Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Escobarp

    2514

  • Spider

    1936

  • Tonge moor green jacket

    1809

  • boltondiver

    1729

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was one of the loveliest things to ever happen. Stood in my garden sobbing like a baby! Proud to work for the NHS 👏👏👏👏❤️

My uncle lost his battle to this in Royal Bolton this morning, so he will be one of today’s numbers.  last rites over the phone held by a nurse with no family there. made an exception yester

I’ve sat with my mum who is slipping away, literally breathing her last today. She idolises the Queen, and whilst she didn’t in all likelihood hear that, I know she would have loved every single

Posted Images

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, Spider said:

Some of the figures they gave yesterday seem to contradict themselves (but @peelyfeet can probably set me straight)

they say only 8% of the population have had it, yet said 100k infections were probably happening daily during the peak. Let’s say that’s 50 days at the peak, that’s 5 million people. Add in another few million either side of the peak and that’s way more than 8%

Does smack of fearmongering, which isn’t their job.

Population is 66 million, so 10% is 6.6 million

100k average a day for 50 days gives you 5 million, sounds about right from their figures, 

million either side gives you 7m so that's roughly 11%

 

It's not too far off, however I do wonder what they base their figures off, as the last time I saw figures banded about, it was based on Londoners having antibody tests and isn't a true reflection. 

 

We have kids coming back from Isolation this week, if there has been cases from the inner school contact, we haven't heard from them, which could mean either

a) it doesn't show in young people the same (we already know this to some extent)

b) It doesn't spread as easily as is made out by the media etc, but does spread more in continued contact. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

No managed socially distanced football attending but crack on going to the pub and mixing as you please.

It’s clear to me pubs are the number 1 setting where folk will spread the virus. 

I’ve said previously that the pubs I went in handled it well. The restaurants also. Many didn’t and that is the problem. 
Heard a pub owner on the radio this morning saying that the 10pm curfew would ruin his business because that’s his busiest time. That’s the whole point though, busy pubs mean more chance of spreading the virus. The late curfew is common across Europe. If it works then it’s surely better than closing completely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boby Brno said:

I’ve said previously that the pubs I went in handled it well. The restaurants also. Many didn’t and that is the problem. 
Heard a pub owner on the radio this morning saying that the 10pm curfew would ruin his business because that’s his busiest time. That’s the whole point though, busy pubs mean more chance of spreading the virus. The late curfew is common across Europe. If it works then it’s surely better than closing completely. 

I should of said some pubs, we’ve all seen them, rammed inside rammed outside, pubs where it’s service at table and table drinking only are fine, it’s the aforementioned type the problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ani said:

Does anyone on here think this is something we should just ignore and let it work it’s way through ? 

Not ignore per se but we need to be getting back to normal life now. Whatever happened to 2-3 weeks to slow the spread and protect the NHS? 

The indirect effects of these draconian measures will far outweigh any effects from a relatively harmless virus. 
 

Deterioration of the country’s mental health, suicides up, millions of missed cancer screenings, child abuse increasing, domestic abuse increasing, alcohol abuse increasing, drug abuse increasing, millions unemployed, industries decimated, national debt increased but tax revenues down, terrible psychological impact on children seeing everyone walking around in masks and hearing there’s a deadly virus circulating, not to mention the fact they’ve missed months of education. 

I could go on. The list is almost endless.

 

Sweden got it right and can now start returning to normality. The rest of us got it horrendously wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 pubs got shut in poulton. Word spread it was due to lack of social distancing and the likes. It wasnt. It was due to one girl working a shift in each pub who later tested positive. (Same fella owns all 3)

A baby shower was held in one of those pubs on sunday lunch with 6 people. One of them later tested postive and she was a teacher at a school in thornton. That led to to two year groups being sent home.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bromers said:

Not ignore per se but we need to be getting back to normal life now. Whatever happened to 2-3 weeks to slow the spread and protect the NHS? 

The indirect effects of these draconian measures will far outweigh any effects from a relatively harmless virus. 
 

Deterioration of the country’s mental health, suicides up, millions of missed cancer screenings, child abuse increasing, domestic abuse increasing, alcohol abuse increasing, drug abuse increasing, millions unemployed, industries decimated, national debt increased but tax revenues down, terrible psychological impact on children seeing everyone walking around in masks and hearing there’s a deadly virus circulating, not to mention the fact they’ve missed months of education. 

I could go on. The list is almost endless.

 

Sweden got it right and can now start returning to normality. The rest of us got it horrendously wrong.

This. 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
12 minutes ago, bromers said:

Not ignore per se but we need to be getting back to normal life now. Whatever happened to 2-3 weeks to slow the spread and protect the NHS? 

The indirect effects of these draconian measures will far outweigh any effects from a relatively harmless virus. 
 

Deterioration of the country’s mental health, suicides up, millions of missed cancer screenings, child abuse increasing, domestic abuse increasing, alcohol abuse increasing, drug abuse increasing, millions unemployed, industries decimated, national debt increased but tax revenues down, terrible psychological impact on children seeing everyone walking around in masks and hearing there’s a deadly virus circulating, not to mention the fact they’ve missed months of education. 

I could go on. The list is almost endless.

 

Sweden got it right and can now start returning to normality. The rest of us got it horrendously wrong.

Second sentence says everything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bromers said:

Not ignore per se but we need to be getting back to normal life now. Whatever happened to 2-3 weeks to slow the spread and protect the NHS? 

The indirect effects of these draconian measures will far outweigh any effects from a relatively harmless virus. 
 

Deterioration of the country’s mental health, suicides up, millions of missed cancer screenings, child abuse increasing, domestic abuse increasing, alcohol abuse increasing, drug abuse increasing, millions unemployed, industries decimated, national debt increased but tax revenues down, terrible psychological impact on children seeing everyone walking around in masks and hearing there’s a deadly virus circulating, not to mention the fact they’ve missed months of education. 

I could go on. The list is almost endless.

 

Sweden got it right and can now start returning to normality. The rest of us got it horrendously wrong.

Sweden covered above. 
 

I am confused by your response. What are you saying we do ? With infections rising rapidly. You say not ignore it so what actions ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

Suppression isn’t working too well, we need to look at other scientists.

Carl Heneghan seems to have clarity.

Alternatively, it may have worked very well. What would the place looked like had we done little?

No one really knows, but we could all hazard a guess.

I noted a South African policy early doors in all this: a ban of alcohol sales- how about that over here! A nuclear option :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spider said:

Some of the figures they gave yesterday seem to contradict themselves (but @peelyfeet can probably set me straight)

they say only 8% of the population have had it, yet said 100k infections were probably happening daily during the peak. Let’s say that’s 50 days at the peak, that’s 5 million people. Add in another few million either side of the peak and that’s way more than 8%

Does smack of fearmongering, which isn’t their job.

100k infections was the peak, the numbers a few weeks before were miles lower because of exponential growth, the numbers a few weeks after lockdown dropped off a cliff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boltondiver said:

Suppression isn’t working too well, we need to look at other scientists.

Carl Heneghan seems to have clarity.

Carl Henegan said this 5 days ago

 

He said in Parliament's Science and Technology Committee: '[The] question is what impact is it having?

'For instance I looked at Bolton NHS Trust and saw that there were two patients with Covid in hospital there right now

'So I think that's where you start to provide context as opposed to just throwing the [infection rate] number. 

'And I think we do need to have now more data that allows people to put the information in context as opposed to just seeing a number, think it's rising and then panic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8744625/How-locked-Bolton-TWO-Covid-19-patients-hospital.html 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, peelyfeet said:

Carl Henegan said this 5 days ago

 

He said in Parliament's Science and Technology Committee: '[The] question is what impact is it having?

'For instance I looked at Bolton NHS Trust and saw that there were two patients with Covid in hospital there right now

'So I think that's where you start to provide context as opposed to just throwing the [infection rate] number. 

'And I think we do need to have now more data that allows people to put the information in context as opposed to just seeing a number, think it's rising and then panic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8744625/How-locked-Bolton-TWO-Covid-19-patients-hospital.html 

He also sorted out the numbers for the Government in the summer

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

He also sorted out the numbers for the Government in the summer

Do you think he was accurate in his assesment of Bolton's hospitalisation numbers in relation to infection rates last week?

I don't - the point he was trying to make was that hospitalisations in Bolton werent following the trend of rising infection cases,  yet he used the hospitalistion data from 3rd september, which would refelect the infection rate from mid August, when the infection rate in Bolton was about 21 per 100,000 - bit shit that I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
19 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Do you think he was accurate in his assesment of Bolton's hospitalisation numbers in relation to infection rates last week?

I don't - the point he was trying to make was that hospitalisations in Bolton werent following the trend of rising infection cases,  yet he used the hospitalistion data from 3rd september, which would refelect the infection rate from mid August, when the infection rate in Bolton was about 21 per 100,000 - bit shit that I think.

The news article is well aware that the data wasn't accurate, hence the wording in the first few lines. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
20 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Do you think he was accurate in his assesment of Bolton's hospitalisation numbers in relation to infection rates last week?

I don't - the point he was trying to make was that hospitalisations in Bolton werent following the trend of rising infection cases,  yet he used the hospitalistion data from 3rd september, which would refelect the infection rate from mid August, when the infection rate in Bolton was about 21 per 100,000 - bit shit that I think.

Not allowing for the lag then?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.