Coronavirus

[Escobarp 1,522]

Just now, Spider said:

Look at @Rudy

Fit lad in his 40’s and even he’s struggling today.

One of the girls at my missus place is in a shit state and she’s 32.

40’s 😁😁😁

[boltondiver 1,401]

6 minutes ago, Underpants said:

You're right. We are amateurs. But the professionals say they do work. I'll go with that. Interesting to know why you don't.

I’m not sure I’ve seen any justification that they have worked.

But once you have used a tool in your armoury then it might be viewed badly if you don’t reach for it again.

Have we reached for lockdown too readily? In my view, probably.

[boltondiver 1,401]

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Cannot agree whatsoever. 

We had the warmest/driest spring that started early. 

We went into lockdown in March around about the time the weather became splendid.

It took that period to get the numbers down, without doing so the numbers would have carried on Northwards, despite the good weather.

OK, the weather will help in terms of slowing an increase, but to use that as justifying it as a seasonal condition is surely understating this disease massively. 

It is also possible that without a lockdown, many more gatherings would have happened and we'd have been up shit creek earlier.

The gradual opening up is probable testament to that: despite it being a slow opening, case rates did start to rise and then came school opening which added to the spread.

It is unfortunate that only severe tier levels have shown an ability to slow and start to reduce the spread, and that lockdowns have been needed to check it quickly. 

Look at the graph of the last lockdown 

it exploded as soon as it finished, which could only have been brewing during lockdown 

 

[Spider 2,182]

4 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I’m not sure I’ve seen any justification that they have worked.

But once you have used a tool in your armoury then it might be viewed badly if you don’t reach for it again.

Have we reached for lockdown too readily? In my view, probably.

As you say, we’ll never know

But I’m going with the science on this one.

America has had a half arsed lockdown and has lost the battle

[royal white 601]

34 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Funny

here is my overall view on lockdowns;

1. We have no evidence that they work. The scientists say that if we don’t lock down, then this will happen. We’ve never seen the non-lockdown outcome. 

2. We do know the damage they have caused; financially, other health, education etc. @birch-chorleyhas gone quiet, perhaps he’s just too frustrated.

I would think that when the future checklist is analysed, it will be that the cure will be far greater than the disease.

As I’ve said, I think, from very early, the job was to keep those vulnerable out of the way of the virus. Hardly any healthy under 60s have died, so, again, could we have better allocated resource?

But, from where we are, we have to, it seems, look after the NHS.

But, is there a lot of spin there?

as ever, I’m happy to be wrong, especially with this virus 

Surely the best way to do that is through lockdown?

[Rudy 1,329]

7 minutes ago, Spider said:

Look at @Rudy

Fit lad in his 40’s and even he’s struggling today.

One of the girls at my missus place is in a shit state and she’s 32.

Cheeky bastard. 
 

I won’t see 40 at this rate 

[bolton_blondie 150]

7 minutes ago, Spider said:

Look at @Rudy

Fit lad in his 40’s and even he’s struggling today.

One of the girls at my missus place is in a shit state and she’s 32.

Old bastard 😂

[Tonge moor green jacket 1,626]

30 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Funny

here is my overall view on lockdowns;

1. We have no evidence that they work. The scientists say that if we don’t lock down, then this will happen. We’ve never seen the non-lockdown outcome. 

 

We hadn't seen much about global warming until fairly recently. Thankfully scientists saw it, without significant evidence and the world is reacting, albeit slowly.

Moreover, evidence shows they do work- I dont understand why you say the opposite. Each time we have one, numbers drop.

They are a common approach when numbers rise, to the same effect.

Other nations do them earlier and harder, and maybe have different political and cultural attitudes, but essentially they all do it, locally or nationally. 

Whilst we haven't seen a non lockdown outcome, we haven't seen the economic effect of that neither. Nor perhaps the effect on services we take as granted had numbers become so high that workers who manage utilities and local services become too few on the ground.

May be this is all a bit grand, but I'm glad we haven't found out.

[boltondiver 1,401]

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

We hadn't seen much about global warming until fairly recently. Thankfully scientists saw it, without significant evidence and the world is reacting, albeit slowly.

Moreover, evidence shows they do work- I dont understand why you say the opposite. Each time we have one, numbers drop.

They are a common approach when numbers rise, to the same effect.

Other nations do them earlier and harder, and maybe have different political and cultural attitudes, but essentially they all do it, locally or nationally. 

Whilst we haven't seen a non lockdown outcome, we haven't seen the economic effect of that neither. Nor perhaps the effect on services we take as granted had numbers become so high that workers who manage utilities and local services become too few on the ground.

May be this is all a bit grand, but I'm glad we haven't found out.

Apparently last year was the warmest year ever.

[Underpants 363]

3 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I’m not sure I’ve seen any justification that they have worked.

But once you have used a tool in your armoury then it might be viewed badly if you don’t reach for it again.

Have we reached for lockdown too readily? In my view, probably.

Scientists - total lockdown for 6 months.

 

Government - no can do. Country will go bust. Can do short lockdowns and see how it goes.

 

Rates drop but folk piss about and a new variant put in an appearance.

 

New lockdown implemented. Rates drop.

 

Lockdown reduced (again). Folk then pick & choose (again) what parts of the new regs they will break (again).

 

Let's just hope the big brains come up with a vaccine to combat selfish dickheads. There's a few on here who should volunteer for clinical tests.

[Tonge moor green jacket 1,626]

12 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Look at the graph of the last lockdown 

it exploded as soon as it finished, which could only have been brewing during lockdown 

 

The rise started as restrictions were eased.

Look at the bottom bull- one person, to umpteen others who contact others, all within a day or two. Easy to see how instances suddenly grow quickly. 

Remember the words of Whitty- he explained that it was about small steps. Some complained because the pub was open but haircuts were a no-no. This was precisely because of what they were trying; a bit here and a bit there and see what worked best. He said at the time it wasn't a case of stopping it entirely, but managing it.

I think what was perhaps unfortunate, was that the well intentioned eat out scheme may have slightly underestimated the ability of the virus to spread even in such "sanitised" conditions- impossible to fully quantify, but add that those other openings and the growth arrived.

Nowt wrong with trying things, we were all glad of it, and it shouldn't be used to beat the authorities.

Some contribution also perhaps through non compliance, but that happens no matter what restrictions are in place, and makes lockdowns more likely. 

[Zico 1,832]

3 hours ago, Boby Brno said:

Cases in London are out of control according to Mayor Khan. Didn’t they cancel Christmas down there?

 

No 

Christmas shopping on Oxford Street 

They should never have been in Tier 2

 

[e2e4 37]

remember when that scientist guy programmed a computer to create a new species of bread yeast ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

why cant they do it with this virus ?

create like a shit version that doesnt work right but takes over or outbreeds the bad versions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

sounds like a film , but i assume it would be quicker than pissing about with lab mice or dogs or bearcats. 

 

 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket 1,626]

9 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Apparently last year was the warmest year ever.

A regular occurrence over the previous couple of decades.

[Not in Crawley 452]

25 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Surfaces. Stuff in supermarkets infected by folk who won’t stay at home. People going to work because they’ve no choice sadly. Loads of reasons. 
 

also I’m sure it’s now impacting under 60’s quite badly im reading?

ive just got a text now to say my mates mum and dad are both now in icu with covid. Dad went in weds and mum has followed him this afternoon. Both had Xmas with the family when restrictions were relaxed. Family are now pointing fingers as to who’s at fault. Sad times. 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext

I think the surface transmission thing was dismissed at the end of summer as a main source of catching the illness. Much like other airborne illnesses. Hence the advice about washing shopp8ng etc dropping of the advice list.

[Escobarp 1,522]

1 minute ago, Not in Crawley said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext

I think the surface transmission thing was dismissed at the end of summer as a main source of catching the illness. Much like other airborne illnesses. Hence the advice about washing shopp8ng etc dropping of the advice list.

So why are we still washing hands and all that? Is that not part of the ongoing advice still? 

[Not in Crawley 452]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

So why are we still washing hands and all that? Is that not part of the ongoing advice still? 

Because of airborne droplets, just read the first couple of paras of the Lancet article.

[Zico 1,832]

2 hours ago, Rudy said:

If anyone fancies sending their wife or paying for a brass to tickle my coin purse one last time before I croak it I’d be eternally grateful 

I'd happily send my Mrs round to sort you out but for the fact it's too risky, and I'm not talking about the fact you've got covid

 

[Escobarp 1,522]

Just now, Not in Crawley said:

Because of airborne droplets, just read the first couple of paras of the Lancet article.

Cheers. So it’s the fact it might land directly on us rather than through touching it second hand if you like. Makes sense. Suppose it’s difficult to actually differentiate how somebody caught it in reality. 
 

but follow the science we must 

[Not in Crawley 452]

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

Cheers. So it’s the fact it might land directly on us rather than through touching it second hand if you like. Makes sense. Suppose it’s difficult to actually differentiate how somebody caught it in reality. 
 

but follow the science we must 

Yeah, the washing the hands is really in case you have it. So say you sneeze, then touch a surface with those droplets and someone else immediately touches the droplets. So washing our hands is also protecting other folk.

This describes it better than I could, but also I guess they are finding new this about the virus and its transmissions all the time.

"the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze (within 1–2 h). I do not disagree with erring on the side of caution, but this can go to extremes not justified by the data. Although periodically disinfecting surfaces and use of gloves are reasonable precautions especially in hospitals, I believe that fomites that have not been in contact with an infected carrier for many hours do not pose a measurable risk of transmission in non-hospital settings. A more balanced perspective is needed to curb excesses that become counterproductive."

[only1swanny 150]

People will bend the rules as much as they can. Allowing for common sense had to be ignored as people will find loop holes to suit themselves unless it's written clear as day.

Essential shops...should not include click and collect for bonus essentials. 

I dropped some Jean's at the seamstress, dya reckon it's still open? More than likely 

 

[Rudy 1,329]

11 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

I'd happily send my Mrs round to sort you out but for the fact it's too risky, and I'm not talking about the fact you've got covid

 

Oh she’ll be eating whale blubber, as soon as I free Willy 

[Boby Brno 467]

6 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext

I think the surface transmission thing was dismissed at the end of summer as a main source of catching the illness. Much like other airborne illnesses. Hence the advice about washing shopp8ng etc dropping of the advice list.

It’s one view, many others disagree. Even that report says that it’s not a major source of transmission. It doesn’t dismiss it entirely. Even a minor source of transmission is dangerous.

Both myself and my wife each carry sanitizers wherever we go. 
Almost twelve months to the day, we were travelling through Hong Kong airport. My wife picked up a couple of small bottles of hand sanitizer from a large display basket in a shop. Never seen anything like that before at the time but they are everywhere here now. Same with face masks.
They’ve been through it before. We should learn from them.

 

[royal white 601]

The stupidity of some of these clowns on Facebook at the minute is unreal. Links to a post where the headline read
 

“Man dies 2 days after having a vaccine” 

I told you it’s not safe!  said post then gets dozens of likes and shares. What hope is there? 

[Not in Crawley 452]

2 minutes ago, Boby Brno said:

It’s one view, many others disagree. Even that report says that it’s not a major source of transmission. It doesn’t dismiss it entirely. Even a minor source of transmission is dangerous.

Both myself and my wife each carry sanitizers wherever we go. 
Almost twelve months to the day, we were travelling through Hong Kong airport. My wife picked up a couple of small bottles of hand sanitizer from a large display basket in a shop. Never seen anything like that before at the time but they are everywhere here now. Same with face masks.
They’ve been through it before. We should learn from them.

 

We still use hand sanitisers but its the common view that surface transmission certainly isn't as much a danger as thought of in the first instance, which makes sense.