Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Ron Burgundy]

7 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

64 deaths. Not good.

 

 

Until they give a breakdown of ages and any other underlying health factors it's basically propaganda and not of any use to the public.

[OmiyaHearts]

Just now, Malinga the Swinga said:

When the teacher is doing video lesson, who is teaching the kids who are at school? 

What about kids who don't have access to Internet or latest devices. Not all families can afford ipad, laptop. Do we just ignore them and allow them to become more disadvantaged. 

What do you do if school the only place kids can learn. Parents at home may not give a toss about kids and just ignore them. 

Closing schools would be almost okay if all children had perfect families and everything they require at home. Sadly, that isn't the case,and we risk dividing society into haves and have nots even more than it is at present. 

When the teacher is doing video lesson, who is teaching the kids who are at school? The kids at home are watching the lesson being streamed.

 

What about kids who don't have access to Internet or latest devices. Not all families can afford ipad, laptop. Do we just ignore them and allow them to become more disadvantaged. - They can go to school to be educated

 

What do you do if school the only place kids can learn. Parents at home may not give a toss about kids and just ignore them. - They can go to school.

 

 

If we're putting education before peoples actual health, then we might as well re-open everything. Think of the mental health for people who've been furloughed for ages then made redundant. Vulnerable individuals who aren't safe at home. People who live alone. The list goes on.

 

If schools are open, everything else should be open.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 minute ago, OmiyaHearts said:

When the teacher is doing video lesson, who is teaching the kids who are at school? The kids at home are watching the lesson being streamed.

 

What about kids who don't have access to Internet or latest devices. Not all families can afford ipad, laptop. Do we just ignore them and allow them to become more disadvantaged. - They can go to school to be educated

 

What do you do if school the only place kids can learn. Parents at home may not give a toss about kids and just ignore them. - They can go to school.

 

 

If we're putting education before peoples actual health, then we might as well re-open everything. Think of the mental health for people who've been furloughed for ages then made redundant. Vulnerable individuals who aren't safe at home. People who live alone. The list goes on.

 

If schools are open, everything else should be open.

Always good to get different viewpoint when reasonably laid out. We shall agree to disagree. 

[The Mighty Thor]

3 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Outbreaks not cases (positive tests). Look at the ages of people testing positive in the last week in Scotland 

 

School age - 110

Students age - 68

Working age - 502

 

Obviously not all ages fit into each of my categories but most will - you have to remember that children are very often asymptotic so will not be tested, maybe the mass testing of them in Liverpool will give us a better idea of true numbers, but I got into trouble for suggesting that yesterday.

 

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EWsD3/113/

I think there should be mass testing of schoolkids. The narrative of kids don't get it has zero scientific basis and the positive result in 600 kids in Lanarkshire blows it clean out the water. 

I think that if they did mass testing of kids they'd shit their pants at the proportion of asymptotic infections there are likely to be. 

[Don Dan]

LiveNicola Sturgeon briefing LIVE: 64 deaths recorded in 24 hours, highest daily figure since May

[Don Dan]

Coronavirus figures daily update: 

The total number of cases reported yesterday was 1,261.

That represents 6.5% of the total tests that were carried out, and takes the total number of confirmed cases in Scotland now to 76,448.

488 of the new cases were in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 272 in Lanarkshire, 145 in Lothian, and 80 in Ayrshire and Arran.

An additional 64 deaths have been registered in the past 24 hours of a patient who first tested positive over the previous 28 days.

Today’s death figure is the highest daily total of deaths since the 6 May and it takes the total number of deaths, under this daily measurement, to 3,143.

[the general]

The 2 of them back to their smug and condescending best today 

[Mikey1874]

14 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

64 deaths. Not good.

 

 

 

A lot of deaths.

 

UK number will be stark. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

13 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

When the teacher is doing video lesson, who is teaching the kids who are at school? 

What about kids who don't have access to Internet or latest devices. Not all families can afford ipad, laptop. Do we just ignore them and allow them to become more disadvantaged. 

What do you do if school the only place kids can learn. Parents at home may not give a toss about kids and just ignore them. 

Closing schools would be almost okay if all children had perfect families and everything they require at home. Sadly, that isn't the case,and we risk dividing society into haves and have nots even more than it is at present. 

Great points . Like said school can be a safe refuge for sine children 

[coconut doug]

19 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Pretty much sums it up. Blame old people, blame care homes but never, never ever, never ever ever blame government decision makers. 

 

I'm not blaming anybody, that's your game. 

 

Why can't you tell us what you know about this decision making process and why you feel justified in blaming those who made the decision.

 

What do you think they should have done instead?

[The Real Maroonblood]

4 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

LiveNicola Sturgeon briefing LIVE: 64 deaths recorded in 24 hours, highest daily figure since May

So closing the pubs is working NOT.

 

[Shanks]

21 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

64 deaths. Not good.

 

 

 

That is not good.

 

not. good. 

[Don Dan]

9 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

So closing the pubs is working NOT.

 

I agree. 

[Victorian]

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

The inference absolutely was severe risk, by sharing stories of people the general public would think of as young, fit and healthy having tragically died from it.

 

Regard the part in bold, that's not much better because it isn't true. Not everyone is at risk from it as we've seen from numerous professional footballers testing positive with absolutely no symptoms and no ongoing issues afterwards.

 

Of course everyone was at risk.  On a scale from near zero to the top end.  At no point was it said that young and healthy people were at severe risk.  I think you're trying to portray something that just isn't true.

[Dennis Reynolds]

31 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

The inference absolutely was severe risk, by sharing stories of people the general public would think of as young, fit and healthy having tragically died from it.

 

Regard the part in bold, that's not much better because it isn't true. Not everyone is at risk from it as we've seen from numerous professional footballers testing positive with absolutely no symptoms and no ongoing issues afterwards.

 

Junior Sambia, 23, playing for Montpellier was put in an induced coma because of it.

 

Theres an NFL player, Ryquell Armstead who is going to miss the whole season now because of it as he's struggling to recover and has been hospitalised twice!

 

Theres plenty other examples but these guys stick out in my mind. I had Armstead in my fantasy team....

 

So yes, everyone is at risk from it but there's obviously a much lower risk of your young and healthy. 

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Of course everyone was at risk.  On a scale from near zero to the top end.  At no point was it said that young and healthy people were at severe risk.  I think you're trying to portray something that just isn't true.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-wales-53169736

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/why-young-healthy-people-dying-coronavirus/amp/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/%3foutputType=amp

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8163367/amp/How-young-people-perfectly-fit-healthy-killed-coronavirus.html

 

That's just from the first page of a Google search. They are all written in a fashion to instill fear into the young, fit and healthy who at the time, were being blamed for spikes in transmission. 

 

If you suffer zero Ill effects from something, your risk from that thing is zero. We weren't and aren't all at risk. Admittedly you don't know that until after we the fact though.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Taffin

[Ray Gin]

59 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Last PHE outbreak by source data from last week. SG choose not to provide this information. 

If you have data that shows they're not, then I'd be delighted to see it.

 

England is in full lockdown except for education so that's hardly surprising.

 

[SE16 3LN]

23 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Teachers do not have the equipment nor technical ability/training to be able to stream a lesson that is also being given live in the classroom. It is pure fantasy to think that can be done.

😃 Of course the teachers can do it and they have already been doing it in some situations. Look, for me its about older kids who we think carry and transmit the virus. They are out together in large groups, many visibly dodging the safe precautions and then contacting with their families at home. If we really want to stop the spread then this has to be controlled. If not, well **** it, what are the govt. really trying to achieve by crashing the economy.

[Malinga the Swinga]

4 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I'm not blaming anybody, that's your game. 

 

Why can't you tell us what you know about this decision making process and why you feel justified in blaming those who made the decision.

 

What do you think they should have done instead?

Check, then double check if those in hospital really need to be moved at all. As we didn't run out of beds and we had spare capacity, then don't be rushed or panicked into making decision, based on flawed projections, that you may well regret. Tested patients before making the decision as to who goes and who stays. Keep positive cases either in the hospital they are in or else move them to one of the pop up ones built specifically for Covid patients. If patients unable to be tested, why they could not be tested though, then treat them as positive case and isolate for appropriate period. 

If they insisted on sending remaining negative tested patients to Care homes, informed Care home residents of what was happening and allowed families who had relatives to make other arrangements if they were able or wanted to.

They could have tried to move all hospital patients testing negative into the same place, after first moving other residents about to create space. 

Under no circumstances just disperse them into care homes without testing. 

All of these could have been done, and maybe some were but as we are only the public, those in charge have decided we do not need to know. We only pay their wages after all. 

Finally, if finding you have made terrible decision, hold hands up immediately and admit it. Do not hold quick internal review and blame everyone else, making sure that you clear yourself of any liability. 

That okay for starters. If there are gaps, and there will be, get others with knowledge and experience to help me fill in those gaps. It's called teamwork and it does the job. 

 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

England is in full lockdown except for education so that's hardly surprising.

 

 

And all the other businesses that are still open to the public.

[Ray Gin]

25 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

So closing the pubs is working NOT.

 

 

Do you have figures from an alternate universe where the pubs stayed open for comparison?

[OBE]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-wales-53169736

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/why-young-healthy-people-dying-coronavirus/amp/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/%3foutputType=amp

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8163367/amp/How-young-people-perfectly-fit-healthy-killed-coronavirus.html

 

That's just from the first page of a Google search. They are all written in a fashion to instill fear into the young, fit and healthy who at the time, were being blamed for spikes in transmission. 

 

If you suffer zero I'll effects from something, your risk from that thing is zero. We weren't and aren't all at risk.

 

At risk from what, being ill, dying, catching or unknowingly spreading it?

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Do you have figures from an alternate universe where the pubs stayed open for comparison?

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-wales-53169736

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/why-young-healthy-people-dying-coronavirus/amp/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/%3foutputType=amp

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8163367/amp/How-young-people-perfectly-fit-healthy-killed-coronavirus.html

 

That's just from the first page of a Google search. They are all written in a fashion to instill fear into the young, fit and healthy who at the time, were being blamed for spikes in transmission. 

 

If you suffer zero Ill effects from something, your risk from that thing is zero. We weren't and aren't all at risk. Admittedly you don't know that until after we the fact though.

 

I'm at risk from a meteor strike or from spontaneous human combustion.  Neither has got me yet but that doesn't mean there was never a risk.  Quite a low risk mind you.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, OBE said:

 

At risk from what, being ill, dying, catching or unknowingly spreading it?

 

At risk, as in posing a risk to you. If your only awareness of having Covid is because a test said you had it, you're not at risk are you?

 

You're not at risk from spreading it, but you are putting others at risk. But I'm talking in reference to the media painting individuals at risk with cherry picked stories to improve compliance amongst younger, healthy people.

[King prawn]

I don’t think they will shut the schools but if they do I feel sorry for the children who don’t get the level of support they need at home. 

[Taffin]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

I'm at risk from a meteor strike or from spontaneous human combustion.  Neither has got me yet but that doesn't mean there was never a risk.  Quite a low risk mind you.

 

Well yes, but I'd class articles professing the need to stay inside and wear a mask when they go out incase there was a meteor strike to be equally scare mongering.

 

 

[Victorian]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Well yes, but I'd class articles professing the need to stay inside and wear a mask when they go out incase there was a meteor strike to be equally scare mongering.

 

 

 

The meteor strike was an analogy from the extreme.  You didn't really think it was in comparison?

[Lone Striker]

t.  

Edited November 11, 2020 by Lone Striker

[Lone Striker]

48 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

The inference absolutely was severe risk, by sharing stories of people the general public would think of as young, fit and healthy having tragically died from it.

 

Regard the part in bold, that's not much better because it isn't true. Not everyone is at risk from it as we've seen from numerous professional footballers testing positive with absolutely no symptoms and no ongoing issues afterwards.

Your points are valid - however you're missing a rather important point.    Namely, that it's (still) unknown if someone who unknowingly has the virus and suffers no effects can then  spread it to others, some of whom do then suffer badly.  The suspicion is Yes they can, at least for  a number of days - It's the reason why mass testing in some areas has started, and why the government want to test every student before deciding if they can go back home for Xmas or if they have to go through an isolation period, then another test.  

[Victorian]

How can one say a person was not at risk from the virus on the basis that they haven't yet suffered a bad case?  The same person could get a bad case tomorrow.  Hindsight is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

[Lone Striker]

.  

Edited November 11, 2020 by Lone Striker

[Lone Striker]

.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Lone Striker

[The Mighty Thor]

20 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

England is in full lockdown except for education so that's hardly surprising.

 

As you're fond of saying, there's a time lag. The effects of England's lockdown won't come through for weeks. 

We've been in worse restrictions for weeks and our numbers haven't budged. 

[Heartsmad1874]

2 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Your points are valid - however you're missing a rather important point.    Namely, that it's (still) unknown if someone who unknowingly has the virus and suffers no effects can then  spread it to others, some of whom do then suffer badly.  The suspicion is Yes they can, at least for  a number of days - It's the reason why mass testing in some areas has started, and why the government want to test every student before deciding if they can go back home for Xmas or if they have to go through an isolation period, then another test.  

Jason Leitch just said the new rapid test only has between 50-60% chance of detecting if you have the virus. Worse than the PCR test at about 90%.
 

Not that great is it.

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The meteor strike was an analogy from the extreme.  You didn't really think it was in comparison?

 

It was an analogy but not a comparison? Think you need to brush up on your understanding of words. Did I think you were being serious about it, no, of course not.

[Ron Burgundy]

2 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Jason Leitch just said the new rapid test only has between 50-60% chance of detecting if you have the virus. Worse than the PCR test at about 90%.
 

Not that great is it.

It's a bit more rubbish than the other tests that were a bit rubbish.

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Your points are valid - however you're missing a rather important point.    Namely, that it's (still) unknown if someone who unknowingly has the virus and suffers no effects can then  spread it to others, some of whom do then suffer badly.  The suspicion is Yes they can, at least for  a number of days - It's the reason why mass testing in some areas has started, and why the government want to test every student before deciding if they can go back home for Xmas or if they have to go through an isolation period, then another test.  

 

I'm aware of that and agree with it. That should have been the messaging. My gripe was the narrative of 'look, look, young healthy people die too' despite it being an near unbelievably small percentage of people which we now seem to be recognising given the vaccine prioritisation proposals.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Taffin

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

What's that about? What were they eating with at home? 

With their hands? Burgers and fries,  pizzas by the slice,  KFC and such.

I have noticed in the States that many people of of all ages have difficulty using knives and forks.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Lone Striker]

4 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

Jason Leitch just said the new rapid test only has between 50-60% chance of detecting if you have the virus. Worse than the PCR test at about 90%.
 

Not that great is it.

Well, so long as it  never gives  false positives then even a low hit-rate of actual positives is still very useful when it's being applied to thousands of folk and the results being given in a matter of minutes.   But yes, it's not perfect.

 

 

[Victorian]

13 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It was an analogy but not a comparison? Think you need to brush up on your understanding of words. Did I think you were being serious about it, no, of course not.

 

[Victorian]

Pretending not to recognise what is a serious comparison and what is not a serious comparison.  

 

Sadly lacking in debating honesty.

[Lone Striker]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm aware of that and agree with it. That should have been the messaging. My gripe was the narrative of 'look, look, young healthy people die too' despite it being an near unbelievably small percentage of people which we now seem to be recognising given the vaccine prioritisation proposals.

I see what you're  getting at.  But since the number of fit/healthy under 30s who have died or developed long-covid isn't zero, it would be irresponsible of a government to suggest the risk to folk like that is almost zero.   And per my previous post, it would encourage the bravado behaviour which they're trying to stop  in under 30s because of transmission risks to others.

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

15 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

It's a bit more rubbish than the other tests that were a bit rubbish.

Think the correct term is rubbishier, or as IT developers would say, a notional product. 

[Taffin]

Just now, Victorian said:

Pretending not to recognise what is a serious comparison and what is not a serious comparison.  

 

Sadly lacking in debating honesty.

 

Where did I pretend not to recognise it? I quite clearly said I didn't take it seriously, no.

 

Stop trying to question other people's integrity when you're the person who started throwing about things like meteor strikes and made up ways of dying to make a point...that you then claimed you weren't making a comparison about whilst also stating you were making an analogy.

 

[Victorian]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Where did I pretend not to recognise it? I quite clearly said I didn't take it seriously, no.

 

Stop trying to question other people's integrity when you're the person who started throwing about things like meteor strikes and made up ways of dying to make a point...that you then claimed you weren't making a comparison about whilst also stating you were making an analogy.

 

 

We both know what was meant in the words and sentences used.  The meteor comment could be understood by a 12 year old to be a lighthearted,  throw-away comment.  You tried to twist it at first.  If you can't conduct an honest discussion then it's your loss.  

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

I see what you're  getting at.  But since the number of fit/healthy under 30s who have died or developed long-covid isn't zero, it would be irresponsible of a government to suggest the risk to folk like that is almost zero.   And per my previous post, it would encourage the bravado behaviour which they're trying to stop  in under 30s because of transmission risks to others.

 

 

 

But the risk for them is almost zero.

 

I don't disagree about transmission, but that entirely separate to the point I was making.

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Careful. You might suffer from 'long SHC', which is a bit of a slow burner.

 

Indeed.  The wicking effect caused by clothing,  etc.  

 

Oh shit.. I'm taking this too literal

 

[Ray Gin]

27 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

As you're fond of saying, there's a time lag. The effects of England's lockdown won't come through for weeks. 

We've been in worse restrictions for weeks and our numbers haven't budged. 

 

You are talking about where new cases are being transmitted in the past week. New cases were hardly going to be transmitted in the pub last week given that they were all shut.

 

 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

I see what you're  getting at.  But since the number of fit/healthy under 30s who have died or developed long-covid isn't zero, it would be irresponsible of a government to suggest the risk to folk like that is almost zero.   And per my previous post, it would encourage the bravado behaviour which they're trying to stop  in under 30s because of transmission risks to others.

 

 

Scientifically the risk can never be zero but that doesn’t mean it should stop them describing the risk as negligible. Saying stuff like ‘there is still a risk’ is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading. As for encouraging bravado behaviour, I agree, people still need to hear the truth though.