

And, as expected, local forums are filled to the brim with anti-maskers spouting the crazy conspiracy theories they have accepted as fact from "internet sources".

Forum moderators are stripping their posts and banning those that repost after warnings, but they just push another of their ilk to post the same idiocy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

that’s hyperbolics, up there with "subjugation" and "enslavement" (not things you’ve said, but others have).

I lived in West Berlin for 3 years at the height of the Cold War, and saw what a "Stasi state" was - use of terms like this in the article just use emotive hyperbolic statements to inflame passion and cause anger, thus making rational debate about real issues difficult.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

All the restrictions should be considered the same as if there was a severe storm going on. People cover themselves up in cold or bad weather, so what is the real problem? People find themselves locked in by bad weather, eg "Beast from the East" of 2018, so again what is the real difference? It may be lasting long, but that is all. The longer people flaunt the restrictions, the longer the whole thing will go on for.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Has anyone linked this discussion point yet? I think it's rather interesting: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...y-researchers/

TL;DR - Wearing a mask and having others around you wear masks seems to be granting people immunity to the virus by minimising exposure to it.

Completely unproven at this point, of course, but yet another good reason to wear a mask.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because we locked down later I guess and got it over and done with in one.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

The difference is that the 'Beast from the East' didn't last for months.

Lockdowns are extremely damaging in so many ways, so it is sensible of the PM to rule out another one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is absolutely no evidence for this, it is simply your latest line grasping at the straw that the virus will simply go away. None of the serology testing indicate that antibodies are more prevalent in the UK population than Spain, Italy or France. The Government advice is that we are 2-4 weeks behind Spain/France etc and that steps are required to prevent the situation becoming desperate.

Yet he hasn't ruled out another one - he's spending £100bn on his operation moonshot to desperately avoid one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have already pointed out that there is a school of thought that our late lockdown could have resulted in the peak of the virus being relatively unaffected by that lockdown.

Interesting that evidence that is out there you ignore if it doesn't suit your agenda. The experience of Sweden, with its minimal emergency measures, is particularly interesting in this regard.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if a mask worn by an infected person, protects others, then that won't happen, ie the infected person has to NOT be wearing a mask for this alleged effect to take place. Then you also have spreading by contact.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A 'school of thought' - in other words idle speculation. You can continue to bury your head in the sand all you please, but when we follow France and Italy into the 10,000 infections a day category and it inevitably overspills into the at risk age groups you can't say you weren't warned.

Is that Sweden where they closed the high schools and everyone that can work from home is working from home? Sweden that is also taking a hit on GDP? All the data points towards people adhering in some respect to scientific recommendations. Behaviour that your average "I know better than scientists" Brit moron would be incapable of doing voluntarily.

You're once again living in a fantasy world based on selective use of information. The good news is it's impossible for us to go down the Sweden route without overwhelming the NHS, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and people will not stand for it.

The capitalist wet dream of normal isn't ever coming back.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly how does not being exposed to something grant you immunity from it :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Repeatedly, without evidence...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Blind optimism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The mask still can expose you to the virus but under the theory they're talking about here the mask exposes you to a smaller viral load thus making the infection you subsequently catch less aggressive. Having the infection at all then grants you immunity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You've not backed this up with any evidence, Old Boy. We were able to find one maths professor in Bristol who had modelled this but he was subsequently discredited.

I'm no fan of lockdowns due to the negative economic and social impact they have. But given the situation in UK hospitals, which presumably Sweden didn't have, we had no choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anti-bodies are not the only metric, if you listened to the interview with the doctor that I posted, he put forward that a large % of the population would already have T-cell immunity.

So if anti-body test come in negative doesn’t mean you haven’t already had and combatted the virus.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/2018...-help-protect/

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's no solid evidence for this, merely optimistic speculation. A few of you do have a lot of immediate buy-in to anything that tells you what you want to hear - that the virus isn't serious/will go away by itself/we can go back to normal with little/no restrictions.

Hundreds are now testing positive every day in the 'at risk' age groups. Hospitalisations are creeping up. Test, trace, isolate is falling apart at the seams and the Government are preparing for telling 4.6 million people (customers?) to shield for an almost indefinite period of time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you Mr Doom & Gloom, you must be a real blast at parties. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unless they're surgical masks, masks don't prevent or filter 100% of the mucus from your breathing from spreading, it just cuts it down quite a bit. Likewise if you're wearing one. The idea is that a tiny portion of the virus might still make its way into your system and your body will be able to fight it off before it takes hold (Asymptomatic) - and thus you've got the antibodies. It also suggests that even if you do develop symptons, the'll be much lesser than if you'd had a lot more exposure.

I mean it makes sense really. It might also explain why numbers were so high in the beginning and have dropped considerably. It would also explain why hospitalisation/death rates haven't gone up as much as recent infection rates.

But still, it's completely unproven at this point. Science, innit.

So this late lockdown results in both the peak being unaffected, but also prevents a second lockdown? So...did it have an effect or not?

You're peddling this one, you could just cite one source instead of gesturing broadly towards sweden.

Hey, the virus doesn't give a hoot if you're an optimist or a pessimist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The way the immune system works is that antibodies disappear after a few months, so no antibodies doesn't meant you're not immune. It would be wasteful of the immune system to be constantly churning out antibodies for every single thing you've come across in your lifetime without the antigen(virus etc) being present.
Differences between Primary and Secondary Immune Response

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

It does take all sorts to make this forum.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there was cause for optimism I’d share it. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given the latest numbers and one country now offically in its second lockdown you might well be right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You really need to read things before making statements on evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative.

T-cell immunity is a well researched and published scientific fact, and although more research needs to be done on the levels of immunity to COVID 19, as it is new, the has been lots of research done with other novel Corona-viruses such as SARS and MERS

In relation to COVID article states

doesn’t read as idle speculation to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You were sent the press item. I incorrectly stated that it was a scientific calculation, but actually it was a mathematical calculation.

I guess it's only 'evidence' if it says what you want it to say.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On social media I tend not to read the comments. Here I have to and it's remarkably similar to social media..;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is not 'wild speculation'. What is wild speculation is believing that you can lock everyone down forever.

If you really believe in this nonsense view, jfman, it is pointless continuing this debate with you.

---------- Post added at 09:06 ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 ----------

I read that an alternative opinion was expressed, not that he was discredited. The fact is that despite coming from 'experts' it is all speculation at this point. It's a new virus, so what else can it be?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, this harks back to a paper I mentioned a while back where researchers in Singapore looked at T-cell responses to people who had COVID, has SARS 17 years ago or had neither. All COVID exposed patients had responses which isn't surprising. However, all SARS exposed patients showed some level of responses.

Most interestingly is that 19 out of 37 unexposed individuals also showed a response.

The only caveats are that the sample sizes are small and geographically localised in Singapore. Also, there is no further study of T-cell responses and clinical outcomes but all in all, things look hopeful...

EDIT - here's the paper for lovers of immunology and enjoy flow cytometry... - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Re: Coronavirus
 

From what I read these are cases where an infection did take hold and they had symptoms. However, the symptoms where reportedly a lot milder and the infection dealt with faster, i.e although they were reinfected the immune system still managed to deal with it quicker.

I don't fully understand it but I think the immune system can do two things: stop an infection before it even takes, fight it after it does.

The other thing though is sometimes having had an infection or even having had a vaccine you can randomly simply not develop antibodies against it. It's not common but it does happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Amazing when some say they have no interest in social media.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s speculation to assume that we are far down the road to “herd immunity” on the basis of this, in particular why the UK would benefit from it but not however Spain, Italy, France or other countries embarking on their second wave.

Wishful thinking in my book.

---------- Post added at 09:17 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------

It’s wild speculation. And nobody, anywhere, has suggested locking everyone down forever. Misrepresenting my posts is second only to your skill in not evidencing your own.

I do agree however that there’s little value in continuing a debate with you on the topic if you persist in following wishful thinking above science. The virus doesn’t care for your politics, your stiff upper lip or English exceptionalism. We’re playing by the same rules as everyone else - all that’s happening is some are skewing the narrative, undermining science, people are less adherent to rules and this situation goes on for longer - hitting health and the economy. I don’t mind one of those being hit because it’s in dire need of rebalancing anyway, and the virus presents a once in as generation opportunity - but I do care about the health angle.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are speculating yourself, and you are also, as ever, stretching what other people say to suit your strange views of what is happening.

Let's get one thing clear. I am certainly not saying there won't be a second wave. I have merely said that if it is true that if the late lockdown resulted in our reaching the same peak of the virus that we would have reached anyway, we may avoid a second wave anywhere near as extreme as the first one. That makes sense.

However, equally, it may not be so, and in fact although there was no lockdown with the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, there was still a devastating second wave.

I have been consistent in saying that this virus is going nowhere, and if we have not yet reached herd immunity, it will be back, lockdowns or no lockdowns.

Your solution is to lock us all up and hide ourselves away. For years! What kind of nonsense is that? If you want to lock yourself up, be my guest!

[EDIT]
Oh, so now you are not saying that we should lock down until a vaccine is found! I'm glad we've sorted that out.

So, what is your solution to this problem, jfman? If you are not going for the herd immunity solution and you are not going for a long lockdown, then what are you saying?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not from you...

Peer-reviewed papers are "evidence", which this is not - it’s one Prof of Stats views, not backed up by any other papers/research.

From the Bristol Uni web-page

I guess it's 'evidence' if it says what you want it to say...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you are stretching it, Hugh. Ok, it's a theory, but it is still evidence to support what I was saying.

True, the two articles that were produced did not come from me because someone beat me to it, but it was the second of those articles I was referring to in my original post.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again you are misrepresenting my post - nowhere did I say 'until a vaccine is found'.

I think we've fundamentally got to the heart of the problem - you simply read what you want and ignore context, fact and reality to suit your agenda to fully reopen the economy regardless of the impact on human life.

If I trawled the internet seeking to find spurious evidence I could find 'evidence' for almost anything. It doesn't make those positions reality no matter how much you wish them to be. The response to the virus has to be grounded in science and reality.

Good luck in the second wave Old Boy. I hope the stock exchange doesn't fall too much.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 ----------

Not peer reviewed evidence. Magnificent. Wait there while I go around shaking hands with everyone I meet. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be fair, there is a continuum of credibility between red-top conspiracy wailing and a peer reviewed paper, and an academic paper placed on a pre-press server like Arxiv is nearer the latter end of that continuum than the former. Random nut jobs don't get access to such services, and the fact that it's there means it is worth consideration. "one Prof of Stats' views" is unduly dismissive.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, really? I'm sure you did, jfman, but I'm not trawling through this whole thread to prove you wrong on that.

So why don't we start over. What are you actually suggesting the government should do that it's not already doing?

Popcorn's at the ready...

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

I did not claim it was peer reviewed, and the fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that the theory was without merit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The way I see it, there's two schools of thought on where we "are" with the spread of the virus.

If one is right and we're over the worst, then additionl lockdowns/restrictions will cause some loss to the economy.

If the other is right and we don't put measures in place, it'll cause loss of life.

I'll take the opinion that life is more valuable than money any day of the week and err on the side of caution every single time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Via the "Search this Thread" option.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not being dismissive, I'm trying to give it appropriate weight (as opposed to peer-reviewed papers).

However, I don't think people (and by people, I mean the red-tops that reported on the paper), actually read the summary fully - it states

The paper is only discussing infections that lead to deaths, not all infections - as treatment(s) improved and the NHS learned how to cope with the severe effects of the virus, deaths lessened (not overal infection rates).

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1600076990

Re: Coronavirus
 

'No normal', is of course not in lockdown forever as Old Boy portrays.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting that when the trial of vaccine was paused it was "front page news" but the resumption was much less trumpeted. And the pause was just normal process for the situation.

Archery GB has said that with social distancing we can continue to shoot. We are only outdoor at the moment so enjoying the good weather, not so much fun when it's colder and wet and darker earlier - likely to get pneumonia and all the hassles from that.

I don't like masks at all but will wear in shops etc more to get in but also to help others around me some of whom need protection but many just helps them feel safe. It's more a pain that some of the shops I want to visit only allow visits by appointment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Use the search function. :)

It doesn't mean it has any genuine scientific merit until it has been.

If you were right we would ease restrictions and numbers wouldn't rise. That's not the reality on the ground and now we've Government threatening a second lockdown unless people adhere to the new restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes it does, seeing as you criticised the timing of the lockdown, indicating that you consider it should've been done earlier.
Then again there's post #5071.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...c-coronavirus/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again this isn't a full lockdown. I know you're penchant for pedantry is a staple of the forum, however this is clearly not Old Boy's claim.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A concerning situation especially with the rise in the R-rate and students starting at university.
https://www.ft.com/content/45a559bd-...5-ac962ba49375

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Sizeable part of the way" is pretty close to a "full" of anything.
From your post #4638

So how is a "stronger lockdown", not more than a "full lockdown"?:confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a completely seperate point from what Old Boy has made so I refuse to get bogged down in it as you steer the conversation away from the pertinent points at hand. We’re staring down the barrel off a second lockdown and you’re arguing points I made months ago.

The second point relates to getting numbers to, or close to, zero pursuing an elimination strategy. It should not be read as suggesting lockdown until a vaccine.

Nowhere will you find me advocating a lockdown until a vaccine as Old Boy claimed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, this is now affecting me personally.

My son has develpoed a cough. Hopefully nothing serious but I'm having to keep him off of school. NHS told us to get him tested.

There are no tests available. None.

We're in Liverpool, we've been directed to a test centre in Doncaster. The Doncaster test centre has no tests available until September 26th.

What a shambles.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it told me that over the weekend but suddenly worked on Monday. Try again

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also can you order a home test or are those all taken?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just going to keep trying. The school is trying to get him a test as well.

All taken, it seems. Have tried every avenue we can think of.

Luckily aside from a bit of a cough, he's not bothered, but doesn't bode well given he's been back at school for a whole 6 days.

A couple of people at the school have remarked that this always happens when the kids go back, they always get ill and classrooms are a nightmare for sickness - which I agree with, but my worry is that this just goes to show that if COVID does hit a school, it'll run right through it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder if people's inability to get a test could be linked to this report in The Guardian yesterday. Not much point in giving tests if they can't get processed?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...re-overwhelmed

Re: Coronavirus
 

And it's getting worse: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/corona...d-19-symptoms/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Monday 14 September 2020, 3:36pm

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-09-14/...-sturgeon-says

Re: Coronavirus
 

Someone should be sacked over this whole ordeal.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are yes, the age old answer to everything, because that always solves the problem :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just keep him away from the grannies. Hopefully you will all be ok.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Frustrating as it is, these things take time to set up. With luck we will have a good system in place within a few weeks, but sadly too late for you guys.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If anyone gets fired it'll be some lacky anyway.

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Yes if only there was some sort of clue that we might need this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks, OLD BOY. Relatively sure it's just a regular cough, no other symptoms but we'll just wait and see.

I think in a situation where testing is so fundementally important to save lives, not having enough provisions for it more than 6 months since Lockdown began is inexcusable. Someone somewhere has made a colossal error, possibly a series of errors from a series of people and it should definitely be investigated.

Track & Trace doesn't work if you can't test people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah yes, I forgot you have subscribed to the paranoia.

The very small minority who get really ill will end up in hospital, where they can be treated properly, and as part of that, it will be verified if its down to CV19.

The vast majority of people will get a few symptoms, perhaps feel a little ill, and shake it off.
In fact, your own previous posts were telling us how we are all likely getting immune to it without even knowing.

Its amazing how many members of this forum would manage to do so much better, after the fact of course.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We're not employed to do better nor are we responsible for it. They are.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not really. You may recall that there were issues about the accuracy of the tests. This is not as straight forward as some would have us believe.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As far as I can see the Government has been increasing the capacity for processing tests ever since the pandemic started. There were not enough NHS labs in existance and, IMHO, it would not have been possible to build all the new facilities the NHS would have needed in the time given so going to the private sector was the only way possible. Emergency plannig could never be expected to be able to cope with such an unprecidented demand either at NHS or in the private sector

Can't find a singe neat link covering the increases of Laboritory capacity but here are just a few.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/03/n...-testing-labs/

https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/asset...9-Testing-NHS-

Laboratories.pdfhttps://www.medicaldevice-network.com/comment/lighthouse-labs-uk-covid-19-testing/

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's what makes it so easy for you to criticise, Damien.

Have you got sacked everytime someone who knows not very much decides to criticise your work?

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the selfish brigade who have absolutely no symptoms stop taking up valuable testing, designed for people who really do have symptoms, then maybe, just maybe, more places would become available for those in need of a test.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Repeated incompetence would get you the sack in any other job.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a nonsense argument.

The Government are and should be held to account on the results of what they produce. The logical conclusion of your argument that since we're not in charge we cannot judge is an argument to never criticising the Government at all.

I somehow doubt that this understanding would be extended by you to anything else and just seems to be involved in this one instance but you don't like it.

Forgive me if I am wrong and you've never criticised anyone in a position of authority you don't have?

And even when we do actually know something about what they're doing. Such as their NHS app that was never going to work and then turned out not to work we're still not allowed to criticise the Government.

Re: Coronavirus
 

l see lets demonise another group again as its such a easy thing to do to divert the blame from such wonderful world beating testing....

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s actually no real evidence for this. Nice of the Government to throw up a straw man though for their fans to use as a diversion tactic.

Still we will have 10 million tests a day by February. Hopefully they won’t get stuck at Calais as we send them to Germany for lab capacity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh right, I forgot this whole pandemic is just mass, global hysteria for no reason. Next you'll be telling me that hundreds of thousands of people haven't died.

Oh I know it's not straightforward at all, all the more reason why I'd prefer the best people were in charge of dealing with it.

You don't have to be an expert to know if something could be done better. If nothing else, the government should at least release a statement on the matter rather than letting us wait for Nicola Sturgeon to call them out on it. I'm a big fan of transparency but right now there's no bloody tests and there's nary a word from the government.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re wasting your time. Old Boy’s wild contortions and contradictions throughout this thread can only be summarised by the Government are right, all of the time, even when being right at a later point contradicts being right initially. Nobody, nobody, could have done better. Ever.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can believe what you want, but I know for a fact people that have done this, and if that's what's happening with a few people I know, then I'm pretty sure it's happening all over.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The official line is they would have to have either died anyway or died of something else. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

My East European boiler service man spent about 20 minutes this morning telling me all about how Covid is a Jewish conspiracy. It’s a bit of a nuisance, I have quite an old wood pellet (biomass) boiler and there are very few people qualified to service it. So I just nodded and smiled and waited for him to go away.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's a stupid comment, I expected better from you, Den, I'm not demonising anyone, just pointing out that its been happening. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

In my experience, of 3 large companies, over 40 years, no, it wont.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:05 ----------

Being an ass as usual.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died of many things, billions have not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Scotland wasn't being singled out.:rolleyes: Then again, why doesn't Scotland do it's own?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I want to know where all these conspiracy theorists think Jewish people are getting the time from? At some point you think their plate is a bit full wouldn't you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anecdotal evidence, Max. Yet despite this the numbers testing positive on a given day are trending up.

If random people were just getting tested, without symptoms, they’d be statistically more likely to test negative.

The reality is the virus is more prevalent in society. This will further increase demand for testing in winter as the second wave takes hold, and other ailments that cause similar symptoms spread.

If we lose control this ends one way. They better sort it, and fast.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Funny, I thought it was the Reptilians, using 5G.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Huawei.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So you're basically saying that I'm lying?