Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Herbert.]

37 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Suppression does work in actual fact.   We suppressed it with lockdown and arrested the exponential growth of spread.    Denying suppression works is a new type of silliness.

 

Suppression is a tool used to a purpose.   The initial purpose was to ensure the NHS was never overwhelmed and to give hospitalised people a chance at treatment and recovery.    Some people hilariously point to the fact that the NHS was never overwhelmed as a reason to say that lockdown was never needed.    Suppression can also act as a brake to buy time to develop other strategies to replace lockdown.   Treatments.   Public health awareness.   Testing and tracking.   Ultimately,  vaccines.

 

We are still in a strategy of suppression and will be for many months.

 

 

Should we just live in lockdown to suppress the virus then?

 

Surely in a few months when the government say we can go back to normal the virus will still be around so will the NHS no get overwhelmed then? After all the vaccine may not work, track and trace has been a joke and the tests arent exactly reliable are they. It's been 6/7months we've had out lives stopped and the government still dont have a clue. 

[Governor Tarkin]

6 minutes ago, Sow Easy said:

Jesus H Christ 

 

Enzo does have a direct line to the Big Man right enough.

 

 

6 minutes ago, spirt of 98 said:

Here’s a thought why don’t  we-

 

1. have a three week full lockdown (with prior warning to stock up).

 

2. close the borders and ban all but essential travel in and out of Scotland with a quarantine on entry.

 

These two steps would surely eradicate COVID19 and keep it out. 
 

This is probably a sacrifice worth paying to get us through till a vaccine arrives. 
 

Thoughts? 

 

And close the pubs?

 

[Nucky Thompson]

9 minutes ago, Sow Easy said:

There's nothing naive about ridiculing your absolutely insane, QAnonsense ramblings. The flat earth theory makes more sense than that utter pish you wrote above. 

 

Down with the pharma companies! Down with scientists! 

You've got a cheek after your post about locking down for 3 weeks 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

7 minutes ago, spirt of 98 said:

Never knew that people could carry it for over three weeks. 

 

I'd guess if your a carrier then you could have it for months, years, can't see it being any different from carriers of other diseases.

That's the thing with carriers/asymptomatic people, they don't know that they are infected.

[Whatever]

France record over 10.5k new cases in a 24 hour period.

 

The most since the pandemic began.

 

 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

21 minutes ago, spirt of 98 said:

Here’s a thought why don’t  we-

 

1. have a three week full lockdown (with prior warning to stock up).

 

2. close the borders and ban all but essential travel in and out of Scotland with a quarantine on entry.

 

These two steps would surely eradicate COVID19 and keep it out. 
 

This is probably a sacrifice worth paying to get us through till a vaccine arrives. 
 

Thoughts? 

 

My wife has been advocating this for a few months now. Not just Scotland/UK either, whole globe. Struggling to understand how it would work in the UK far less the whole globe.

[Sow Easy]

5 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

You've got a cheek after your post about locking down for 3 weeks 

 

I'll go easy on you seeing as you cannae read... 

 

...that wasn't me. 

 

🤣

[Harry Potter]

5 hours ago, Boy Daniel said:

All very well but you still need a mask on underneath a visor. 

correct.

[Robbofan99]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

The scale of 'long covid' will be directly corrolated to the scale of people infected or who suffer sufficiently serious illness.    So that will be an unknown.    Whether it's worse or not as bad as excess illness from other things is irrelevant.    It will simply be an extra quantum of illness on top of all the other things people suffer from.

 

Studies into long covid are ongoing.   The best way to minimise the scale of long covid is to minimise the scale of infection.    Perhaps a killer blow to the theory of willfully achieved,  infection derived herd immunity then.

Hes lost the argument about deaths so now on about " long covid" to scare and cause fear mongering. What a charlatan. 

[graygo]

27 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Nope, can't see that working, because those who are asymptomatic will still be asymptomatic and therefore potentially infectious long after a 3 week full lockdown.

 

21 minutes ago, spirt of 98 said:

Never knew that people could carry it for over three weeks. 

 

I'd like to see some reference to that being true as well because it's nonsense in my opinion.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

Hes lost the argument about deaths so now on about " long covid" to scare and cause fear mongering. What a charlatan. 

 

Stalker alert.    Why don't you bugger off back down whatever hole you slithered out of?    Cretin.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

 

I'd like to see some reference to that being true as well because it's nonsense in my opinion.

 

@Jambo-Jimbo

 

When somebody tests positive, they’re told to go home and stay home for 14 days. The reason for that is that it’s felt that the ability to transmit virus that is able to infect somebody else lasts somewhere around 10 days. If you test positive and you’re completely asymptomatic, at least theoretically, somewhere around 14 days or so you probably aren’t shedding virus that would be able to infect somebody else," Dr. David Ellis, Chief Medical Officer for Pardee UNC Health Care, said.

Edited September 12, 2020 by graygo

[Victorian]

14 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

Should we just live in lockdown to suppress the virus then?

 

Surely in a few months when the government say we can go back to normal the virus will still be around so will the NHS no get overwhelmed then? After all the vaccine may not work, track and trace has been a joke and the tests arent exactly reliable are they. It's been 6/7months we've had out lives stopped and the government still dont have a clue. 

 

They're still trying to work out the balance between covid,  other illness,  economy and education.   There probably isn't a good balance,  only a least horrific balance.   We're not in lockdown but we're still in a suppression phase.    A sort of holding pattern until other resources come to the fore or improve efficiency.    

 

The crusaders against so-called doom and gloom do not offer credible solutions other than to discard suppression and hope for the best.    Claims of weakening virus,  premature claims of death figures being a fraction of what they were before.   All just fantasy piss and wind until such things are proved either way.

[Robbofan99]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Stalker alert.    Why don't you bugger off back down whatever hole you slithered out of?    Cretin.

Have I Got you rattled.?  You really don't like being challenged about your insane, nonsensical  ramblings and your pontifications, which are a daily occurance. I always feel a person has lost the argument when they resort to juvenile name calling .  Ill be keeping a close eye on the deaths in the next month or so if only to pull you up which you deserve to be called out on. Its not " stalking". 

[Nucky Thompson]

13 minutes ago, Sow Easy said:

I'll go easy on you seeing as you cannae read... 

 

...that wasn't me. 

 

🤣

Lol  neither it was. 

Apologies, I've visited 2 licensed premises this afternoon 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Robbofan99 said:

Have I Got you rattled.?  You really don't like being challenged about your insane, nonsensical  ramblings and your pontifications, which are a daily occurance. I always feel a person has lost the argument when they resort to juvenile name calling .  Ill be keeping a close eye on the deaths in the next month or so if only to pull you up which you deserve to be called out on. Its not " stalking". 

 

You're not challenging anything.   You offer no arguments.   Nothing of any constructive content.    All you do is moronic sabre rattling.   The odd poke with a stick and run away.    Did you like chap-door-run as a child by any chance?

 

A bottom feeding simpleton getting cheap thrills out of degenerating discussion to your level.    

 

GTF.

[Robbofan99]

1 minute ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Lol  neither it was. 

Apologies, I've visited 2 licensed premises this afternoon 

tut tut that's against the rules apparently I am sure some of the maddos on this will report u.  I hope u had a good bevvy . 

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Lol  neither it was. 

Apologies, I've visited 2 licensed premises this afternoon 

🍺🍷👍

[Robbofan99]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You're not challenging anything.   You offer no arguments.   Nothing of any constructive content.    All you do is moronic sabre rattling.   The odd poke with a stick and run away.    Did you like chap-door-run as a child by any chance?

 

A bottom feeding simpleton getting cheap thrills out of degenerating discussion to your level.    

 

GTF.

Your not willing to listen to any reasoned arguments. You have had the same argument since the pandemic without even looking at the ever evolving changes in the pandemic and the virus. Your argument is clearly for lockdowns whether localised or national. A big fearty. 

[Nucky Thompson]

1 minute ago, Brian Dundas said:

Which is against the guidelines. 

I'm in Northumberland at my holiday park. It lets you book once per day in each venue. There are 5 different venues 

.

Not sure if the rules are different in England

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Robbofan99 said:

Your not willing to listen to any reasoned arguments. You have had the same argument since the pandemic without even looking at the ever evolving changes in the pandemic and the virus. Your argument is clearly for lockdowns whether localised or national. A big fearty. 

 

I've had many constructive exchanges with a good few of the other posters who take a different point of view.    Because they offer interesting alternatives.   Actual discussion.    You don't.

 

I'm not advocating a lockdown.   I mean... I've literally just said the exact opposite to that.   

 

You're a stalker.  A troll.  An embarrassment.

[Enzo Chiefo]

9 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Which is against the guidelines. 

Hands up...I visited 2 premises today as well.

[Herbert.]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

They're still trying to work out the balance between covid,  other illness,  economy and education.   There probably isn't a good balance,  only a least horrific balance.   We're not in lockdown but we're still in a suppression phase.    A sort of holding pattern until other resources come to the fore or improve efficiency.    

 

The crusaders against so-called doom and gloom do not offer credible solutions other than to discard suppression and hope for the best.    Claims of weakening virus,  premature claims of death figures being a fraction of what they were before.   All just fantasy piss and wind until such things are proved either way.

 

The correct thing to do is tell those that had to shield to do so and let the rest of us get on with it. I've not work a mask at work and none of my customers have worn a mask and I'm in close proximity to them and guess what, I don't have covid.

 

We've gone from around 1k deaths a day to 80odd since the start of the month, I dont think that's premature claims that the death rates are a fraction of what they were during the peak. You should maybe look at the numbers and stop pissing your pants over this.

[Robbofan99]

"I've had many constructive exchanges"  in other word with people you agree with and have the same views and opinions of you. Anyway no more " stalking" ill take a breather from you but shall return in due course. 

[Robbofan99]

1 minute ago, Herbert said:

 

The correct thing to do is tell those that had to shield to do so and let the rest of us get on with it. I've not work a mask at work and none of my customers have worn a mask and I'm in close proximity to them and guess what, I don't have covid.

 

We've gone from around 1k deaths a day to 80odd since the start of the month, I dont think that's premature claims that the death rates are a fraction of what they were during the peak. You should maybe look at the numbers and stop pissing your pants over this.

Exactly and in Scotland 7 deaths since June 30th. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

44 minutes ago, Whatever said:

France record over 10.5k new cases in a 24 hour period.

 

The most since the pandemic began.

 

 

30 deaths.  A long way down from their peak. 

[Victorian]

8 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

The correct thing to do is tell those that had to shield to do so and let the rest of us get on with it. I've not work a mask at work and none of my customers have worn a mask and I'm in close proximity to them and guess what, I don't have covid.

 

We've gone from around 1k deaths a day to 80odd since the start of the month, I dont think that's premature claims that the death rates are a fraction of what they were during the peak. You should maybe look at the numbers and stop pissing your pants over this.

 

I've already stated what I'm going to keep an eye on regarding future figures.   Perhaps you haven't read all of today's posts.   Some of the experts believe the deaths are staying low because it's a different age group of people making up the current infections.   I have been saying that the important things to monitor is how this affects the next links in the chains of infections.    I've said I'm keeping an open mind on the matter but it's still open.

 

You appear to have already decided.   That's entirely your choice,  but your views prove nothing.   What I say proves nothing.   One of us is open minded.   It aint you.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Victorian

[Nucky Thompson]

10 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Hands up...I visited 2 premises today as well.

Scotland or England?

The Scottish Stasi might be on your tail 

[AlphonseCapone]

I just hate everyone tbh. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

31 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

@Jambo-Jimbo

 

When somebody tests positive, they’re told to go home and stay home for 14 days. The reason for that is that it’s felt that the ability to transmit virus that is able to infect somebody else lasts somewhere around 10 days. If you test positive and you’re completely asymptomatic, at least theoretically, somewhere around 14 days or so you probably aren’t shedding virus that would be able to infect somebody else," Dr. David Ellis, Chief Medical Officer for Pardee UNC Health Care, said.

 

Theoretically, probably...............meaning they don't know either, for sure, just like you, just like me, that's why I said "'I'd guess if your a carrier then you could have it for months, years" 

[Victorian]

10 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

"I've had many constructive exchanges"  in other word with people you agree with and have the same views and opinions of you. Anyway no more " stalking" ill take a breather from you but shall return in due course. 

 

You might consider sobering up for a few minutes to realise that I have set out what I believe could happen.    Saying things with certainty before they have been proved is a mark of the fool.    Very much like you.

 

Fast forward to the the future and deaths and serious illness does not rise?    Brilliant news.    My theorising will be proved wrong.   Come back and tell me what a twat I am,   you're welcome.    But remember this... it might be you being called a twat.

[Whatever]

12 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

30 deaths.  A long way down from their peak. 

Yes, deaths today against case numbers aren’t comparable. As you well know.

[Nucky Thompson]

6 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

I just hate everyone tbh. 

Feel the love man 

[Victorian]

51 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

Hes lost the argument about deaths so now on about " long covid" to scare and cause fear mongering. What a charlatan. 

 

Mark of the fool.    No arguments have been won or lost.

[Herbert.]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

I've already stated what I'm going to keep an eye on regarding future figures.   Perhaps you haven't read all of today's posts.   Some of the experts believe the deaths are staying low because it's a different age group of people making up the current infections.   I have been saying that the important things to monitor is how this affects the next links in the chains of infections.    I've said I'm keeping an open mind on the matter but it's still open.

 

You appear to have already decided.   That's entirely your choice,  but your views prove nothing.   What I say proves nothing.   One of us is open minded.   It aint you.

 

 

Life has to get back to normal and the longer it goes on the more detrimental it is on younger people long term. All this is to supposedly protect people coming to the end of their lives anyway. If the virus is less harmful to the young then would it not be better to let us crack on?

[Herbert.]

3 minutes ago, Whatever said:

Yes, deaths today against case numbers aren’t comparable. As you well know.

 

How's that?

[frankblack]

Just now, Herbert said:

 

 

Life has to get back to normal and the longer it goes on the more detrimental it is on younger people long term. All this is to supposedly protect people coming to the end of their lives anyway. If the virus is less harmful to the young then would it not be better to let us crack on?

 

Oh FFS.   I think you need to seek help.

 

[Whatever]

6 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

How's that?

Because on the 24th August there was 3000+ cases and 1 death.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Whatever

[Victorian]

8 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

Life has to get back to normal and the longer it goes on the more detrimental it is on younger people long term. All this is to supposedly protect people coming to the end of their lives anyway. If the virus is less harmful to the young then would it not be better to let us crack on?

 

You might be better to spend a bit of time researching the full details of what's going on instead of cherry picking fragments of information that loosely suit your already preset conclusions.

 

Yes,  it's said that it is less harmful to the young.   What you've failed to grasp is that the young is not some kind of quarantined group,  incapable of infecting the old.    The virus doesn't say "well that's me now in a young *****,  end of the line for me then".

 

Can you understand the concept?   The young may well begin to transmit it on to their parents,  aunts and uncles and grandparents.   Older work colleagues.   Around in community transmission.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Victorian

[Herbert.]

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Oh FFS.   I think you need to seek help.

 

 

Go on

[Herbert.]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

You might be better to spend a bit if time researching the full details of what's going on instead of cherry picking fragments of information that loosely suit your already preset conclusions.

 

Yes,  it's said that it is less harmful to the young.   What you've failed to grasp is that the young is not some kind of quarantined group,  incapable of infecting the old.    The virus doesn't say "well that's me now in a young *****,  end of the line for me then".

 

Can you understand the concept?   The young may well begin to transmit it on to their parents,  aunts and uncles and grandparents.   Older work colleagues.   Around in community transmission.

 

 

 

I know how a virus works.

 

 

That's why I said previously that those that have to shield should. Right now we've all spent months locked up in the house, the economy is ****ed and the government dont have a clue what they are gonna do next. All that time was wasted. 

[Samuel Camazzola]

3 hours ago, Natural Orders said:

Hah well said 

 

[Ray Gin]

Nottingham teenager fined £10,000 for hosting house party

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/covid-fine-house-party-nottingham-police-lenton-coronavirus-b431569.html

 

“This party was a clear example of a householder who deliberately flouted the rules without a care for anyone else and as a result we have used the full powers we have to deal with this.

“Under current rules we can issue fines to anyone hosting gatherings of more than 30 people which can result in fines of up to £10,000. And now we are on the eve of rules becoming even tighter so there can be gatherings of no more than six.

“I want to send out a clear message to anyone who is thinking of deliberately hosting parties tonight or tomorrow night ahead of the rules changing to please not do this.

"As we have demonstrated here we are not afraid to use the full powers we have and we will not tolerate those who are deliberately put other people’s lives in danger.”

 

 

 

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

Why is this thread seperate from the main cornavirus thread? Let's bring all the stupidity together into one big thread. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Herbert said:

 

I know how a virus works.

 

 

That's why I said previously that those that have to shield should. Right now we've all spent months locked up in the house, the economy is ****ed and the government dont have a clue what they are gonna do next. All that time was wasted. 

 

Here is what you said in your previous post.

 

If the virus is less harmful to the young then would it not be better to let us crack on?

 

You claim to know how a virus works.   Do you though?    Do you not accept that the young cannot keep the virus in the young?    

[Herbert.]

8 minutes ago, Whatever said:

Because on the 24th August there was 3000+ cases and 1 death.

 

 

 

 

 

So you can only compare death to infection rates when the death rate is higher?

[AlphonseCapone]

1 minute ago, Herbert said:

 

So you can only compare death to infection rates when the death rate is higher?

 

It takes time for the virus to kill someone. Therefore deaths now are more likely linked to cases around a week ago rather than today. So comparing today's cases and deaths doesn't make sense. 

[Ray Gin]

7 minutes ago, Herbert said:

I know how a virus works.

 

That's why I said previously that those that have to shield should. Right now we've all spent months locked up in the house, the economy is ****ed and the government dont have a clue what they are gonna do next. All that time was wasted. 

 

How will that work when there are millions of teenagers and young adults who still live with their parents?

[Herbert.]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Here is what you said in your previous post.

 

If the virus is less harmful to the young then would it not be better to let us crack on?

 

You claim to know how a virus works.   Do you though?    Do you not accept that the young cannot keep the virus in the young?    

 

If you go a wee bit further back, you'll see what I said.

 

 

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

If you go a wee bit further back, you'll see what I said.

 

 

 

I quoted what you said about young people.   You said it.    

 

I reiterate.    The virus moves on to other hosts.    It cannot quarantine in the young.   Parents and other family members,   older colleagues,  community transmission.    Those are the next links in the chains.    

 

That's how a virus really works.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Victorian