Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Back to 2005]

5 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Indeed. Also encouraging that of 200 people none of them have died. Pretty good odds. Weakening virus or healthier hosts than before? 

Pretty sure none have been admitted to hospital either. But that's because there is next to no risk for anybody under 60. 

So why are we continuing with the tyrannical restrictions on our lives?

[Robbofan99]

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Indeed. Also encouraging that of 200 people none of them have died. Pretty good odds. Weakening virus or healthier hosts than before? 

Either ?  More likely both at play now.  

[graygo]

57 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

You know when the posters on this are getting desperate to evidence their arguments when they start to highlight  other countries stats to underpin their arguments for a continuation of the lockdown or localised ones.  Unfortunately for them the pattern of admissions / deaths are similar around Europe. 

 

I think if every country was getting the same results as we (Scotland) are then lockdown would be getting phased out a bit quicker than it is.

It's a tough decision to make but they will need to make it at some point.

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

That surely means its weakening...? 

Yes  it certainly seems so. The evidence is beginning to point to the virus weakening 

[Back to 2005]

13 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

Either ?  More likely both at play now.  

Maybe now we have been released from house arrest people have had the chance to build up immunity?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Enzo Chiefo said:

Yes  it certainly seems so. The evidence is beginning to point to the virus weakening 

Here's hoping 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Back to 2005 said:

Maybe now we have been released from house arrest people have had the chance to build up immunity?

Yep so true . 

[Weakened Offender]

2 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Maybe now we have been released from house arrest people have had the chance to build up immunity?

 

FFS 😁

[Nucky Thompson]

18 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

From NHS site -

The test is not 100% accurate; at present it is thought to detect approximately 70% of coronavirus infections. A negative test does not mean that you stop self-isolating if you have coronavirus symptoms. Tests are completely voluntary.

 

seems to say it just detects for coronavirus not specifically covid 19.

 Is that not from an NHS information leaflet at the start of the pandemic when it was just called coronavirus and not covid-19?

I think it means, at the time they were only picking up 70% of the infections and the rest were false negatives.

I don't think it means it picks up 70% of all different coronaviruses, but I agree it's confusing 

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

Less old/at risk people still alive to catch it.

Nearly a fifth of the Scottish population are over 65. Given that about 0.08% of the population have died from, or with Covid, it stands to reason that the percentage of over 65s is still about 20%. There are still plenty over 65s susceptible to flu which is why the vaccine programme will be rolled out as always.

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Nearly a fifth of the Scottish population are over 65. Given that about 0.08% of the population have died from, or with Covid, it stands to reason that the percentage of over 65s is still about 20%. There are still plenty over 65s susceptible to flu which is why the vaccine programme will be rolled out as always.

 

How many of the population are over 75?

About 77% of Covid-19 deaths in Scotland have been in this age bracket.

I take your point though.

 

[Back to 2005]

20 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

 Is that not from an NHS information leaflet at the start of the pandemic when it was just called coronavirus and not covid-19?

I think it means, at the time they were only picking up 70% of the infections and the rest were false negatives.

I don't think it means it picks up 70% of all different coronaviruses, but I agree it's confusing 

It's from their website but not sure when it was published.  Sorry can't be bothered trying to find it again!

[Ray Gin]

56 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Pretty sure none have been admitted to hospital either. But that's because there is next to no risk for anybody under 60. 

So why are we continuing with the tyrannical restrictions on our lives?

 

Because 19% of the population are over 65. Add in all the people with health conditions and that's well over a 5th of the population, and over 1 million people.

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Ray Gin

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Because 19% of the population are over 65. Add in all the people with health conditions and that's well over a 5th of the population, and over 1 million people.

 

 

Is that not why shielding was introduced? Only 28 deaths under 45, why should they be subject to lockdown?

[Back to 2005]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Is that not why shielding was introduced? Only 28 deaths under 45, why should they be subject to lockdown?

Exactly. Let the young people enjoy their lives. How long do you think we should go on like this? 

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Is that not why shielding was introduced? Only 28 deaths under 45, why should they be subject to lockdown?

 

Unless over 60s stay in their houses forever with no social contact, however do you propose we stop the younger generations passing the virus on to them?

[Enzo Chiefo]

25 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

How many of the population are over 75?

About 77% of Covid-19 deaths in Scotland have been in this age bracket.

I take your point though.

 

Yes, fair point. I think it's half again so about 9%.

[Ray Gin]

3 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Exactly. Let the young people enjoy their lives. How long do you think we should go on like this? 

 

I'd like things to be back to normal too, but would I want it at the cost of completely destroying the lives of everyone over 60 by condemning them to an indefinite term of solitary confinement? Of course not, as I have a shred of human empathy. 

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Reverse ageism

 

Protecting the elderly isn't ageism so letting the younger generation who are at such a low risk that it's almost negligible can't really be anti-ageism.

[Nucky Thompson]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

I'd like things to be back to normal too, but would I want it at the cost of completely destroying the lives of everyone over 60 by condemning them to an indefinite term of solitary confinement? Of course not, as I have a shred of human empathy. 

I'm pretty sure it was only serious in a small portion of over 60's.

Granted people a lot older as those in care homes had next to no chance

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I'd like things to be back to normal too, but would I want it at the cost of completely destroying the lives of everyone over 60 by condemning them to an indefinite term of solitary confinement? Of course not, as I have a shred of human empathy. 

 

The "solitary confinement" thing has been eased has it not?

Point is that when shielding was in place then the younger age groups would (should) not have been a threat to them. 

 

Does anyone know how many deaths have not involved comorbidities?

[Governor Tarkin]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Unless over 60s stay in their houses forever with no social contact, however do you propose we stop the younger generations passing the virus on to them?

 

Maybe the younger gemeration will build up enough antibodies to stop themselves becoming vectors? I dunno, but is something like that not why we're not already dead from things that historically killed millions?

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I'm pretty sure it was only serious in a small portion of over 60's.

Granted people a lot older as those in care homes had next to no chance

 

[Ray Gin]

Just now, graygo said:

 

The "solitary confinement" thing has been eased has it not?

Point is that when shielding was in place then the younger age groups would (should) not have been a threat to them. 

 

Does anyone know how many deaths have not involved comorbidities?

 

It's been eased because the numbers in the general population are now low enough. If the numbers rise again, they'd be at high risk again. 

[Back to 2005]

11 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I'd like things to be back to normal too, but would I want it at the cost of completely destroying the lives of everyone over 60 by condemning them to an indefinite term of solitary confinement? Of course not, as I have a shred of human empathy. 

Everyone. Dont be ridiculous. Death rate has been 0.08%.

Death is unfortunately a part of life. So are you suggesting we ban anything with any risk?

Also how many do you think will die due to the lack of cancer treatments? Are you happy to kill the economy?

Sorry but while I dont hold out much hope for the SNP cult other people need to start standing up to this. 

[Ray Gin]

SNP cult

Why are many other countries in the world doing the same thing? 

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

It's been eased because the numbers in the general population are now low enough. If the numbers rise again, they'd be at high risk again. 

 

I agree. 

 

Restrictions need to be lifted in phases, I just don't think we are moving it quick enough.

[graygo]

A bit of perspective. Almost negligible now.

 

[Back to 2005]

5 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

SNP cult

Why are many other countries in the world doing the same thing? 

Good question. Maybe we should have  followed the Sweden example of shielding the vulnerable without ruining the economy and the lives of the 99% while still keeping deaths to a lower rate than the UK. 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

FFS 😁

I know it’s laughable.

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Bail outs, rescue packages, lock downs and everything else that’s gone on; well-intentioned but ultimately mortgaging the future of those in society who are already disadvantaged by massive levels of debt. 

 

Sorry, yes. I misinterpreted your previous post.

[Taffin]

17 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Everyone. Dont be ridiculous. Death rate has been 0.08%.

Death is unfortunately a part of life. So are you suggesting we ban anything with any risk?

Also how many do you think will die due to the lack of cancer treatments? Are you happy to kill the economy?

Sorry but while I dont hold out much hope for the SNP cult other people need to start standing up to this. 

 

We need to separate this political stuff out of the debate. I'm an SNP and independence supporter, but I'm also in agreement with the rest of your post.

[Back to 2005]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

We need to separate this political stuff out of the debate. I'm an SNP and independence supporter, but I'm also in agreement with the rest of your post.

I'm not trying to be political as have no great interest in it but there is no getting away that these issues are the result of the SNP policy on covid. 

I'm equally critical of the way Johnson has handled it for the UK. 

[Weakened Offender]

11 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

I know it’s laughable.

 

It's weary, dreary nonsense. You'd get more sense from a bucket of crabs. 

[graygo]

Just now, jonesy said:

No worries. 
 

I’m more worried about the impending mass unemployment than I ever was about Covid. 

 

I am now too although I must admit at the beginning I thought this disease was a serious threat to our existence on the planet. I'm also pretty sure that this was how I was meant to feel.

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

I'm not trying to be political as have no great interest in it but there is no getting away that these issues are the result of the SNP policy on covid. 

I'm equally critical of the way Johnson has handled it for the UK. 

 

Surely then you don't hold much hope for the Conservative cult either then?

 

I'm not having a go btw, I just don't think this is split on party political lines as many seem to be drawing it and it doesn't really help discussion if people just align their thinking on it in such a partisan way.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Taffin

[TheOak88]

We did need the initial lockdown in March to allow the NHS to prepare for a worst case scenario. Once the preparations were  in place (end of April), we should have been opening society back up quite quickly for the younger age groups. 

 

We could have essentially allowed under 50’s to just get on with things and go back to normal life from May onwards. 

 

We still would have taken an economic hit, but it would have been absolutely no where near the disaster we are looking at. 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, TheOak88 said:

We did need the initial lockdown in March to allow the NHS to prepare for a worst case scenario. Once the preparations were  in place (end of April), we should have been opening society back up quite quickly for the younger age groups. 

 

We could have essentially allowed under 50’s to just get on with things and go back to normal life from May onwards. 

 

We still would have taken an economic hit, but it would have been absolutely no where near the disaster we are looking at. 

The closure of schools and abandoning of exams (which are of necessity socially distanced  to prevent cheating) were unnecessary panic measures. World wide no teacher has yet contacted the virus from a pupil yet alone died. Yet the teachers unions are insisting on 200 safety checks before  schools can reopen.

[Back to 2005]

9 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Surely then you don't hold much hope for the Conservative cult either then?

 

I'm not having a go btw, I just don't think this is split on party political lines as many seem to be drawing it and it doesn't really help discussion if people just align their thinking on it in such a partisan way.

Dont seem to get many Conservative cults on here!

Only the politicians can fix the mess they have created unfortunately unless the people decide they have had enough and actively demonstrate against it. 

[Notts1874]

41 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The closure of schools and abandoning of exams (which are of necessity socially distanced  to prevent cheating) were unnecessary panic measures. World wide no teacher has yet contacted the virus from a pupil yet alone died. Yet the teachers unions are insisting on 200 safety checks before  schools can reopen.

Oh look he's an expert on pandemics as well. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Two seconds of Google proves you are talking nonsense 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Notts1874

[graygo]

Just now, Notts1874 said:

Oh look he's an expert on pandemics as well. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

To be fair what he said is correct. 

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

To be fair what he said is correct. 

It isn't. It might be here but not worldwide. I will pop away from this thread. FA is a nasty vindictive person and I have better things to do than massage his online ego. 

[graygo]

Just now, Notts1874 said:

It isn't. It might be here but not worldwide. I will pop away from this thread. FA is a nasty vindictive person and I have better things to do than massage his online ego. 

 

I double/triple check everything he posts, mainly because they always seem to be made up shite, he's right with this one as far as I can see. Not a single case worldwide, a suspected one in Australia but nothing confirmed.

[Notts1874]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I double/triple check everything he posts, mainly because they always seem to be made up shite, he's right with this one as far as I can see. Not a single case worldwide, a suspected one in Australia but nothing confirmed.

I will stick with the made up shite he usually posts. He can take me to court. Nasty dangerous individual. 

 

[TheOak88]

39 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

He can take me to court. Nasty dangerous individual. 

 

 

What did he do to you?

[Bull's-eye]

5 hours ago, TheOak88 said:

 

What did he do to you?

 

Probably spouted pish, got pulled up for it, reported it to the powers that be and got someone into bother.

 

It's generally his agenda. 

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Whether people like it or not herd immunity is a thing. Humans are very adaptable to survive. Why we’re kind of here today. 
 

I’ve always been of the view herd immunity would occur through the back door. It wouldn’t be a set policy but it something that would occur naturally as people lived life, even in a lockdown environment. 
 

There are now places where significant part of the population are showing antibodies I think there is a city in Middle East that showing over 30% antibodies However, even cities like London are approaching 20%. 
 

As lockdown eases infections appear to be occurring in younger people. They manage to fight it off without too much problem in the main. It’s also probably points to a bit of common sense from the general population are managing risk appropriately. 

 

I think herd immunity and treatments will probably be our saviour as opposed to any vaccine. 
 

 

It's Not! working too well in Sweden. 17%. And it now seems there were emails from top brass willing to sacrifice the old for quicker immunity among the population. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by ri Alban

[SE16 3LN]

The 

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

The 

Well exactly

[SE16 3LN]

5 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

The 

This is undoubtedly the most sense I've ever made.