1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Corona Virus

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Derek W, Jan 31, 2020.

  1. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I think you assume and presume a little too much... methinks.
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  2. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    It's your opinion that we should accept your opinion, your opinion that the comment was thoughtless and your opinion that we should move on. That's a lot of opinions :confused:
     
    Catriona likes this.
  3. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    The only thoughtless comment seems to have been your assumption of what it meant. The comment you picked on was the second of two made by a poster either side of a comment suggesting isolation may be required for people the minister came into contact with.

    I'd gladly see all Tories extinct but even my "poisoned political viewpoint" allowed me to read the comment neutrally. You're borderline gaslighting (ref previous discussions!) by trying to make us accept something that you read into a comment was something objective and not subjective.
     
    Gezza, Andrew Flannigan and Catriona like this.
  5. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    That's pretty much how the current government works in general, isn't it? :confused:
     
  6. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    The hypocritic tory ministers would potentially become victims of their own rules. (And no doubt they would apply the same hypocrisy to enable them to ignore the rules (again)).
    Its an incredibly popular type of humour....fall on your face, hoist on his own petard, schadenfreude...


    Graeme
     
    Catriona likes this.
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    The Grauniad now quotes the (unnamed) "PM's spokesman"...
    Do you suppose that "the spokesman" is a tall geezer dressed in black and wearing a helmet with a full face mask? :cool:
     
  8. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Read an interesting (if somewhat cynical) take on the border quarantine measures today. The writer suggested that rather than serving any effective anti-covid purpose, it was to make travelling abroad less attractive/viable for Brits, so as to ensure they spend money in the UK and not abroad.

    It's certainly plausible, what does the forum think?
     
  9. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    My guess is that the loss from incoming tourists is likely to be greater than the gain from Brits staying home.

    MickLL
     
  10. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I'd be inclined to agree, but with the caveat that visitor confidence is unlikely to be strong even without quarantine given that UK alone has more daily deaths than EU27 combined...

    I've seen plenty of visitor confidence research for UK, not much for incoming.
     
  11. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    We both forgot that , at the moment, the UK is closed. No hotels or anywhere else to stay.

    MickLL
     
    Zou likes this.
  12. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Very true!
     
  13. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    I've mentioned before that one of my D's-in-Law is involved with the Oxford vaccine trials. At the moment she's 'jabbing' volunteers with either vaccine or placebo. Most of the volunteers, at the moment, are from the NHS.
    The thing that I find interesting that about a third of the volunteers are being rejected because they already have antibodies. Implying that a very large number have been infected and recovered asymptomatically.
    Remember that this isn't science - it's the impression of one person administering the vaccine and that opinion has been passed to me.

    MickLL
     
  14. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Would not be surprising. You have only got to multiply up the original R rate (around 6 I think) and multiply that each week to see possibly most of the population should have been exposed before isolation started.If each person infects others in a week, the whole population is covered in 10 weeks.
     
  15. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    In a similar realm of conjecture, and bearing in mind that some authorities have postulated that some strains of the virus are more lethal than others, it would appear that the death rate per infected person is declining - in most countries, at any rate. I have 'run the numbers' for a few countries, and this appears to be true. Now, a caveat - this could be because with more testing being done, more cases are discovered than had been previously, so the data are skewed right from the start, but there is another logical option.

    Considering the postulation mentioned above, which does have some supporting research, this means the virus is becoming less virulent with time. This stands to reason, as the more virulent strains which kill their hosts can no longer propagate, thereby automatically reducing the R number, as that host is can no longer a be vector.

    I would follow this further, with all countries as separate entities, each in their own time frame, but without the raw data, having to analyze the summary data to get back to the raw input is too tedious even in lockdown.
     
    RovingMike and Zou like this.
  16. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Whatever comes out in the post-mortem and I'm sure a lot will even if the Govt doesn't allow an inquiry into their handling, it is going to be hard to avoid the fact that we have performed at the very worst end of the spectrum and thousands have died as a result. That will need answering. but we are too far from a general election for it to have much effect.
     
  17. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Hard to disagree. It would be interesting to hear an objective opinion on how many would have died soon anyway. I have the impression , and it's no more than an impression having spoken to my medical friends and family, that a great many would have gone within a short time anyway.

    Following my many rants about fake news and biased reporting I'm guessing that I'll never see a report that I can trust.

    MickLL
     
  18. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    BJ will get us through this, badly, he will then get us through Brexit without a deal. He will then resign having achieved his aim of a no deal Brexit. Followed by a Leadership challenge, then a vote of no confidence, and off we go again.
     
    miked, steveandthedogs and Catriona like this.
  19. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    I can't exactly 'like' that but I'm afraid I agree.
     
  20. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    Such as this fake news.... allegedly...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52934672

    Problem is, when is news fake news.... and when is fake news fake news.... and when is any news news or fake news.....
     

Share This Page