Jump to content

Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )


CJGJ

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JudyJudyJudy

    7875

  • Victorian

    4204

  • redjambo

    3883

  • The Real Maroonblood

    3626

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Jambo 4 Ever said:

350 more cases

3 deaths 

 

Numbers just keep going up. Surely Sturgeon is going to tighten restrictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

👍
 

I have also realised I always thought it was a lightsaver no sabre. Every day is a school day

 

??? Do you mean "lightsaber"? If so, it's an American variant spelling of "sabre" that's being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottish numbers: 19 September 2020

  • 350 new cases of COVID-19 reported; this is 5.3% of newly tested individuals.
  • 3 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive.
  • 9 people were in intensive care yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19.
  • 64 people were in hospital with recently confirmed COVID-19.
  • 24,080 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Numbers just keep going up. Surely Sturgeon is going to tighten restrictions. 

 

+80 in NHS Lothian today. I'd be very surprised if there's no local lockdown in Edinburgh come Monday/Tuesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

+80 in NHS Lothian today. I'd be very surprised if there's no local lockdown in Edinburgh come Monday/Tuesday.

East Lothian higher per 100k than Renfrew and Dumbartonshire when they went into lockdown

Edited by vegas-voss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
3 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Not all, but some. I know a couple of folk who couldn't get theirs. Hopefully things will work out but the mental anguish has been torture for them.

 

 

I know of 3 people who didn't get theirs and died before they should have. One was a 45 single mum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/09/2020 at 09:18, Governor Tarkin said:

 

@Bugsy Siegel works there.

PHM and all round good-guy  so he's not often on here, but if he see's this tag I'm sure he'd be happy to clarify.

No worries Gov.

 

The admissions have continued throughout the whole pandemic but at a very low count. The wards that were set up to specifically deal with covid patients have very rarely ever been full. That may change in the next few weeks depending on  this so called 2nd wave that's supposed to be coming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jambo89 said:

I did and found no reliable sources (other than the one study posted, and even that was conducted 6 years ago and published 5 years ago). 

 

Where is the evidence that face masks do not prevent the spread of infections? 

 

Edit: by evidence, I mean reliable studies (plural) that have been peer reviewed and results replicated. 

 

I'm not getting involved in whether they do/don't work but your logic is really flawed. You don't prove something like that doesn't work, you prove that it does.

 

By your logic wearing socks must prevent the spread of infection because there is no evidence to disprove it.

Edited by Taffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm not getting involved in whether they do/don't work but your logic is really flawed. You don't prove something like that doesn't work, you prove that it does.

 

By your logic wearing red socks must prevent the spread of infection because there is no evidence to disprove it.

 

You have inadvertently backed up my point with your flippant 'red sock' remark. There is no evidence because it is so blatantly obvious that sock colour does not prevent deaths from Covid, and is therefore not worth further study.

 

As I've posted before, Where is the evidence that parachutes prevent deaths when sky-diving? There haven't been any studies on whether or not they do.

 

The reason there isn't any studies in to parachutes is because the answer is so obvious that it is not worth investigating.

 

Now extrapolate that above point to masks and ask yourself why there is so few studies in to the efficacy of mask wearing as a preventative measure for spreading infection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

 

You have inadvertently backed up my point with your flippant 'red sock' remark. There is no evidence because it is so blatantly obvious that sock colour does not prevent deaths from Covid, and is therefore not worth further study.

 

As I've posted before, Where is the evidence that parachutes prevent deaths when sky-diving? There haven't been any studies on whether or not they do.

 

The evidence for your parachute anology is apparent to eye. Push 100 people with a parachute out of a plane and 100 without and you can conclude parachutes work at preventing death when skydiving. That can be proven true quite clearly. Masks probably can also be proven to work, but that's the way to show their efficacy, not by saying there's nothing to say the don't work.

 

5 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

 

The reason there isn't any studies in to parachutes is because the answer is so obvious that it is not worth investigating.

 

Now extrapolate that above point to masks and ask yourself why there is so few studies in to the efficacy of mask wearing as a preventative measure for spreading infection.

 

 

I'm not arguing for or against masks or whether they do or don't work but the burden of proof lies on proving they do work. Not that they don't. I eat 3 eggs for breakfast each day and haven't had coronavirus, therefore it must mean eggs make you immune. Show me a study that disproves it.

 

When looking to improve health outcomes you look for evidence that something does work, not a lack of evidence that it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


Nah I meant lightsaver. As in light that saves your life. 
 

😂

 

I thought that was Trump's great idea. ;)  Along with the bleach of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

The evidence for your parachute anology is apparent to eye. Push 100 people with a parachute out of a plane and 100 without and you can conclude parachutes work at preventing death when skydiving. That can be proven true quite clearly. Masks probably can also be proven to work, but that's the way to show their efficacy, not by saying there's nothing to say the don't work.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing for or against masks or whether they do or don't work but the burden of proof lies on proving they do work. Not that they don't. I eat 3 eggs for breakfast each day and haven't had coronavirus, therefore it must mean eggs make you immune. Show me a study that disproves it.

 

When looking to improve health outcomes you look for evidence that something does work, not a lack of evidence that it doesn't.

 

This is wrong, plain and simple.

 

The claim is that they don't work, not that they do. The base-line / accepted principal is that wearing a mask prevents spread of infections (otherwise, why would surgeons / dentists / vets etc etc. where them?).

 

This is the sort of things that the religious extremists come out with.  They some how manage to think that the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove that there is no god, much like the you placing the burden on scientists to prove masks do work. 

 

At risk of repeating myself, the reason there is so little evidence for the efficacy of masks, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant, in this case, the claimant who says they don't work. 

Edited by jambo89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Statistically how many die in road traffic accidents when none of those involved have broken the road safety laws/rules?

 

There is health and safety all over our lives to make things safer, many of them just common sense ones we employ ourselves.

 

You cannot say that this illness does pose danger to life of a large number of currently healthy people, because it did when it was circulating in massive numbers before and it has not reached that level yet.

 

This is not about lockdown v no lockdown or whatever measures we think are correct, I am just saying we can't and shouldn't pretend everything is fine for under 60s and always was.

No, absolutely not. I agree, and certainly I didn't want to give the impression that there is no threat to under 60s. But living is all about risks and managing them. 

Even when circulatimg in "massive" numbers , the majority of us probably didnt know anyone who had it. It has and will only affect a small percentage of society. People should have the right to manage their own risks. There is no inevitability about young people passing it on to older people if the latter group are taking precautions and following the rules. That's why scientific models are flawed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
55 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I know of 3 people who didn't get theirs and died before they should have. One was a 45 single mum. 

That’s horrendous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

 

This is wrong, plain and simple.

 

The claim is that they don't work, not that they do. The base-line / accepted principal is that wearing a mask prevents spread of infections (otherwise, why would surgeons / dentists / vets etc etc. where them?).

 

This is the sort of things that the religious extremists come out with.  They some how manage to think that the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove that there is no god, much like the you placing the burden on scientists to prove masks do work. 

 

 

You've again got it mixed up again. You're arguing on the basis of 'prove God doesn't exist'.

 

Quote

At risk of repeating myself, the reason there is so little evidence for the efficacy of masks, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant, in this case, the claimant who says they don't work. 

 

A lack of evidence for something is just that. A lack of evidence to show that argument is true. It doesn't prove something else is true.

Edited by Taffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

You've again got it mixed up again. You're arguing on the basis of 'prove God doesn't exist'.

 

 

A lack of evidence for something is just that. A lack of evidence to show that argument is true. It doesn't prove something else is true.

 No you're not getting it. 

 

The base-line is atheism. The argument you are using is prove god doesn't exists. 

 

The base-line is wear a mask. The argument is prove they don't exist.

 

You are the religious nutter in this scenario. The default position shouldn't be a belief in god, just as the default position shouldn't be that masks don't work. 

 

As for your last line, It is not a lack of evidence, and I have not once said that (If I did, i certainly didn't mean it). It is a lack of study which is the indicator. 2 different things.

 

 

Edited by jambo89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
5 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

That’s horrendous...

 

The community nurse, my pal, who supported the family was devastated. She reckoned she may have lived another 9 - 12 months had she had her treatment. Her son was 15. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
Just now, Weakened Offender said:

 

The community nurse, my pal, who supported the family was devastated. She reckoned she may have lived another 9 - 12 months had she had her treatment. Her son was 15. 

I know it’s a touchy subject and we’re all getting wound up as to how we get out of this but that stuff is tragic man. That makes me bloody angry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
4 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I know it’s a touchy subject and we’re all getting wound up as to how we get out of this but that stuff is tragic man. That makes me bloody angry. 

 

I agree. What price do you put on the difference that 9-12 months is going to make to her boy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

The analogies with jumping from a plane without a parachute and wearing red socks are trite and don't prove that wearing masks by the general public in current circumstances is so obviously beneficial that it doesn't need study or evidence. Thousands die of respiratory disease every year due to infection. In a bad flu season it can be tens of thousands. If mask wearing would so obviously save lives why have we not used masks as a preventative measure as a matter of routine for many decades?. 

 

Experts in Sweden and the Netherlands for example to this day say that masks may do more harm than good.The WHO six months into the pandemic produced only a pretty lukewarm endorsement of masks by the general public while repeating that the evidence they that they help is thin.

 

 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

 No you're not getting it. 

 

The base-line is atheism. The argument you are using is prove god doesn't exists. 

 

The base-line is wear a mask. The argument is prove they don't exist.

 

You are the religious nutter in this scenario. The default position shouldn't be a belief in god, just as the default position shouldn't be that masks don't work. 

 

I don't have an opinion on the mask debate. I'm just saying that not being able to prove something doesn't work/isn't true, doesn't mean the opposite is true.

 

Quote

 

As for your last line, It is not a lack of evidence, and I have not once said that (If I did, i certainly didn't mean it). It is a lack of study which is the indicator. 2 different things.

 

 

 

What's the study for if not to provide evidence?

 

Anyway, I'm out. I don't care about the masks do they/don't they work debate. I think your logic is extremely flawed in thinking that just because nothing proves they don't work, that they therefore do. You don't think it's flawed. That's fine 👍

Edited by Taffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I don't have an opinion on the mask debate. I'm just saying that not being able to prove something doesn't work/isn't true, doesn't mean the opposite is true.

 

 

What's the study for if not to provide evidence?

 

Anyway, I'm out. I don't care about the masks do they/don't they work debate. I think your logic is extremely flawed in thinking because nothing proves they don't work that they therefore do. You don't think it's flawed. That's fine 👍

My logic is sound and based on sceptical / scientific thinking. I understand that may be hard to comprehend, so will forgive you on that point. 

 

But I agree, I think it best that we leave it there when you are debating things / points that I never said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


Why? Break up groups who aren’t socially distancing? Big game of British Bulldogs?

Some anti mask demo in Trafalgar Square.I think it's the usual start off peaceful then just ends up going to shit.

Edited by vegas-voss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


Why? Break up groups who aren’t socially distancing? Big game of British Bulldogs?

Actually a couple of the footage I seen could be described as British Bulldogs 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson

24,000 tests reported in Scotland today. The capacity seems to be ramped up

I heard someone from the SNP trying to rip into Hancock about tests. Seemingly Scotland has the most capacity per head of population in the UK.

350 positive cases is not that much of a surprise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vegas-voss said:

Things looking mad in London right now.Police chasing crowds down the street.

That will only increase in weeks to come , imo ,if the govt  attempt to force through further lockdown restrictions.  Everybody is responsible for their own outcomes. If those who are vulnerable follow the rules and make their own judgements then the "inevitable" hospitalisations and deaths that the key thumping computer modellers keep predicting will, simply,  not happen. Real time behaviour affects outcomes not "academics" and " experts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson
15 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

That will only increase in weeks to come , imo ,if the govt  attempt to force through further lockdown restrictions.  Everybody is responsible for their own outcomes. If those who are vulnerable follow the rules and make their own judgements then the "inevitable" hospitalisations and deaths that the key thumping computer modellers keep predicting will, simply,  not happen. Real time behaviour affects outcomes not "academics" and " experts".

Bojo is a fecking idiot. Sunak has told him it would be a disaster to implement any kind of severe lockdown and he shrugged it off allegedly.

Churchill and Thatcher would be spinning in their graves at his lack of leadership and buffoonery 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said:

  

September 19 (GMT)

Updates

4,422 new cases and 27 new deaths in the United Kingdom [source]

27 out of about  1700 new UK deaths in total. 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


Bojo allegedly wants to jack it. A few reasons for it, not least that he’s a bit skint. He took about 500k salary reduction to take PM job as he had speaking, columns etc. He’s got an expensive divorce to pay for and **** knows how many kids to support. 
 

Struggling with the strains of the job. 
 

Think he will be gone when a suitable break point arrives,

 

4 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

 

2023?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Bojo is a fecking idiot. Sunak has told him it would be a disaster to implement any kind of severe lockdown and he shrugged it off allegedly.

Churchill and Thatcher would be spinning in their graves at his lack of leadership and buffoonery 

Exactly NT. Either of those leaders would have sorted this, in terms of leadership.  He is a fecking idiot. If he is "spooked" by the scientists advice then he aint fit to be in the job. I'm driving to the south of England next week and will, while following the usual advice, do so regardless of any rules either of those incompetent cross-border leaders impose before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Exactly NT. Either of those leaders would have sorted this, in terms of leadership.  He is a fecking idiot. If he is "spooked" by the scientists advice then he aint fit to be in the job. I'm driving to the south of England next week and will, while following the usual advice, do so regardless of any rules either of those incompetent cross-border leaders impose before then.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=5231108

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


1700 people die in the U.K. a day? 

Yes they do. 600k each year which represents 1% of the population.  In a lot of cases, while every death is of course regrettable,  Covid reported deaths are simply a different reason being registered on the death cert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

tenor.gif?itemid=5231108

Or follow "the science "?? I think I'll make my own judgements.  Perhaps your unadulterated memes are better directed at the youngsters who flaunt the basic rules. Just sayin' ( no "g")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
Just now, Lord BJ said:


I genuinely didn’t realise it was that many. 

I am sure you are not alone. There is a total lack of perspective about the numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord BJ said:


I genuinely didn’t realise it was that many. 

I know, it does sound a lot, but a 1% death rate appears to the average rate across most countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Or follow "the science "?? I think I'll make my own judgements.  Perhaps your unadulterated memes are better directed at the youngsters who flaunt the basic rules. Just sayin' ( no "g")

 

Yeah you're special and are above the rules.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no
29 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


1700 people die in the U.K. a day? 

reasonably accurate, English figures are easier to find.

 

Around 500,000 people die in England every year. Heart failure and stroke are the biggest killers. One in four people in the UK will die of cancer. So about 1,370 people died in England today and about 20 had a positive covid test in the last 28 days which doesn't mean they died of it.

Around 300 will have died of cancer, others will have had heart attacks or strokes.

 

Edited by The Frenchman Returns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

That will only increase in weeks to come , imo ,if the govt  attempt to force through further lockdown restrictions.  Everybody is responsible for their own outcomes. If those who are vulnerable follow the rules and make their own judgements then the "inevitable" hospitalisations and deaths that the key thumping computer modellers keep predicting will, simply,  not happen. Real time behaviour affects outcomes not "academics" and " experts".


So just let everyone get infected and the vulnerable die. Sounds a good plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:


I read an article in news feed today which seem to claim, that about of third of COVID deaths weren’t actually COVID deaths but hearts attacks, car accidents etc. No idea how much truth in it. 
 


 

Well that's the issue, because a lot of deaths were recorded as Covid, despite it not being the actual cause. The figures were skewed upwards, perhaps to over-inflate the threat. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
16 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:


Cheers you don’t know how many die in Scotland a day. I’m sure I could google but suspect you know.

I don't but if it is proportional to the UK rate about 60000 a year or 170 a day? Maybe a wee bit higher because of lower life expectancy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • davemclaren changed the title to Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )
  • JKBMod 12 featured, locked, unlocked and unfeatured this topic

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.




×
×
  • Create New...