Cable Forum
Page 4 of 569 123 4 56781454104504 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 11-10-2020 18:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053319)
Frankly, I’d rather take my chances living my life rather than cowering in fear indoors for the rest of my life.

If people want a lock-down, they just need to lock down. No need to rely on the government to tell them to do it. Leave the rest of us alone.

The second wave is good evidence that lock-downs only slow the virus, they don’t eliminate it. How many more waves must we endure before people wake up to this reality?
Hahahaha.

Is this the latest. Calling everyone scared?

It’ll go away next summer, it just wasn’t warm enough this one. :D

You’re free to put yourself at risk as often as you please. Get an all day ticket for public transport and let us know how you get on.

The answer to your question at the end is as many lockdowns as it takes to get a vaccine.

This was of course completely avoidable by going for the New Zealand or South Korean approaches. We are the fifth richest country in the world but “it’s too hard”. :rolleyes:

papa smurf 11-10-2020 18:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053319)
Frankly, I’d rather take my chances living my life rather than cowering in fear indoors for the rest of my life.

If people want a lock-down, they just need to lock down. No need to rely on the government to tell them to do it. Leave the rest of us alone.

The second wave is good evidence that lock-downs only slow the virus, they don’t eliminate it. How many more waves must we endure before people wake up to this reality?
You're not on your own there.

jfman 11-10-2020 18:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Anyone who wants to contribute to herd immunity is more than free to go and hang around their nearest student halls. If you think 50-70% getting infected is a good thing, but want it to be other people and not you, then it’s more than a crass double standard.

Under the theory everyone who gets infected reduces opportunities for onward infection and the R number will decrease over time. It should be incentivised among those who believe it.

Sephiroth 11-10-2020 19:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
From my layman's perspective, problem is that nobody is immune at the moment.

Those with antibodies can still be infected and be infectious. Their degree of resistance may only have a minor effect but unless everyone is tested once a fortnight or summat, we can't really bring this under control nor really know what's going on.

Paul 11-10-2020 19:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053323)
If you think 50-70% getting infected is a good thing.
Well students are the most likely to suffer little more than an irritation.

Nottinghamshire is now going to suffer the latest parnoia rules just because Nottingham itself just got invaded by 50,000+ students last week [from all around the country] tons of who came back positive when tested, most had no clue until tested, they had zero symptoms. None are seriously ill, if ill at all.

Quote:
The city's director of public health said three-quarters of the 2,532 new positive cases in the city in the past seven days have been among people aged 18 to 22.

jfman 11-10-2020 19:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
That’s my point, Paul.

A lot of people keen to infect others, not so keen on it themselves. They’d no doubt voluntarily shield while it all plays out, while those in low paid and precarious work get to risk their health. It’s a laughable double standard. For an immunity unproven.

To reach 50-70% it’s almost impossible for it not to reach high risk groups at some stage - so no reason for anyone, whatever their age, who believes in this policy to not do their bit. Even those at risk still stand a better chance than a coin toss. Rather die free than live a prisoner, as they say.

OLD BOY 11-10-2020 20:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053321)
Hahahaha.

Is this the latest. Calling everyone scared?

It’ll go away next summer, it just wasn’t warm enough this one. :D

You’re free to put yourself at risk as often as you please. Get an all day ticket for public transport and let us know how you get on.

The answer to your question at the end is as many lockdowns as it takes to get a vaccine.

This was of course completely avoidable by going for the New Zealand or South Korean approaches. We are the fifth richest country in the world but “it’s too hard”. :rolleyes:
Well, what else is it? Lockdown after lockdown after lockdown and still the virus remains.

Let’s get this over and done with. If you want a lockdown, be my guest. I won’t be joining you.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:35 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053323)
Anyone who wants to contribute to herd immunity is more than free to go and hang around their nearest student halls. If you think 50-70% getting infected is a good thing, but want it to be other people and not you, then it’s more than a crass double standard.

Under the theory everyone who gets infected reduces opportunities for onward infection and the R number will decrease over time. It should be incentivised among those who believe it.
People should be free to make their own decisions. Personally, I will be steering clear of the universities.

Mr K 11-10-2020 20:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053336)

People should be free to make their own decisions. Personally, I will be steering clear of the universities.
Don't think they'd let you in anyway OB, unless there's a BSc in Talking Twaddle ;)

OLD BOY 11-10-2020 20:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053330)
That’s my point, Paul.

A lot of people keen to infect others, not so keen on it themselves. They’d no doubt voluntarily shield while it all plays out, while those in low paid and precarious work get to risk their health. It’s a laughable double standard. For an immunity unproven.

To reach 50-70% it’s almost impossible for it not to reach high risk groups at some stage - so no reason for anyone, whatever their age, who believes in this policy to not do their bit. Even those at risk still stand a better chance than a coin toss. Rather die free than live a prisoner, as they say.
No, the point is that the healthy population is pretty well immune to this virus and so it is better that they build up an immunity than having vulnerable people put in that position.

Nobody is advocating deliberate infection. Once again you are twisting what people say out of all recognition. You’re very good at that,I will admit.

jfman 11-10-2020 21:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053336)
Well, what else is it? Lockdown after lockdown after lockdown and still the virus remains.

Let’s get this over and done with. If you want a lockdown, be my guest. I won’t be joining you.
And if you wish to get infected with Covid-19, be my guest.

Quote:
People should be free to make their own decisions. Personally, I will be steering clear of the universities.
Ah, you want others to make up the herd. Gotcha!

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053340)
No, the point is that the healthy population is pretty well immune to this virus and so it is better that they build up an immunity than having vulnerable people put in that position.

Nobody is advocating deliberate infection. Once again you are twisting what people say out of all recognition. You’re very good at that,I will admit.
Literally achieving herd immunity in the manner you propose is deliberate infection. So you’re not personally keen on infection, despite the fact that for the vast, vast, majority have little/no symptoms. Thanks for clarifying, and vindicating my view that you are exhibiting fairly grotesque double standards.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36053339)
Don't think they'd let you in anyway OB, unless there's a BSc in Talking Twaddle ;)
He’d get nowhere in economics, certainly. Killing off your customers is bad for business. Unless you run an undertakers.

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053340)
No, the point is that the healthy population is pretty well immune to this virus and so it is better that they build up an immunity than having vulnerable people put in that position.

Nobody is advocating deliberate infection. Once again you are twisting what people say out of all recognition. You’re very good at that,I will admit.
It’s you that have described this as just a flu. What’s up, are you scared?

Paul 11-10-2020 22:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Lets stop making personal jibes now, before I have to step in.

OLD BOY 12-10-2020 07:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053342)

Literally achieving herd immunity in the manner you propose is deliberate infection. So you’re not personally keen on infection, despite the fact that for the vast, vast, majority have little/no symptoms. Thanks for clarifying, and vindicating my view that you are exhibiting fairly grotesque double standards.
What you fail to address is the fact that the method I have described will reduce deaths as well as protect the economy. You have just used pure emotion to try to twist everything and to be argumentative.

The key is to protect the vulnerable, particularly those in care homes. Most of the healthy population will scarcely get any symptoms at all. The medical experts are now coming around to this view themselves.

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053342)
It’s you that have described this as just a flu. What’s up, are you scared?
Many people were describing this as flu in the early days. Technically it is not flu, but actually it is very similar in many ways. If I remember correctly, SARS was called flu as well. It is a layman’s term. It’s killing more people than our normal flu strains because there has not been immunity built up and there is no vaccine.

Scared? If I was scared I wouldn’t be doing the school runs and living my life as normally as possible.

jfman 12-10-2020 08:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053364)
What you fail to address is the fact that the method I have described will reduce deaths as well as protect the economy. You have just used pure emotion to try to twist everything and to be argumentative.

The key is to protect the vulnerable, particularly those in care homes. Most of the healthy population will scarcely get any symptoms at all. The medical experts are now coming around to this view themselves.
Can you evidence that it’ll reduce deaths and protect the economy?

No. It’s entirely speculative. Sweden’s economy is tanking, they’re now also heading into a second wave like everyone else.

I haven’t seen any scientist join the “herd immunity” camp. The Great Barrington declaration was funded by an economic think tank, signed by some physios and experts in “alternative medicine”. In addition to the evidence above can you find me scientists who were in favour of lockdown restrictions now saying to let it rip through society?

Quote:
Many people were describing this as flu in the early days. Technically it is not flu, but actually it is very similar in many ways. If I remember correctly, SARS was called flu as well. It is a layman’s term. It’s killing more people than our normal flu strains because there has not been immunity built up and there is no vaccine.

Scared? If I was scared I wouldn’t be doing the school runs and living my life as normally as possible.
“As possible” is an interesting caveat.

Fundamentally you don’t want to be in the 50-70%, but are happy for people in low paid, precarious work on public transport, retail, hospitality and even some NHS workers to put themselves at risk for a policy that is a) unproven in medical terms and b) doesn’t protect the economy because like you nobody wants to be in the 50-70%.

Even just last week there was a case of a 74 year old, obese man with underlying health conditions staging a miraculous recovery with experimental treatments. Every day treatments are getting better and we get closer to a vaccine.

If it’s really about the economy why aren’t you advocating funding an effective public health response and the tried and tested measures from South Korea, New Zealand and other south east Asian countries?

If there’s one thing OB it’s that you’ve been ignoring the inevitable throughout this crisis and the longer significant numbers of people like you deny it the longer and more painful in health and economic terms this will be.

Maggy 12-10-2020 08:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Too many keyboard experts all over the internet.:(

heero_yuy 12-10-2020 09:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Quote from The Sun: Companies collecting track-and-trace data for pubs and restaurants are harvesting customer information to sell for profit, it has been claimed.

They have clauses in their terms and conditions stating they can use details scanned in by customers for other means.

The small-print warnings mean data can be shared with third parties.

Customers typically scan QR codes to give names, addresses and phone numbers — unaware their data is passed on to marketing companies and insurance brokers.

The privacy policy of one company used by a London restaurant chain says it stores data for 25 years.

Legal experts have warned of a “privacy crisis”.
Glad my phone doesn't "do" QR codes so the local just takes a name and phone number.

I wonder how much other incidental data is being collected and shared around?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59.
Page 4 of 569 123 4 56781454104504 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.