Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[redjambo]

Today's trend stats. A bit of a stutter today in the recent steady decline in the overall case rate.

 

		7-day per-100,000 cases
Council Area	WHO	Today	Yesterday			28 Jul	27 Jul	26 Jul	25 Jul	24 Jul	...	1 May
Scotland		158	159	-1		166	176	186	194	204	...	22
Na h-Eileanan Siar	4	223	230	-7		238	192	162	147	143	...	0
West Dunbartonshire	4	223	229	-6		232	237	238	238	229	...	28
Inverclyde	4	219	186	+33		186	197	204	199	209	...	15
North Lanarkshire	4	206	206	0		217	226	238	254	260	...	40
South Lanarkshire	4	202	194	+8		189	180	189	192	199	...	18
Clackmannanshire	4	199	193	+6		189	187	183	189	193	...	14
East Lothian	4	192	196	-4		216	216	228	245	255	...	5
Glasgow City	4	185	187	-2		206	224	229	233	244	...	33
West Lothian	4	181	174	+7		187	188	194	200	223	...	26
Midlothian	4	176	176	0		180	211	224	257	277	...	10
North Ayrshire	4	174	157	+17		164	156	154	142	127	...	17
Dundee City	4	165	165	0		170	182	201	202	238	...	13
Fife	4	164	162	+2		167	171	188	197	206	...	32
Stirling	4	158	158	0		171	182	169	173	164	...	11
Edinburgh City	4	153	159	-6		173	183	203	223	239	...	27
Falkirk	3	146	149	-3		152	165	168	186	189	...	23
Aberdeen City	3	144	141	+3		148	152	165	172	178	...	13
South Ayrshire	3	139	130	+9		134	144	151	169	178	...	25
Dumfries & Galloway	3	138	133	+5		121	130	146	148	146	...	19
East Ayrshire	3	137	141	-4		156	164	172	185	189	...	45
Renfrewshire	3	137	147	-10		152	163	166	178	191	...	20
Scottish Borders	3	133	141	-8		144	150	162	155	148	...	6
Highland	3	123	130	-7		121	133	137	138	149	...	9
East Renfrewshire	3	120	136	-16		148	160	182	207	236	...	24
Argyll & Bute	3	114	114	0		130	150	176	177	165	...	7
Angus	3	112	116	-4		119	133	157	161	178	...	7
Moray	3	109	121	-12		129	139	137	135	141	...	65
East Dunbartonshire	3	108	106	+2		111	130	137	169	190	...	51
Perth & Kinross	3	104	104	0		116	132	154	167	182	...	22
Shetland Islands	3	96	122	-26		122	171	171	153	157	...	0
Aberdeenshire	3	85	94	-9		99	108	113	116	121	...	8
Orkney Islands	2	36	40	-4		49	54	49	54	36	...	0
7-day averages		Today	Yesterday			28 Jul	27 Jul	26 Jul	25 Jul	24 Jul	...	1 May
Tests		23458	23430	+28		23373	23829	23612	23901	24079	...	18484
Cases		1232	1239	-7		1300	1372	1452	1518	1589	...	171
Positivity rate %		5.8	5.9	-0.1		6.2	6.4	6.8	7.0	7.3	...	1.1
Deaths		6.6	6.6	0.0		7.9	7.6	8.4	8.4	8.4	...	1.3
All Vaccinations		19016	18891	+125		18716	18581	18576	19217	19217	...	45346
1st Dose		2179	2213	-34		2261	2318	2382	3012	3551	...	6677
2nd Dose		16837	16678	+159		16455	16263	16194	16205	15666	...	38669
All in hospital		477	482	-5		481	489	497	506	510	...	81
Non-ICU		415	420	-5		420	429	440	451	458	...	70
ICU		62	62	0		61	60	57	55	52	...	11

[The Real Maroonblood]

30 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Today's trend stats. A bit of a stutter today in the recent steady decline in the overall case rate.

 

		7-day per-100,000 cases
Council Area	WHO	Today	Yesterday			28 Jul	27 Jul	26 Jul	25 Jul	24 Jul	...	1 May
Scotland		158	159	-1		166	176	186	194	204	...	22
Na h-Eileanan Siar	4	223	230	-7		238	192	162	147	143	...	0
West Dunbartonshire	4	223	229	-6		232	237	238	238	229	...	28
Inverclyde	4	219	186	+33		186	197	204	199	209	...	15
North Lanarkshire	4	206	206	0		217	226	238	254	260	...	40
South Lanarkshire	4	202	194	+8		189	180	189	192	199	...	18
Clackmannanshire	4	199	193	+6		189	187	183	189	193	...	14
East Lothian	4	192	196	-4		216	216	228	245	255	...	5
Glasgow City	4	185	187	-2		206	224	229	233	244	...	33
West Lothian	4	181	174	+7		187	188	194	200	223	...	26
Midlothian	4	176	176	0		180	211	224	257	277	...	10
North Ayrshire	4	174	157	+17		164	156	154	142	127	...	17
Dundee City	4	165	165	0		170	182	201	202	238	...	13
Fife	4	164	162	+2		167	171	188	197	206	...	32
Stirling	4	158	158	0		171	182	169	173	164	...	11
Edinburgh City	4	153	159	-6		173	183	203	223	239	...	27
Falkirk	3	146	149	-3		152	165	168	186	189	...	23
Aberdeen City	3	144	141	+3		148	152	165	172	178	...	13
South Ayrshire	3	139	130	+9		134	144	151	169	178	...	25
Dumfries & Galloway	3	138	133	+5		121	130	146	148	146	...	19
East Ayrshire	3	137	141	-4		156	164	172	185	189	...	45
Renfrewshire	3	137	147	-10		152	163	166	178	191	...	20
Scottish Borders	3	133	141	-8		144	150	162	155	148	...	6
Highland	3	123	130	-7		121	133	137	138	149	...	9
East Renfrewshire	3	120	136	-16		148	160	182	207	236	...	24
Argyll & Bute	3	114	114	0		130	150	176	177	165	...	7
Angus	3	112	116	-4		119	133	157	161	178	...	7
Moray	3	109	121	-12		129	139	137	135	141	...	65
East Dunbartonshire	3	108	106	+2		111	130	137	169	190	...	51
Perth & Kinross	3	104	104	0		116	132	154	167	182	...	22
Shetland Islands	3	96	122	-26		122	171	171	153	157	...	0
Aberdeenshire	3	85	94	-9		99	108	113	116	121	...	8
Orkney Islands	2	36	40	-4		49	54	49	54	36	...	0
7-day averages		Today	Yesterday			28 Jul	27 Jul	26 Jul	25 Jul	24 Jul	...	1 May
Tests		23458	23430	+28		23373	23829	23612	23901	24079	...	18484
Cases		1232	1239	-7		1300	1372	1452	1518	1589	...	171
Positivity rate %		5.8	5.9	-0.1		6.2	6.4	6.8	7.0	7.3	...	1.1
Deaths		6.6	6.6	0.0		7.9	7.6	8.4	8.4	8.4	...	1.3
All Vaccinations		19016	18891	+125		18716	18581	18576	19217	19217	...	45346
1st Dose		2179	2213	-34		2261	2318	2382	3012	3551	...	6677
2nd Dose		16837	16678	+159		16455	16263	16194	16205	15666	...	38669
All in hospital		477	482	-5		481	489	497	506	510	...	81
Non-ICU		415	420	-5		420	429	440	451	458	...	70
ICU		62	62	0		61	60	57	55	52	...	11

👍

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

2 hours ago, fancy a brew said:

 

After quite a bit back and forth I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what general point you're making, any chance could you spell it out?

 

 

it was more a question in that do these tests provide uniform results in all scenarios or can they be affected by various cogs in the process eg who made them - what the guidance was on the certain batches of tests - who does the testing - who is being tested - and maybe some other stuff 

 

and if it’s possible to get a false positive can the rate of false positives be affected by any of the cogs in the process some of which I’ve listed above

 

as I said it was a general point / question

 

 

[DETTY29]

1 hour ago, Deke Thornton said:

So the SG strategy of relying on a piece of paper turns out to be another master stroke!
 

They are working on an app too.

Edited July 30, 2021 by DETTY29

[Enzo Chiefo]

NHS England now starting to report more detailed stats about those in hospital with Covid.  23% of those patients are thought to have been admitted initially for non-Covid conditions.

It's long overdue that the figures are reported in a more detailed way, in order to provide a more accurate picture.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

17 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

NHS England now starting to report more detailed stats about those in hospital with Covid.  23% of those patients are thought to have been admitted initially for non-Covid conditions.

It's long overdue that the figures are reported in a more detailed way, in order to provide a more accurate picture.

 

Around about a quarter of the cases are people catching covid whilst being treated in hospital for something else, If I've got what your saying right.

[redjambo]

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Around about a quarter of the cases are people catching covid whilst being treated in hospital for something else, If I've got what your saying right.

 

Not necessarily. You might come in with something else and have Covid but are just unaware you have it - it's only when they routinely test you as an incoming patient that they discover you have Covid.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Not necessarily. You might come in with something else and have Covid but are just unaware you have it - it's only when they routinely test you as an incoming patient that they discover you have Covid.

 

That undoubtedly happens.

However even if there were was only 10% of hospital aquired infections, that's still thousands of people a day UK wide, being infected who may not have caught covid otherwise.  Plus with them being in hospital, then they are probably Ill and probably already in a weaked state to start with, then they catch covid.  I think this would account for quite a few deaths.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

1 hour ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

NHS England now starting to report more detailed stats about those in hospital with Covid.  23% of those patients are thought to have been admitted initially for non-Covid conditions.

It's long overdue that the figures are reported in a more detailed way, in order to provide a more accurate picture.

 

as further data is eventually released the outcomes of those poor people might become clearer

 

it would not be an unreasonable assumption that within the percentage a higher number of them (compared to the general population) will have unfortunately been more vulnerable to a bad outcome given that they were in/attending hospital

 

the sort of things you have been bringing to the discussion for some time

 

 

[Beni]

5 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

it was more a question in that do these tests provide uniform results in all scenarios or can they be affected by various cogs in the process eg who made them - what the guidance was on the certain batches of tests - who does the testing - who is being tested - and maybe some other stuff 

 

and if it’s possible to get a false positive can the rate of false positives be affected by any of the cogs in the process some of which I’ve listed above

 

as I said it was a general point / question

 

 

 

A lot of variables there, but there will be quality controls to flag up discrepancies between batches, personnel, labs, etc.

Last year around this time positive cases dropped to very low levels, so unless some other variable in the testing changed it's hard for me to see how that could happen if there are false positives inherent in the system.

Hospitalisations and deaths seemed to have tracked the path of positive cases as expected, which would point to lab results being accurate.

New Zealand have been testing around 6000/day and getting 2 or 3 positives, so at the very least you'd hope they're sharing their secrets with other countries, or maybe they don't have a secret and the tests and protocols they use are similar to elsewhere.

 

[Francis Albert]

23 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Comparison on uptake between BAME and white people

 

 

Covid: BAME inequalities remain in vaccine uptake - BBC News

 

Sorry, no stats for gammon

What is the definition of gammon?

Surely not based on skin colour.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

13 minutes ago, fancy a brew said:

 

A lot of variables there, but there will be quality controls to flag up discrepancies between batches, personnel, labs, etc.

Last year around this time positive cases dropped to very low levels, so unless some other variable in the testing changed it's hard for me to see how that could happen if there are false positives inherent in the system.

Hospitalisations and deaths seemed to have tracked the path of positive cases as expected, which would point to lab results being accurate.

New Zealand have been testing around 6000/day and getting 2 or 3 positives, so at the very least you'd hope they're sharing their secrets with other countries, or maybe they don't have a secret and the tests and protocols they use are similar to elsewhere.

 

 

the stuff on nz or hospitalisation etc I’m not disputing (or agreeing with) my general point was to ask the question of the tests in a general sense

 

it appears the risk of the test being less accurate can change depending on the circumstances and mitigating processes may be required to improve confidence in the results (as well as usual quality control stuff) - just for clarity I’m not suggesting these risks are not being mitigated against just that they do exist and that the risk isn’t uniform

 

 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

Also dislike this lumping of all who are not "white" into the BAME category. There are huge differences between different groups in both categories.

[Francis Albert]

From observation in London I would say mask wearing during the pandemic (and probably a close match to vaccination take up) would put those of Japanese/Chinese or  other South East Asians origin at the top. Those by origin from the Indian sub continent next. And here I will get in trouble blacks of carribbean origin last. But that is simplistic. In all but the top tier of the Chinese or Japanese age is the biggest factor the old being far more compliant than the young.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

From observation in London I would say mask wearing during the pandemic (and probably a close match to vaccination take up) would put those of Japanese/Chinese or  other South East Asians origin at the top. Those by origin from the Indian sub continent next. And here I will get in trouble blacks of carribbean origin last. But that is simplistic. In all but the top tier of the Chinese or Japanese age is the biggest factor the old being far more compliant than the young.

 

any anecdotal stats on the gammon? 

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

any anecdotal stats on the gammon? 

Define gammon and I will try to answer.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Unknown user]

15 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

any anecdotal stats on the gammon? 

 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Define gammon and I will try to answer.

 

not sure the tighter definition but I’m guessing there’s a lower age of about mid 40s and and British non-bame slightly gammon-ish complexion would be 3 of the parameters - there’s a few experts on here can probably tighten-up the definition but maybe provisional stats on those 3 parameters ?

 

cheers FA

[Enzo Chiefo]

4 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

as further data is eventually released the outcomes of those poor people might become clearer

 

it would not be an unreasonable assumption that within the percentage a higher number of them (compared to the general population) will have unfortunately been more vulnerable to a bad outcome given that they were in/attending hospital

 

the sort of things you have been bringing to the discussion for some time

 

 

Yes, completely agree MMM

[Nucky Thompson]

10 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

What is the definition of gammon?

Surely not based on skin colour.

I think it is.

Ironically, the people who describe others as gammon are usually the ones who are raging about everything from Tories to brexit. Probably a tad more gammon faced than the gammons 

[Unknown user]

42 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I think it is.

Ironically, the people who describe others as gammon are usually the ones who are raging about everything from Tories to brexit. Probably a tad more gammon faced than the gammons 

Alll white people aren't gammon any more than all white women are Karens

 

[Taffin]

8 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I think we all know that the best way to foster an inclusive and supportive society is to divide and sub-divide people by skin colour/ethnicity and foster self-identification through such labels. This woke generation really know their/zir/xyr/per shizzle.

 

My pronouns are: gammon/pineapple

 

😂😂😂

[Taffin]

Can you choose any pronouns or only ones that have been deemed acceptable?

 

I was thinking of using I/Me for maximum confusion. It's also entirely gender neutral which is progressive.

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, jonesy said:

In the subjective world of gender self-identification, you can and should be able to use any utterance you wish to address yourself. The breaking down of traditional norms, roles and identities is here and a part of our modern society.

 

And by logical extension, other people should be perfectly entitled to use whatever pronouns they deem fit to address anyone else. 

 

If one person gets to go through the looking glass, we're all coming along for the ride.

 

Glorious, I/Me it is if anyone tried to force me to share what mine are. Some are quite militant on social media about everyone displaying them.

 

 

(I should add I'm not against people using different pronouns in any way shape or form, I'm quite pro gender-neutrality personally. I'm a he/him but what that means is different for every he/him imo...thinking it's not is just boxing people up).

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

45 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Alll white people aren't gammon any more than all white women are Karens

 

 

you’ll be saying you’ve got a lot of gammon friends next 

 

how was that definition i had a stab at anything key to add to the 3 parameters (assuming they were ok) ?

[Taffin]

16 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

you’ll be saying you’ve got a lot of gammon friends next 

 

how was that definition i had a stab at anything key to add to the 3 parameters (assuming they were ok) ?

 

 

😂😂 "My brother is a gammon I'll have you know"

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

😂😂 "My brother is a gammon I'll have you know"

 

 

 

him and his type ....

[Beni]

12 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

the stuff on nz or hospitalisation etc I’m not disputing (or agreeing with) my general point was to ask the question of the tests in a general sense

 

it appears the risk of the test being less accurate can change depending on the circumstances and mitigating processes may be required to improve confidence in the results (as well as usual quality control stuff) - just for clarity I’m not suggesting these risks are not being mitigated against just that they do exist and that the risk isn’t uniform

 

 

 

 

 

Do you lack confidence in the results?

There's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in your posts, but if you don't have confidence in the results it would be good to know why.

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

That's cool, but I reserve the right to identify you as a parsnip.

 

Urgghhh, I hate parsnips as well. Probably apt in that case 😭

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

1 minute ago, fancy a brew said:

 

Do you lack confidence in the results?

There's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in your posts, but if you don't have confidence in the results it would be good to know why.

 

it’s a general point mate which gives back to 2005 a theoretical point

 

I’m  not that bothered about the confidence in the results - given mitigating measures and judgement are required at riskier times it wouldn’t wholly surprise me if they weren’t as accurate as they might be if those measures weren’t required

 

as i said the practicality of the results be it in uk japan or nz - not bothered

[Beni]

8 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

it’s a general point mate which gives back to 2005 a theoretical point

 

I’m  not that bothered about the confidence in the results - given mitigating measures and judgement are required at riskier times it wouldn’t wholly surprise me if they weren’t as accurate as they might be if those measures weren’t required

 

as i said the practicality of the results be it in uk japan or nz - not bothered

 

I see, making a 'general' point means you don't have to bother with pesky details like evidence, got it now thanks.

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by fancy a brew

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

13 minutes ago, fancy a brew said:

 

I see, making a 'general' point means you don't have to bother with pesky details like evidence, got it now thanks.

 

 

 

 

disappointing post mate

 

i would have maybe added predictable too to other posters but didn’t really expect it here

 

I understand people’s frustrations with back to 2005 - a lot of us get frustrated at each other too

 

he raised a point which he maybe didn’t fully understand (it’s complex) and got confused with the detail (think you said you got confused at one point too) so rather than just dismiss him/the point and continually focus on his confusion or the detail it could have been better addressed (imo) along the lines of -

 

2005 ur getting confused with the detail here but I think I know the point ur getting at

 

these tests do not have uniform risk and the probability of a false positive can be increased at certain times

 

however this is recognised and additional processes are advised to be put in place to mitigate against the extra risk of additional inaccurate tests in order that we can be confident about the results 

 

I assume you think these mitigating measures are deliberately being ignored in order to maximise positive results

 

do you have any evidence for this?

 

i realise saying something like -  the number of cycles doesn’t affect the results      is quicker (and in some folks eyes does the same job)

 

also realise we can all do better at times here and elsewhere

 

see you on the terrace later hopefully trying to downplay bobs glorious victory by focussing on celtics deficiencies and questioning whether it’s maybe jig that’s the brains behind the operation

 

 

[HartleyLegend3]

I'm beginning to think this thread should be joined with Tory lies.. 

 

If anyone has been following this thread, the video below won't be news to you. But I'd encourage you to share it with others. 

 

I've shown posts by Peter Stefanovic and videos by led by donkey's to friend, family and work mates. 

The look of shock and disgust mesmerising. Obviously for unionist tory voters is embarrassingly shameful. 

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

you’ll be saying you’ve got a lot of gammon friends next 

 

how was that definition i had a stab at anything key to add to the 3 parameters (assuming they were ok) ?

Don't bloody think so!

 

And no idea what you're talking about. TBQH I wasn't sure what you were talking about the other day either and, no offence, but I'm not here to validate anyone

[Beni]

35 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

disappointing post mate

 

i would have maybe added predictable too to other posters but didn’t really expect it here

 

I understand people’s frustrations with back to 2005 - a lot of us get frustrated at each other too

 

he raised a point which he maybe didn’t fully understand (it’s complex) and got confused with the detail (think you said you got confused at one point too) so rather than just dismiss him/the point and continually focus on his confusion or the detail it could have been better addressed (imo) along the lines of -

 

2005 ur getting confused with the detail here but I think I know the point ur getting at

 

these tests do not have uniform risk and the probability of a false positive can be increased at certain times

 

however this is recognised and additional processes are advised to be put in place to mitigate against the extra risk of additional inaccurate tests in order that we can be confident about the results 

 

I assume you think these mitigating measures are deliberately being ignored in order to maximise positive results

 

do you have any evidence for this?

 

i realise saying something like -  the number of cycles doesn’t affect the results      is quicker (and in some folks eyes does the same job)

 

also realise we can all do better at times here and elsewhere

 

 

 

 

I have no problem admitting I owe all my knowledge of the PCR tests to 10 minutes on Google, but then again I'm not claiming the results are wrong (or they're not as accurate as they might be, or we need to raise confidence in them). 

Provide the evidence or don't, your choice.

But if you fly with the crows...

 

37 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

see you on the terrace later hopefully trying to downplay bobs glorious victory by focussing on celtics deficiencies and questioning whether it’s maybe jig that’s the brains behind the operation

 

Amen to that.

[Governor Tarkin]

23 minutes ago, Smithee said:

2 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

you’ll be saying you’ve got a lot of gammon friends next 

 

Expand  

Don't bloody think so!

 

And folk have a go at i8's narrow social group.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just about sums it up. 👇

"ME: CDC, should I get a poke if I already had Covid?
CDC: “Yes, you should be poked regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.”
ME: Oh, okay, we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. Got it. So, how long does poke-induced immunity last?
CDC: “There is still a lot we are learning about COVID-19 pokes and CDC is constantly reviewing evidence and updating guidance. We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are poked.”
ME: Okay … but wait a second. I thought you said the reason I need the poke was because we don’t know how long my natural immunity lasts, but it seems like you’re saying we ALSO don’t know how long poke immunity lasts either. So, how exactly is the poke immunity better than my natural immunity?
CDC: …
ME: Uh … alright. But, haven’t there been a bunch of studies suggesting that natural immunity could last for years or decades?
CDC: Yes.
NEWYORKTIMES: “Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study.”
ME: Ah. So natural immunity might last longer than poke immunity?
CDC: Possibly. You never know.
ME: Okay. If I get the poke, does that mean I won’t get sick?
BRITAIN: Nope. We are just now entering a seasonal spike and about half of our infections and hospital admissions are poked people.
ME: CDC, is this true? Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?
CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them. 
ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?
CDC: That’s right.
ME: Oh, okay. Hmm. Well, if I can still get sick after I get the poke, how is it helping me?
CDC: We never said you wouldn’t get sick. We said it would reduce your chances of serious illness or death.
ME: Oh, sorry. Alright, exactly how much does it reduce my chance of serious illness or death.
CDC: We don’t know “exactly.”
ME: Oh. Then what’s your best estimate for how much risk reduction there is?
CDC: We don’t know, okay? Next question.
ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?
CDC: Yes, for the collective.
ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?
CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.
ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?
CDC: Never mind that. The other thing is, if you stay unpoked, there’s a chance the virus could possibly mutate into a strain that escapes the pokes protection, putting all poked people at risk.
ME: So the poke stops the virus from mutating?
CDC: No.
ME:  So it can still mutate in poked people?
CDC: Yes.
ME: This seems confusing. If the poke doesn’t stop mutations, and it doesn’t stop infections, then how does me getting poked help prevent a more deadly strain from evolving to escape the poke?
CDC: You aren’t listening, okay? The bottom line is: as long as you are unpoked, you pose a threat to poked people.
ME: But what KIND of threat??
CDC: The threat that they could get a serious case of Covid and possibly die.
ME: My brain hurts. Didn’t you JUST say that the poke doesn’t keep people from catching Covid, but prevents a serious case or dying?  Now it seems like you’re saying poked people can still easily die from Covid even after they got the poke just by running into an unpoked person! Which is it??"

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

And folk have a go at i8's narrow social group.

 

Nah, they have a go at him for being prejudiced toward sexual minorities

[Governor Tarkin]

37 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Nah, they have a go at him for being prejudiced toward sexual minorities

 

And that.

[redjambo]

Scottish numbers: 31 July 2021

Summary

• 1,018 new cases of COVID-19 reported [-438; down from 1,307 a week ago]
• 22,725 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results [-3,265]
  • 4.9% of these were positive [-1.3%]
• 9 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive (noting that Register Offices are now generally closed at weekends) [+3]
• 64 people were in intensive care yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 [+4]
• 445 people were in hospital yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 [-29]
• 4,009,611 people have received the first dose of the Covid vaccination and 3,180,160 have received their second dose [+2,034; +17,498]

[redjambo]

The SG haven't updated their local authority figures yet (perhaps the person in charge is watching the F1 qualifying or the Olympic Games ), so the trend stats will be later than usual today.

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

Just about sums it up. 👇

"ME: CDC, should I get a poke if I already had Covid?
CDC: “Yes, you should be poked regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.”
ME: Oh, okay, we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. Got it. So, how long does poke-induced immunity last?
CDC: “There is still a lot we are learning about COVID-19 pokes and CDC is constantly reviewing evidence and updating guidance. We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are poked.”
ME: Okay … but wait a second. I thought you said the reason I need the poke was because we don’t know how long my natural immunity lasts, but it seems like you’re saying we ALSO don’t know how long poke immunity lasts either. So, how exactly is the poke immunity better than my natural immunity?
CDC: …
ME: Uh … alright. But, haven’t there been a bunch of studies suggesting that natural immunity could last for years or decades?
CDC: Yes.
NEWYORKTIMES: “Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study.”
ME: Ah. So natural immunity might last longer than poke immunity?
CDC: Possibly. You never know.
ME: Okay. If I get the poke, does that mean I won’t get sick?
BRITAIN: Nope. We are just now entering a seasonal spike and about half of our infections and hospital admissions are poked people.
ME: CDC, is this true? Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?
CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them. 
ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?
CDC: That’s right.
ME: Oh, okay. Hmm. Well, if I can still get sick after I get the poke, how is it helping me?
CDC: We never said you wouldn’t get sick. We said it would reduce your chances of serious illness or death.
ME: Oh, sorry. Alright, exactly how much does it reduce my chance of serious illness or death.
CDC: We don’t know “exactly.”
ME: Oh. Then what’s your best estimate for how much risk reduction there is?
CDC: We don’t know, okay? Next question.
ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?
CDC: Yes, for the collective.
ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?
CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.
ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?
CDC: Never mind that. The other thing is, if you stay unpoked, there’s a chance the virus could possibly mutate into a strain that escapes the pokes protection, putting all poked people at risk.
ME: So the poke stops the virus from mutating?
CDC: No.
ME:  So it can still mutate in poked people?
CDC: Yes.
ME: This seems confusing. If the poke doesn’t stop mutations, and it doesn’t stop infections, then how does me getting poked help prevent a more deadly strain from evolving to escape the poke?
CDC: You aren’t listening, okay? The bottom line is: as long as you are unpoked, you pose a threat to poked people.
ME: But what KIND of threat??
CDC: The threat that they could get a serious case of Covid and possibly die.
ME: My brain hurts. Didn’t you JUST say that the poke doesn’t keep people from catching Covid, but prevents a serious case or dying?  Now it seems like you’re saying poked people can still easily die from Covid even after they got the poke just by running into an unpoked person! Which is it??"

Well summed up, James.  There are numerous contradictions and myths about all things Covid. We've heard it mutates - as if we didn’t know viruses mutate - when it comes up against a population with high immunity and is struggling to find a host. Then we are told it also mutates when it "rampages" or "rips" through the population 😮.

 

We keep hearing about variants evading the vaccine despite knowing from those who produced the vaccine that it aint true. In reality, the UK govt want us to spend our money on staycations so they are concocting fears about tired old SA variants, in order to deter travellers going overseas. 

 

[Unknown user]

38 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

And that.

 

I will wear my Displays-Prejudice-Toward-Salted-Pork-Products badge with pride though

[kila]

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

Just about sums it up. 👇

"ME: CDC, should I get a poke if I already had Covid?
CDC: “Yes, you should be poked regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.”
ME: Oh, okay, we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. Got it. So, how long does poke-induced immunity last?
CDC: “There is still a lot we are learning about COVID-19 pokes and CDC is constantly reviewing evidence and updating guidance. We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are poked.”
ME: Okay … but wait a second. I thought you said the reason I need the poke was because we don’t know how long my natural immunity lasts, but it seems like you’re saying we ALSO don’t know how long poke immunity lasts either. So, how exactly is the poke immunity better than my natural immunity?
CDC: …
ME: Uh … alright. But, haven’t there been a bunch of studies suggesting that natural immunity could last for years or decades?
CDC: Yes.
NEWYORKTIMES: “Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study.”
ME: Ah. So natural immunity might last longer than poke immunity?
CDC: Possibly. You never know.
ME: Okay. If I get the poke, does that mean I won’t get sick?
BRITAIN: Nope. We are just now entering a seasonal spike and about half of our infections and hospital admissions are poked people.
ME: CDC, is this true? Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?
CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them. 
ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?
CDC: That’s right.
ME: Oh, okay. Hmm. Well, if I can still get sick after I get the poke, how is it helping me?
CDC: We never said you wouldn’t get sick. We said it would reduce your chances of serious illness or death.
ME: Oh, sorry. Alright, exactly how much does it reduce my chance of serious illness or death.
CDC: We don’t know “exactly.”
ME: Oh. Then what’s your best estimate for how much risk reduction there is?
CDC: We don’t know, okay? Next question.
ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?
CDC: Yes, for the collective.
ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?
CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.
ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?
CDC: Never mind that. The other thing is, if you stay unpoked, there’s a chance the virus could possibly mutate into a strain that escapes the pokes protection, putting all poked people at risk.
ME: So the poke stops the virus from mutating?
CDC: No.
ME:  So it can still mutate in poked people?
CDC: Yes.
ME: This seems confusing. If the poke doesn’t stop mutations, and it doesn’t stop infections, then how does me getting poked help prevent a more deadly strain from evolving to escape the poke?
CDC: You aren’t listening, okay? The bottom line is: as long as you are unpoked, you pose a threat to poked people.
ME: But what KIND of threat??
CDC: The threat that they could get a serious case of Covid and possibly die.
ME: My brain hurts. Didn’t you JUST say that the poke doesn’t keep people from catching Covid, but prevents a serious case or dying?  Now it seems like you’re saying poked people can still easily die from Covid even after they got the poke just by running into an unpoked person! Which is it??"

 

Yes, another simple copy and paste job from Facebook to save you from critical thinking - that most definitely sums you up 👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

40 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Well summed up, James.  There are numerous contradictions and myths about all things Covid. We've heard it mutates - as if we didn’t know viruses mutate - when it comes up against a population with high immunity and is struggling to find a host. Then we are told it also mutates when it "rampages" or "rips" through the population 😮.

 

We keep hearing about variants evading the vaccine despite knowing from those who produced the vaccine that it aint true. In reality, the UK govt want us to spend our money on staycations so they are concocting fears about tired old SA variants, in order to deter travellers going overseas. 

 

👍👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

22 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Yes, another simple copy and paste job from Facebook to save you from critical thinking - that most definitely sums you up 👍

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

24 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Yes, another simple copy and paste job from Facebook to save you from critical thinking - that most definitely sums you up 👍

Boo hoo someone who doesnt want facts to get in his way of critical thinking it seems . Must be horrible when your narrative is shredded 

[Enzo Chiefo]

10 minutes ago, jonesy said:

In our own context, you just have to look at in whose interest it is to keep the fears from early 2020 going as long as possible.

 

In London, Johnson would have loved to have been seen as some kind of Churchillian saviour. When it became apparent to him that he was unable to be that kind of leader, he moved quickly to open things up.

 

In Edinburgh, Sturgeon has never been one to shy away from modifying the behaviour of 'the Scottish people' (aka the ones who need to be saved), and so deliberately made Level 0 (what most folk would think of as a return to normality) contain some restrictions (i.e. not normal) in order to nudge her way through 2021 as she so clearly enjoyed doing in 2020.

 

In the US, there seems to be a real ding dong battle between the pro and anti mask/vaxx proponents. I dare say some in the 'pro' camp don't mind winding up the 'anti' lot with continued restrictions for a wee while.

Yes, there are definitely some "trojan horse"  agendas being driven through, like the climate change  brigade introducing cycle lanes, the deliberate policy to  place as many ridiculous obstacles as possible in the way of international travel, from over priced PCR tests to  hotel quarantines. Then we have the vested interests nudging us towards a cashless society, the numerous Apps that track our everyday movements etc etc.

 

Regarding mask compliance though, the latest ONS survey of population behaviour found mask wearing to be very slightly higher in England, since Freedom Day, than in Scotland, where we are mandated and hectored into compliance. 

Despite the usual suspects criticising Johnson's plans, the people CAN be trusted.

[kila]

Just now, JamesM48 said:

Boo hoo someone who doesnt want facts to get in his way of critical thinking it seems . Must be horrible when your narrative is shredded 

 

You're essentially saying the vaccine is a waste of time and people shouldn't bother getting it. Only you're using some American's social media post to convey your viewpoint...

 

Then you hide behind silly gifs and memes.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, kila said:

 

You're essentially saying the vaccine is a waste of time and people shouldn't bother getting it. Only you're using some American's social media post to convey your viewpoint...

 

Then you hide behind silly gifs and memes.

 

No it’s saying that the not Everyone needs the vaccine ! The gifs and memes are humour which you sorely lack any sense of . Miserable person really 😵