Coronavirus - Page 70

Mad Max · 20-11-2020, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Please let us know if there are/were any side effects. They would have happened by now based on my past experience.

Absolutely no side effects, Seph.

**Chris** · 20-11-2020, 17:42

A previous employer used to give me a flu vaccine - every year for 7 years, never had any side effects.

papa smurf · 20-11-2020, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Buddy, I lived in West Berlin during the height of the Cold War, surrounded by the totalitarian East German regime - can I politely suggest you are being rather hyperbolic?

It must have been hell for you.

**Hugh** · 20-11-2020, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It must have been hell for you.

Actually, it was mostly enjoyable, as West Berlin was a showplace of freedom and Capitalism to rebut the GDR propaganda, and the locals were really pleased we were there (considering the alternative), but with the ever-present presence of an East German Armoured Guards Brigade about a kilometer from our Married Quarter, and working in the most visible target in West Berlin (NSA Teufelsberg), and being 110 kilometres from the West German border meaning in the event of conflict very little chance of getting out, which put a slight dark cloud over the experience.

But we were soldiers* once, and young...

*airmen, actually

TheDaddy · 20-11-2020, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Now, there you go virtue signalling again

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, it was mostly enjoyable, as West Berlin was a showplace of freedom and Capitalism to rebut the GDR propaganda, and the locals were really pleased we were there (considering the alternative), but with the ever-present presence of an East German Armoured Guards Brigade about a kilometer from our Married Quarter, and working in the most visible target in West Berlin (NSA Teufelsberg), and being 110 kilometres from the West German border meaning in the event of conflict very little chance of getting out, which put a slight dark cloud over the experience.

But we were soldiers* once, and young...

*airmen, actually

Airperson

**Hugh** · 20-11-2020, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Airperson

Nah, we had airmen (who were in the RAF), and airwomen (who were in the WRAF) - there’s only the RAF now, as they merged in 1994, and now there are airmen and airwomen in the RAF.

Pierre · 20-11-2020, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

The more recent figures are incomplete.
Link

Ok I’ve left it 9 days more than enough.

Still.............

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

The data hasn’t changed. Deaths and those in ICU still at 30% of the initial wave and now dropping.

No evidence at all that rates are dropping are due to this “lockdown”*. * not a lockdown at all anyway.

jfman · 21-11-2020, 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ok I’ve left it 9 days more than enough.

Still.............

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

The data hasn’t changed. Deaths and those in ICU still at 30% of the initial wave and now dropping.

No evidence at all that rates are dropping are due to this “lockdown”*. * not a lockdown at all anyway.

I'm not sure how that conclusion follows, but either way with a vaccination in sight the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks.

Pierre · 21-11-2020, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm not sure how that conclusion follows, but either way with a vaccination in sight the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks.

Well my initial point was that after more than a week, after being told that my view was potentially incorrect due to a time delay in the data being collated, that actually what I posted has stayed firm.

jfman · 21-11-2020, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well my initial point was that after more than a week, after being told that my view was potentially incorrect due to a time delay in the data being collated, that actually what I posted has stayed firm.

It has stayed firm with increasing restrictions in more areas over time.

The logical conclusion would be that not increasing restrictions, or worse easing them, would cause more cases, more hospitalisations, more ICU admission and ultimately more deaths.

1andrew1 · 21-11-2020, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm not sure how that conclusion follows, but either way with a vaccination in sight the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks.

Also with a vacation in sight, the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks.

nomadking · 21-11-2020, 00:51

So there were no tiered restrictions in place before 5th Nov? No partial lockdowns in Scotland and Wales?
If restrictions hadn't been imposed then figures would've gone upwards.
If restrictions had been lifted the figures would've sky-rocketed and further overwhelmed the NHS etc.
Today Northamptonshire

Quote:

The news came just hours after the county's Public Health Director revealed there had been a "significant increase" in outbreaks of the virus at the two hospitals.

Lucy Wightman said: "The position has unfortunately deteriorated in the last few days."

Not a uniform picture

Quote:

The ONS said: "Over the last week, infection rates have continued to increase in some parts to the UK — London, the East of England and the South East — however rates now appear to be decreasing in the North West and the East Midlands."

Doesn't sound too good
Link

Quote:

A meeting to discuss military support for Hull has been held over what is being called the city's "Covid-19 emergency".

Hull continues to have the worst infection rates in England, with 748 cases per 100,000 people in the seven days to 15 November.

The gathering, between council leaders, MPs and the government's Covid-19 taskforce, was described as "positive".

jfman · 21-11-2020, 04:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Also with a vacation in sight, the Government are simply not going to take any unnecessary risks.

In fairness to the Government, I doubt they would take significant risks anyway. Despite the "Back to the office" push from the right wing press, Graham Brady and IDS (Ian Duncan-Smith, but IDS sounds like a virus so seemed apt) the evidence has always been clear to avoid unnecessary contact with others.

How, where and when we can push the limits has, rightly, been up for question over time. However, for those who take the bury-head-in-sand approach the same decision making that forced lockdown in March has created these restrictions now. While schools are open everything else is gone.

The decision making has remained the same - therefore what has changed between March and now. If the answer is, as I have said all along, absolutely nothing. Then we see predictable outcomes and greater restrictions.

Pierre · 21-11-2020, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

It has stayed firm with increasing restrictions in more areas over time.

The logical conclusion would be that not increasing restrictions, or worse easing them, would cause more cases, more hospitalisations, more ICU admission and ultimately more deaths.

The logical conclusion would have been seeing deaths and ICU continue to rise, due to the “lag”. But the data shows them levelling off before then.

Just confirms that shutting the pubs and boutique shops (as that’s really all that has changed) was unnecessary.

jfman · 21-11-2020, 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

The logical conclusion would have been seeing deaths and ICU continue to rise, due to the “lag”. But the data shows them levelling off before then.

Just confirms that shutting the pubs and boutique shops (as that’s really all that has changed) was unnecessary.

I genuinely don’t see how your conclusion links with the data.