Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting article, though you don't need a PhD to predict that the current govern made some irremediable mistakes that will cost the lives of many. What is even more worrying is the lack of vigour in the current restrictions. I see too many people not respecting the rules in London and the police doesn't even fine them. The stranded Britons are probably luckier than us." I am gutted about this. We had the benefit of having countries before us who did most things wrong, and some who did most things right. Why we chose to follow the ones who did most things wrong and then surpassed their mistakes, leaves me mystified. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts" The uncertainties quoted for their data are so staggeringly humongous that it is essentially meaningless. Look at the range quoted. It's anywhere from the sublime to the ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We had the benefit of having countries before us who did most things wrong, and some who did most things right. Why we chose to follow the ones who did most things wrong and then surpassed their mistakes, leaves me mystified. " I have an acquaintance shall we say, who works for Thames Valley Police. She's given me some decent insight in to the issues the police face around 'Policing by Consent' Parts of this document are interesting. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent It seems the power police have is not as strong as we believe and there's several steps they need to go through before fining people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is what happens when you have some crackpot svengali dictating policy. Cummings will have so much to answer for in years to come." Why Cummings? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m so fed up of figures being published to suit an agenda. The Guardian quotes X figure because it suits their agenda, The Telegraph quotes Y figure for the same reason. Both quote as fact without giving credence to differing opinions. Fuck off and stop playing politics. Same goes for people on here. " It's a forum.....get over it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is what happens when you have some crackpot svengali dictating policy. Cummings will have so much to answer for in years to come. Why Cummings? " https://www.ft.com/content/623a86ec-6c4c-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m so fed up of figures being published to suit an agenda. The Guardian quotes X figure because it suits their agenda, The Telegraph quotes Y figure for the same reason. Both quote as fact without giving credence to differing opinions. Fuck off and stop playing politics. Same goes for people on here. It's a forum.....get over it"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m so fed up of figures being published to suit an agenda. The Guardian quotes X figure because it suits their agenda, The Telegraph quotes Y figure for the same reason. Both quote as fact without giving credence to differing opinions. Fuck off and stop playing politics. Same goes for people on here. It's a forum.....get over it "I guess it makes them feel more important or socially relevant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is what happens when you have some crackpot svengali dictating policy. Cummings will have so much to answer for in years to come. Why Cummings? https://www.ft.com/content/623a86ec-6c4c-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f" I have read the article before and I agree with you but he did not make final decisions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is what happens when you have some crackpot svengali dictating policy. Cummings will have so much to answer for in years to come. Why Cummings? https://www.ft.com/content/623a86ec-6c4c-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f I have read the article before and I agree with you but he did not make final decisions." He had a huge input for an unelected bureaucrat, and we know how we all hate those... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts" No matter what the government does after the dust settles people will be saying why didn't they do this and thay! Hindsight is a wonderful tool. They are following the best advice they have. I felt the herd immunity was a brave move. But a good one. They reacted when they felt they needed to. Which was good! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone of us has a duty of care...... All id ask is if you want to publish other organisations or peoples reports or forcasting you that you fully understand potential outcomes.... There are many people that mentally are seriously struggling right now.........they do read and believe everyword.........which then leads to some quick irrational decisions......not always the best desicions!!!! Could you live with the possibility of posting something which you cant be sure is 110% and someone then makes a life changing decision on........? " Very well said totally agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone's an expert." But also world record sprinters when something goes wrong and they might have been the cause..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m so fed up of figures being published to suit an agenda. The Guardian quotes X figure because it suits their agenda, The Telegraph quotes Y figure for the same reason. Both quote as fact without giving credence to differing opinions. Fuck off and stop playing politics. Same goes for people on here. It's a forum.....get over it" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you all really believe that boris and cummings came up with this decision all on there own?.Boris was guided by the scientific and medical experts, when they discovered a flaw in the modelling after 4 days he changed track as they advised him to.Great to see people still trying to make political gain at time when the country needs to come together." I believe it was the scientific approach that suited their agenda, yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you all really believe that boris and cummings came up with this decision all on there own?.Boris was guided by the scientific and medical experts, when they discovered a flaw in the modelling after 4 days he changed track as they advised him to.Great to see people still trying to make political gain at time when the country needs to come together. I believe it was the scientific approach that suited their agenda, yes" What agenda is that? i would love to know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts" Until now, unfortunately, the statistics were always right.So probably will happen,but don't believe the numbers about Portugal or Germany or.. everything far from graphs is a lie.Some countries are just hiding real numbers, others just playing with.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts No matter what the government does after the dust settles people will be saying why didn't they do this and thay! Hindsight is a wonderful tool. They are following the best advice they have. I felt the herd immunity was a brave move. But a good one. They reacted when they felt they needed to. Which was good!" Then why our They being criticised by many in the scientific community? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts No matter what the government does after the dust settles people will be saying why didn't they do this and thay! Hindsight is a wonderful tool. They are following the best advice they have. I felt the herd immunity was a brave move. But a good one. They reacted when they felt they needed to. Which was good! Then why our They being criticised by many in the scientific community?" Because all scientists are communists! Boris had the best scientists in the world to help him taking the worst decision in UK history!! Don't you dare negate the Word of our beloved and revered Leader!!! (Takes a sip of kool-aid)[/sarcasm] | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is what happens when you have some crackpot svengali dictating policy. Cummings will have so much to answer for in years to come. Why Cummings? https://www.ft.com/content/623a86ec-6c4c-11ea-9bca-bf503995cd6f I have read the article before and I agree with you but he did not make final decisions. He had a huge input for an unelected bureaucrat, and we know how we all hate those..." The question is where Cummings is now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? " No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. " Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look. "Wikipedia There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions."If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there will be any rebuke for the government, this was all quickly forgotten. People are comparing Boris to Churchill FFS, forgetting the cock up at the start with herd Immunity. The lack is social distancing when other countries were going into lockdown is unforgivable. And it's no good saying he was following the science, the science was clearly flawed, how these scientists couldn't see it was clear to a layman. Piers Morgan was vocal in opposition to it, I had many arguements with Tories or Twitter on it at the time. The lack of preparedness and PPE and 'I'm still shaking hands' with infected covid patients when the advice should have been to isolate. Beggars belief." I’m not sure I understand what being a Tory has to do with it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m not sure I understand what being a Tory has to do with it? " Because it's all the Tories fault, didn't you know that already  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad. "Then go to the library and find a book on the subject. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject."Libraries are closed  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m not sure I understand what being a Tory has to do with it? Because it's all the Tories fault, didn't you know that already "Thanks for that, cheeky 
I just meant it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Tory or not, some people will agree with the decisions and some won’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed "Lol I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think there will be any rebuke for the government, this was all quickly forgotten. People are comparing Boris to Churchill FFS, forgetting the cock up at the start with herd Immunity. The lack is social distancing when other countries were going into lockdown is unforgivable. And it's no good saying he was following the science, the science was clearly flawed, how these scientists couldn't see it was clear to a layman. Piers Morgan was vocal in opposition to it, I had many arguements with Tories or Twitter on it at the time. The lack of preparedness and PPE and 'I'm still shaking hands' with infected covid patients when the advice should have been to isolate. Beggars belief. I’m not sure I understand what being a Tory has to do with it? " They were the people on Twitter who were defending it and arguing the point with me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’m not sure I understand what being a Tory has to do with it? Because it's all the Tories fault, didn't you know that already
Thanks for that, cheeky
I just meant it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Tory or not, some people will agree with the decisions and some won’t. "It doesn't matter whether you're left, right or indifferent. However, some people will turn any argument into politics because they don't really have an argument otherwise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments have been warned for years to prepare for this. The models and plans should have been worked out years ago and put in a file "what to do in the event of a pandemic" emerging. We, as well as the US, Spain and Italy sat back from a distance assuming is it so far away, it would never effect us here. Most of this could have been text book planned. Heard Immunity was BS and very dangerous, and many are dying today because if it." Tell me, without a vaccine, how else do we deal with this infection other than contraction? It's not just going to go away. Or is it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments have been warned for years to prepare for this. The models and plans should have been worked out years ago and put in a file "what to do in the event of a pandemic" emerging. We, as well as the US, Spain and Italy sat back from a distance assuming is it so far away, it would never effect us here. Most of this could have been text book planned. Heard Immunity was BS and very dangerous, and many are dying today because if it." So if the government weren't preparing..... where have the 4000 extra beds, and the partitioning screens, flooring, medical equipment etc for Excel nightingale come from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments have been warned for years to prepare for this. The models and plans should have been worked out years ago and put in a file "what to do in the event of a pandemic" emerging. We, as well as the US, Spain and Italy sat back from a distance assuming is it so far away, it would never effect us here. Most of this could have been text book planned. Heard Immunity was BS and very dangerous, and many are dying today because if it. So if the government weren't preparing..... where have the 4000 extra beds, and the partitioning screens, flooring, medical equipment etc for Excel nightingale come from?" We are now in april.This began late last year. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments have been warned for years to prepare for this. The models and plans should have been worked out years ago and put in a file "what to do in the event of a pandemic" emerging. We, as well as the US, Spain and Italy sat back from a distance assuming is it so far away, it would never effect us here. Most of this could have been text book planned. Heard Immunity was BS and very dangerous, and many are dying today because if it. So if the government weren't preparing..... where have the 4000 extra beds, and the partitioning screens, flooring, medical equipment etc for Excel nightingale come from? We are now in april.This began late last year." So we managed to manufacture all of this since January? God we are good. Medical ppe will have a shelf life more than likely, a set period after which it cannot be guaranteed to work ok. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, would have, should have, could have wont help people now. Covid 19 is here now, stay home, wash your hands.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments have been warned for years to prepare for this. The models and plans should have been worked out years ago and put in a file "what to do in the event of a pandemic" emerging. We, as well as the US, Spain and Italy sat back from a distance assuming is it so far away, it would never effect us here. Most of this could have been text book planned. Heard Immunity was BS and very dangerous, and many are dying today because if it. So if the government weren't preparing..... where have the 4000 extra beds, and the partitioning screens, flooring, medical equipment etc for Excel nightingale come from? We are now in april.This began late last year. So we managed to manufacture all of this since January? God we are good. Medical ppe will have a shelf life more than likely, a set period after which it cannot be guaranteed to work ok. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, would have, should have, could have wont help people now. Covid 19 is here now, stay home, wash your hands. "It is not hindsight if the situation was clear upfront. When the virus arrived in Europe it was clear to everyone except UK govern that the situation was bad. This thread won't people, just like any other thread in this or other forums. We would expect the government to help people, maybe this is lack of foresight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate " Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed "You still have internet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
"U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol"Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol Lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sounds like more scaremongering. Their methods involve large assumptions and also country to country comparisons are rarely accurate. This particular model does not correlate to most other predictions from other experts. There have been all sorts of wild figures thrown about and posted in the media, overall I don't think things like this help and could induce hysteria in people. " Totally agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol "What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sounds like more scaremongering. Their methods involve large assumptions and also country to country comparisons are rarely accurate. This particular model does not correlate to most other predictions from other experts. There have been all sorts of wild figures thrown about and posted in the media, overall I don't think things like this help and could induce hysteria in people. Totally agree "Me too. An awful lot of it going on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit "You seem to want an argument out of nowhere? I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono. You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book. It’s ok not to know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know "As we are not privy to gmnt policy I dont really see your point. There is loads of stuff online. Depends what you believe? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know
As we are not privy to gmnt policy I dont really see your point.
There is loads of stuff online.
Depends what you believe?"And that’s why I asked for someone to cut through all the bullshit I keep reading. But I got told to get my arse down a closed library. English isn’t my first language so I’m a little slow on what’s going on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know
As we are not privy to gmnt policy I dont really see your point.
There is loads of stuff online.
Depends what you believe?
And that’s why I asked for someone to cut through all the bullshit I keep reading. But I got told to get my arse down a closed library.
English isn’t my first language so I’m a little slow on what’s going on "If you do your own research, youll be able to decide for yourself what you want to believe.... Fake news or utter bullshite is not what society needs at this time.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know "All i could find was the gov chief scientific advisor sir patrick vallance telling sky news it was a good idea which was immediately overturned when imperial college london,s results showed that the hospitals would be overwhelmed.Hope this helps rather than sarky remarks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? And that’s why I asked for someone to cut through all the bullshit I keep reading. But I got told to get my arse down a closed library. English isn’t my first language so I’m a little slow on what’s going on "I think you have asked a pertinent question and I’m sure others are thinking it. Remember there isn’t sure a thing as a stupid question | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know
As we are not privy to gmnt policy I dont really see your point.
There is loads of stuff online.
Depends what you believe?
And that’s why I asked for someone to cut through all the bullshit I keep reading. But I got told to get my arse down a closed library.
English isn’t my first language so I’m a little slow on what’s going on
If you do your own research, youll be able to decide for yourself what you want to believe....
Fake news or utter bullshite is not what society needs at this time...."I think I found the bullshit already lol. Yeah. The way people have been talking about the Herd Immunity policy made me think it was nailed on. I was just looking for the Source. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know All i could find was the gov chief scientific advisor sir patrick vallance telling sky news it was a good idea which was immediately overturned when imperial college london,s results showed that the hospitals would be overwhelmed.Hope this helps rather than sarky remarks. "Cheers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. " Because in situations like this people need very clear instructions and consequences spelling out and enforcing. Some people would complain yes, but that’s no excuse, the government fucked it up , they took far too long to act, they made big mistakes, they had no clear lockdown plan, they put civil liberties ahead of health. Plenty of other countries acted fast and decisively and we will look back in a year or two it will be very clear by numbers those leaders that went about properly and those that fucked it up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. Because in situations like this people need very clear instructions and consequences spelling out and enforcing. Some people would complain yes, but that’s no excuse, the government fucked it up , they took far too long to act, they made big mistakes, they had no clear lockdown plan, they put civil liberties ahead of health. Plenty of other countries acted fast and decisively and we will look back in a year or two it will be very clear by numbers those leaders that went about properly and those that fucked it up " I agree.....in the short term it is what it is and will be as on a course..... In time on reflection and gathering all the information of what, why, how......there will be many report of how it could of been handled differently... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. Because in situations like this people need very clear instructions and consequences spelling out and enforcing. Some people would complain yes, but that’s no excuse, the government fucked it up , they took far too long to act, they made big mistakes, they had no clear lockdown plan, they put civil liberties ahead of health. Plenty of other countries acted fast and decisively and we will look back in a year or two it will be very clear by numbers those leaders that went about properly and those that fucked it up " It really couldnt be any clearer dont go out unless essential or for exercise, stay 2m away from people its the fuckwits who dont listen who should be locked up not the majority of the population who obey the rules. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. Because in situations like this people need very clear instructions and consequences spelling out and enforcing. Some people would complain yes, but that’s no excuse, the government fucked it up , they took far too long to act, they made big mistakes, they had no clear lockdown plan, they put civil liberties ahead of health. Plenty of other countries acted fast and decisively and we will look back in a year or two it will be very clear by numbers those leaders that went about properly and those that fucked it up It really couldnt be any clearer dont go out unless essential or for exercise, stay 2m away from people its the fuckwits who dont listen who should be locked up not the majority of the population who obey the rules." And for work if you can observe the goverment safe working directives..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can someone explain the truth around herd immunity? The definitive who what where and how long it was talked about? No because no one fully knows.We can only go by what has been reported and the gmnt havent been clear. Ah ok. Thanks. It’s hard to get clear and concise data when I had a look.
Wikipedia
There, perhaps, you'll find the answer to your questions.
If Wikipedia told me it was raining I would go look out the window. Any one can edit that to their viewpoint good or bad.
Then go to the library and find a book on the subject.
Libraries are closed
Lol
I was thinking more the present concept with Boris and his government. But Lionel helped out.
U can use Internet. There is such a thing as an online library lol
Thanks incisive lol Just wondering if someone could have cut through all the bullshit lol Luckily Lionel did lol
Lol
What bullshit? If you want reliable information, read a book about the subject. Simple. I just cut the bullshit
You seem to want an argument out of nowhere?
I asked if someone could give some clear incisive detail over the herd immunity strategy adopted by Bono.
You couldn’t and thought it would be hilarious to tell me to go read a book.
It’s ok not to know
As we are not privy to gmnt policy I dont really see your point.
There is loads of stuff online.
Depends what you believe?
And that’s why I asked for someone to cut through all the bullshit I keep reading. But I got told to get my arse down a closed library.
English isn’t my first language so I’m a little slow on what’s going on
Well. Then you need to improve your English. Language schools are closed but you can always use the internet. Don't worry about. It will be fine "Hilarious. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. Because in situations like this people need very clear instructions and consequences spelling out and enforcing. Some people would complain yes, but that’s no excuse, the government fucked it up , they took far too long to act, they made big mistakes, they had no clear lockdown plan, they put civil liberties ahead of health. Plenty of other countries acted fast and decisively and we will look back in a year or two it will be very clear by numbers those leaders that went about properly and those that fucked it up I agree.....in the short term it is what it is and will be as on a course..... In time on reflection and gathering all the information of what, why, how......there will be many report of how it could of been handled differently..." We already know that we should have been preparing differently from January - Making a robust plan Ordering protective equipment and test materials Testing as widely and fully as possible Getting ready to implement lockdown | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. My colleagues in Africa and Middle East are not allowed out period. Not without paperwork If distancing and isolation is the way to beat this then the predictions will likely be accurate Its a joke because some people are still not doing what is ask of them,if we had been ordered to lockdown and not go out people would still be on here complaining that boris was a dictator and the tories were all fascists. Because in situations like this people need very clear instructions and consequences spelling out and enforcing. Some people would complain yes, but that’s no excuse, the government fucked it up , they took far too long to act, they made big mistakes, they had no clear lockdown plan, they put civil liberties ahead of health. Plenty of other countries acted fast and decisively and we will look back in a year or two it will be very clear by numbers those leaders that went about properly and those that fucked it up " If it's going to be looked at in 2 years time why are your carping on about it now LOL. Probably best to keep your ideas to yourself and suck it up like the majority of us are doing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. .......they put civil liberties ahead of health. " I’m rather glad we have a government that aren’t willing to just close down civil liberties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The UK lockdown is a joke because we have a libertarian government. .......they put civil liberties ahead of health. I’m rather glad we have a government that aren’t willing to just close down civil liberties. " Me too,the ones who cant follow the rules should lose their civil liberties not the majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). " And yet the Uk figures remain consistent with many other countries..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). " I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). And yet the Uk figures remain consistent with many other countries....." Thought you couldn't really compare with other countries?demographics etc Plus we havent hit our peak yet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community." Remember johnson saying people will die? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). And yet the Uk figures remain consistent with many other countries....." Our figures remain consistent with other countries that took no action and did not prepare. Compared with countries like South Korea, Israel, Germany etc our performance is dismal. This is not a criticism of our wonderful NHS workers. It is a criticism of those who sent them into a war unarmed. Considering we were totally unprepared our ONLY course of action was to shutdown our borders and go into immediate lockdown. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community." I think your 3rd paragraph hits the nail on the head | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die?" I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk"...." Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong "What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus. The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do. Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that. The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table."Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation? Because allow me to reiterate If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever Please xx pretty please prove me wrong Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine But not to eradicate ???????? Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
"Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus. I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
"I hear what you are saying. It just takes one person to start it off again. We are not buying time for a vaccine. We are buying tine to have enough tests to know who is infected and who is not. This is where it starts. Non infected people cannot catch the virus from other non infected people. Infected people either recover or die. Fighting this virus spreading revolves around keeping the infected and uninfected apart. At this stage since we don't have enough tests we just have to treat everyone as infected. We need more tests! The reason why we need so MANY tests is because we waited too long to lock down. This is why so many of us were howling in protest when the schools and workplaces stayed open. But we were told it's just a sniffle.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction"No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate. "In my opinion unless you test every one every month forever your effort will be futile And that means zero world travel ever | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results?" Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate. "You honestly believe track, trace isolate could work? I'll tell you why I don't believe so. In a normal day, i come into direct contact with a lot of different people. There's no way I can remember them all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate.
You honestly believe track, trace isolate could work?
I'll tell you why I don't believe so. In a normal day, i come into direct contact with a lot of different people. There's no way I can remember them all.
"Exactly Track and trace would only work in an extreme world lock down As soon as any grip on the lock down is released all those vast numbers still vulnerable will be at risk from any number of "reservoirs " still somewhere in the world So allow me to introduce you to a halfway lockdown until x percent of a population has an immunity from either human to human contact or vaccination | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate.
You honestly believe track, trace isolate could work?
I'll tell you why I don't believe so. In a normal day, i come into direct contact with a lot of different people. There's no way I can remember them all.
"Track, trace and isolate is the reason why we haven't had a pandemic on this scale since the Spanish Flu. This isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the WHO and also the policy of every country who have been relatively successful in fighting the spread of this virus. Coincidence? I no nothing of epidemics. But I've heard enough epidemiologists saying the same thing to be convinced they aren't all lying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
I hear what you are saying. It just takes one person to start it off again.
We are not buying time for a vaccine. We are buying tine to have enough tests to know who is infected and who is not.
This is where it starts.
Non infected people cannot catch the virus from other non infected people. Infected people either recover or die. Fighting this virus spreading revolves around keeping the infected and uninfected apart. At this stage since we don't have enough tests we just have to treat everyone as infected.
We need more tests!
The reason why we need so MANY tests is because we waited too long to lock down. This is why so many of us were howling in protest when the schools and workplaces stayed open. But we were told it's just a sniffle...."Yet you posted at the END of February thst you had more chance of being attached by a hawk in London. Gone from extremely blasé to worlds expert  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate.
You honestly believe track, trace isolate could work?
I'll tell you why I don't believe so. In a normal day, i come into direct contact with a lot of different people. There's no way I can remember them all.
"As Google maps informed me today via email it's been keeping track of my isolation. Informed me of my walk to shop and chemist visit on the way home. It knows I've stayed home all day every day. Once a week when I've gone to the shop it knows when I went out how far I've walked and how long I've been out. Anyone registered with Google and has GPS on their phone has been tracked. Can check the information for yourself. Timeline Google maps. It only needs to see who and how many people have been in an area. It's how it tracks popularity of a place and when busy peak times are. It knows when you go to work, where you work based on your settings, it knows where you frequent and what addresses you've been to. They know when you deviate from routine. Track and trace has been in effect for years. You just haven't noticed. Now comes the question what will they do with that information if they want to use it as evidence? What will the police be able to do with people continuously flouting lockdown and the evidence is all on your mobile? Google maps has been there telling you best way to commute to work and home informing you of roadworks and asking did you like the venue please rate it and all this time it's known everywhere you've been and how you got there and back and when. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
I hear what you are saying. It just takes one person to start it off again.
We are not buying time for a vaccine. We are buying tine to have enough tests to know who is infected and who is not.
This is where it starts.
Non infected people cannot catch the virus from other non infected people. Infected people either recover or die. Fighting this virus spreading revolves around keeping the infected and uninfected apart. At this stage since we don't have enough tests we just have to treat everyone as infected.
We need more tests!
The reason why we need so MANY tests is because we waited too long to lock down. This is why so many of us were howling in protest when the schools and workplaces stayed open. But we were told it's just a sniffle....
Yet you posted at the END of February thst you had more chance of being attached by a hawk in London. Gone from extremely blasé to worlds expert "Should those threads be available for review you will find me being the one accused of scaremongering when discussing the coming storm. It was late January when I first posted "the world stands on the edge of a precipice". The person I was replying to was, infact, attacked by a hawk on that day in Kings Cross London. It was not a measure on uncertainty, rather the opposite. Read my verification 31 January.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate.
You honestly believe track, trace isolate could work?
I'll tell you why I don't believe so. In a normal day, i come into direct contact with a lot of different people. There's no way I can remember them all.
As Google maps informed me today via email it's been keeping track of my isolation. Informed me of my walk to shop and chemist visit on the way home.
It knows I've stayed home all day every day. Once a week when I've gone to the shop it knows when I went out how far I've walked and how long I've been out.
Anyone registered with Google and has GPS on their phone has been tracked.
Can check the information for yourself.
Timeline Google maps.
It only needs to see who and how many people have been in an area.
It's how it tracks popularity of a place and when busy peak times are.
It knows when you go to work, where you work based on your settings, it knows where you frequent and what addresses you've been to. They know when you deviate from routine.
Track and trace has been in effect for years. You just haven't noticed.
Now comes the question what will they do with that information if they want to use it as evidence? What will the police be able to do with people continuously flouting lockdown and the evidence is all on your mobile?
Google maps has been there telling you best way to commute to work and home informing you of roadworks and asking did you like the venue please rate it and all this time it's known everywhere you've been and how you got there and back and when."You can turn off gps ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting article, though you don't need a PhD to predict that the current govern made some irremediable mistakes that will cost the lives of many. What is even more worrying is the lack of vigour in the current restrictions. I see too many people not respecting the rules in London and the police doesn't even fine them. The stranded Britons are probably luckier than us." They haven't moved away from herd immunity they're simply trying to do it carefully and slowly due the clear sentiments against it. They do as they want but without pissing of the public that is how this has always worked in our country and for many democracies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
Complete lockdown would not eradicate the virus.
I know I seem to only be preaching to myself but the only way without vaccination is by contraction
No. It reduces the number so that it is manageable with standard track, trace & isolate.
You honestly believe track, trace isolate could work?
I'll tell you why I don't believe so. In a normal day, i come into direct contact with a lot of different people. There's no way I can remember them all.
As Google maps informed me today via email it's been keeping track of my isolation. Informed me of my walk to shop and chemist visit on the way home.
It knows I've stayed home all day every day. Once a week when I've gone to the shop it knows when I went out how far I've walked and how long I've been out.
Anyone registered with Google and has GPS on their phone has been tracked.
Can check the information for yourself.
Timeline Google maps.
It only needs to see who and how many people have been in an area.
It's how it tracks popularity of a place and when busy peak times are.
It knows when you go to work, where you work based on your settings, it knows where you frequent and what addresses you've been to. They know when you deviate from routine.
Track and trace has been in effect for years. You just haven't noticed.
Now comes the question what will they do with that information if they want to use it as evidence? What will the police be able to do with people continuously flouting lockdown and the evidence is all on your mobile?
Google maps has been there telling you best way to commute to work and home informing you of roadworks and asking did you like the venue please rate it and all this time it's known everywhere you've been and how you got there and back and when.
You can turn off gps ?"Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not." How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting article, though you don't need a PhD to predict that the current govern made some irremediable mistakes that will cost the lives of many. What is even more worrying is the lack of vigour in the current restrictions. I see too many people not respecting the rules in London and the police doesn't even fine them. The stranded Britons are probably luckier than us. They haven't moved away from herd immunity they're simply trying to do it carefully and slowly due the clear sentiments against it. They do as they want but without pissing of the public that is how this has always worked in our country and for many democracies." If we have 60 000 known cases and twice or three times as many unknown.... what does that represent as a percentage of the UK population? Herd immunity is predicated on vaccination. In our circumstances it is moot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Out peak will be this week not next given the trends | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That study is a load of shit. I'd you already look at the graph we are half the amount to what is shown on the articles graph daily already. Also you should know it's bullshit sensationalism when you see they only predict France to have 15,000 but they already have over 10k
Out peak will be this week not next given the trends"Agreed and said some words towards the beginning about how flawed the data appears to be.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
I hear what you are saying. It just takes one person to start it off again.
We are not buying time for a vaccine. We are buying tine to have enough tests to know who is infected and who is not.
This is where it starts.
Non infected people cannot catch the virus from other non infected people. Infected people either recover or die. Fighting this virus spreading revolves around keeping the infected and uninfected apart. At this stage since we don't have enough tests we just have to treat everyone as infected.
We need more tests!
The reason why we need so MANY tests is because we waited too long to lock down. This is why so many of us were howling in protest when the schools and workplaces stayed open. But we were told it's just a sniffle....
Yet you posted at the END of February thst you had more chance of being attached by a hawk in London. Gone from extremely blasé to worlds expert
Should those threads be available for review you will find me being the one accused of scaremongering when discussing the coming storm. It was late January when I first posted "the world stands on the edge of a precipice".
The person I was replying to was, infact, attacked by a hawk on that day in Kings Cross London. It was not a measure on uncertainty, rather the opposite. Read my verification 31 January....
"Fair enough re hawk comment. I apologise since I didn't realise the background to your comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you " Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That study is a load of shit. I'd you already look at the graph we are half the amount to what is shown on the articles graph daily already. Also you should know it's bullshit sensationalism when you see they only predict France to have 15,000 but they already have over 10k
Out peak will be this week not next given the trends"No one is taking this thread seriously, so don't worry, you're not alone  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well we have stories of scientists and models and an equation that they got wrong... Well without getting into science here's some very basic maths... At the time the decision was made we had 3.2 million people in the UK over 80, 1.6 million of those over 85.... If roughly 80% of the population will contract COVID-19 with no quarantine in place you are looking at 2.56 million people at risk. Data at that time showed a fatality rate of 14.8% for people in that age group. That means 378,880 deaths just for people in that age group alone. Never mind other age groups and people with underlying conditions. That is one calculation made in 5 minutes. So I would love to know the equation that was used to make herd immunity justifiable. Especially considering the WHO were aghast at our response. Herd immunity was the most expensive experiment on human beings ever conducted (in humanitarian and financial terms). I don't want to defend the herd immunity idea but I *presume* the idea was to have the vulnerable segments of the population hide away and let the *other* part (the non-vulnerable people) get infected - to high enough degree for them to develop herd immunity. However, I don't see how you could have that many active infections in the "normal" community and not have communication into the vulnerable community, which kind of defies the point. Also, you need about 70-80% of everyone else to get infected to achieve that. That's about 45 - 50 million people. Even 0.1% of those is 50,000 deaths, and I think that's a very low estimate for the mortality rate in the non-vulnerable community. Remember johnson saying people will die? I DO remember the NHS website advising that coronavirus was "low risk".... Am I correct in theorizing we are still aiming for herd immunity? I'm assuming that is the only solution until a vaccine? I'm assuming Current measures across the world are not sufficient to starve the virus of hosts and thus irradiate it I'm assuming every human who has not had it is still vulnerable? I'm assuming "a population" without controls would experience an exponential growth in infected severely affected and dead until that population reached at least X percent I guess at erm 40 to 60 percent At current rate if we totally guess the figure of 80k ish tested with is 20 percent of infected Thus 400 000 actually have benign symptoms We would need another 30 million, 1.5 million severely 150 000 dead until any kind of herd immunity and restrictions lifted Please prove me wrong
What we are doing is buying time to get us in a better position to combat the virus.
The cornerstone of fighting this virus is testing. Since we don't have enough tests all we can do is sit tight until we do.
Ideally we need is low enough cases that we can track, trace & isolate. Without testing we can't do that.
The government taking so long to act took any option other than complete lockdown off the table.
Really you think it is plausible to lock the whole world down and stop it via starvation?
Because allow me to reiterate
If you allow even one human or bat on the planet as a reserve then without an immunity of some description it returns and returns and returns
Ie lock down or village isolation town isolation city isolation country isolation for ever and ever
Please xx pretty please prove me wrong
Obviously I agree the buying time part to prevent deaths help NHS and produce vaccine
But not to eradicate ????????
Or can the planet in the next years totally lock down and eradicate without a vaccination
I'd suggest as this is not a kill every one it infects virus
I'd suggest as x percent can be asymptomatic
I'd suggest locking it down like Ebola or SARS 1 is nigh on impossible on any rational practical level ???,
I hear what you are saying. It just takes one person to start it off again.
We are not buying time for a vaccine. We are buying tine to have enough tests to know who is infected and who is not.
This is where it starts.
Non infected people cannot catch the virus from other non infected people. Infected people either recover or die. Fighting this virus spreading revolves around keeping the infected and uninfected apart. At this stage since we don't have enough tests we just have to treat everyone as infected.
We need more tests!
The reason why we need so MANY tests is because we waited too long to lock down. This is why so many of us were howling in protest when the schools and workplaces stayed open. But we were told it's just a sniffle....
Yet you posted at the END of February thst you had more chance of being attached by a hawk in London. Gone from extremely blasé to worlds expert
Should those threads be available for review you will find me being the one accused of scaremongering when discussing the coming storm. It was late January when I first posted "the world stands on the edge of a precipice".
The person I was replying to was, infact, attacked by a hawk on that day in Kings Cross London. It was not a measure on uncertainty, rather the opposite. Read my verification 31 January....
Fair enough re hawk comment. I apologise since I didn't realise the background to your comment."No worries. My fault for making a private joke in a public forum. You've got a good memory though... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses." Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths. "Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely. This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to? Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself? Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread. Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?"Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking. Check out this piece on www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993"It uses GPS, that's how GPS works. Basically it relies on data pinged and it triangulates the position from the data received via several satellites not just 1. Just by going on phone relies on where it pings off a mobile tower. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Governments have been warned for years to prepare for this. The models and plans should have been worked out years ago and put in a file "what to do in the event of a pandemic" emerging. We, as well as the US, Spain and Italy sat back from a distance assuming is it so far away, it would never effect us here. Most of this could have been text book planned. Heard Immunity was BS and very dangerous, and many are dying today because if it. So if the government weren't preparing..... where have the 4000 extra beds, and the partitioning screens, flooring, medical equipment etc for Excel nightingale come from?" From the people still out there working who are manufacturing them, no Furlough as classed as key workers for the NHS | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993"What about the people who are asymptomatics It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty So let me be clear Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2 Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination?? Slowing the virus is easy However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?" But he didn't go back out after 7 days, it was known that he was still showing symptoms and was remaining in isolation.
Would he wear a tracker bracelet?
No, but his security staff or driver.... Maybe  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
It uses GPS, that's how GPS works. Basically it relies on data pinged and it triangulates the position from the data received via several satellites not just 1.
Just by going on phone relies on where it pings off a mobile tower. "triangulation yes, but i think its pinged using the existing GSM network. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task "Very few people are asymptomatic, majority will have a symptom of sorts be it increased temperature, sore throat etc anyone with symptoms of any kind have been forced to isolate. If people have tested positive they are forced to self quarantine. What's to argue when these countries infection rates are better than everywhere else. They've taken strict measures to prevent the spread. They make everyone getting off a plane self isolate/quarantine for 14 days. Unlike here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A test is divised A whole town in Derbyshire of 4 000 are shown not to have it The entire town closes its doors to the world When can they be metaphorically opened? I'd suggest that town could never know if the virus had been truly eradicated And thus would have to remain in isolation until they had a vaccine ?" Isn't that why they are hoping herd immunity will kick in? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task
Very few people are asymptomatic, majority will have a symptom of sorts be it increased temperature, sore throat etc anyone with symptoms of any kind have been forced to isolate. If people have tested positive they are forced to self quarantine.
What's to argue when these countries infection rates are better than everywhere else. They've taken strict measures to prevent the spread.
They make everyone getting off a plane self isolate/quarantine for 14 days. Unlike here."What You absolutely cannot say how many are asymptomatics that's the point There is zero data the only data we have is they DO exist lol beyond that it's just not possible to know we are not testing many humans that are showing no symptoms are we lol So in honesty your statement is false based upon unknowns | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task "Those who have had it in Taiwan have been identified quickly and tracked/monitored - as has anyone else who has been in close contact with them. I do take the point that it can be slowed and limited but not cured until there is a vaccine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
It uses GPS, that's how GPS works. Basically it relies on data pinged and it triangulates the position from the data received via several satellites not just 1.
Just by going on phone relies on where it pings off a mobile tower.
triangulation yes, but i think its pinged using the existing GSM network.
"GSM is where it pings of mobile towers. It's less reliable than GPS. It takes minimum of 3 towers to use the ping to track accurately to within 5 to 20 feet. Rarely are there 3 towers in ping distance outside of major cities. Satellites well if you knew how many there are with billions of data being sent up to the sky you'd see why GPS is more accurate. https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=&t=country Look who owns the most | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task
Very few people are asymptomatic, majority will have a symptom of sorts be it increased temperature, sore throat etc anyone with symptoms of any kind have been forced to isolate. If people have tested positive they are forced to self quarantine.
What's to argue when these countries infection rates are better than everywhere else. They've taken strict measures to prevent the spread.
They make everyone getting off a plane self isolate/quarantine for 14 days. Unlike here.
What
You absolutely cannot say how many are asymptomatics that's the point
There is zero data the only data we have is they DO exist lol beyond that it's just not possible to know we are not testing many humans that are showing no symptoms are we lol
So in honesty your statement is false based upon unknowns"We do however know it is still spreading and that people with symptoms are majoritivly isolating and therefore using a lil deduction?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A test is divised A whole town in Derbyshire of 4 000 are shown not to have it The entire town closes its doors to the world When can they be metaphorically opened? I'd suggest that town could never know if the virus had been truly eradicated And thus would have to remain in isolation until they had a vaccine " Schrödinger's Cat ? there is no answer ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results? Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases." So germany is still quite low? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task
Those who have had it in Taiwan have been identified quickly and tracked/monitored - as has anyone else who has been in close contact with them.
I do take the point that it can be slowed and limited but not cured until there is a vaccine"I dont doubt that individual places in the world can isolate and irradiate However unless every pocket of the world becomes cov-sars2 free those which are will need to maintain strict restrictions until vaccination | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not really sure we are "plateauing (sp) just yet. We are getting 2 sets of figures at the moment so unsure which are the most accurate. Its estimated The next 2 weeks will be the peak but we dont know how long that peak will last for. They are supposed to be making ready another 4 hospitals which doesnt fill me with optimism. Quite who they are going to staff them with is another matter." Well, good job I'm listening to experts in their field and not some bloke off a swingers site | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not really sure we are "plateauing (sp) just yet. We are getting 2 sets of figures at the moment so unsure which are the most accurate. Its estimated The next 2 weeks will be the peak but we dont know how long that peak will last for. They are supposed to be making ready another 4 hospitals which doesnt fill me with optimism. Quite who they are going to staff them with is another matter. Well, good job I'm listening to experts in their field and not some bloke off a swingers site "Yep prob a wise move. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task
Those who have had it in Taiwan have been identified quickly and tracked/monitored - as has anyone else who has been in close contact with them.
I do take the point that it can be slowed and limited but not cured until there is a vaccine
I dont doubt that individual places in the world can isolate and irradiate
However unless every pocket of the world becomes cov-sars2 free those which are will need to maintain strict restrictions until vaccination
"Yes agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
It uses GPS, that's how GPS works. Basically it relies on data pinged and it triangulates the position from the data received via several satellites not just 1.
Just by going on phone relies on where it pings off a mobile tower.
triangulation yes, but i think its pinged using the existing GSM network.
GSM is where it pings of mobile towers.
It's less reliable than GPS. It takes minimum of 3 towers to use the ping to track accurately to within 5 to 20 feet. Rarely are there 3 towers in ping distance outside of major cities.
Satellites well if you knew how many there are with billions of data being sent up to the sky you'd see why GPS is more accurate.
https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=&t=country
Look who owns the most "The details I’ve read about the Taiwan digital fence mentions cell towers and the mobile networks being able to calculate the location of the phone by how far it is from the cell reception tower. They have said the system is accurate enough with only 1% of alerts being false alerts due to a phone being in a rural area with spotty signal reception or high up in a tall building where it picks up signals from faraway cell towers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results? Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases. So germany is still quite low?" Germany saw what was happening in the rest of the world and learned from their mistakes. They tested relentlessly, set up mobile test centers etc etc. As a result their figures look better better they have more known infected as a result of more testing. Let's compare? Germany: 111,779 known cases 2,196 deaths. UK: 60,733 known cases 7,097 deaths. Germany has a population of 83 million.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can turn off gps ? Of course you can but consider how many people who don't and the fact people don't realise for years Google has been watching their habits. The fact I had an email pointing out my isolation was out of the ordinary. In all the years I've used it, it's never emailed me about my habits. I just use it to tally places I've been and it insists on informing me of my bus times on the current route. Whether I want them or not. How many people would immediately turn off gps If it was announced that this is how the government are going to track you Legally they would have to have a warrant on an individual in order for Google to share that information but lots of red tape there. But only takes the government to change the laws on private information. Companies have been tracking information for years. Which is why Facebook has been accessing your browser info in order to target adverts and content that would appeal to you. Google has know everything you search, everywhere you browse and everywhere you've been. People just haven't realised it. That is what I was pointing out. We've been tracked and traced for years unbeknownst to the masses. Absolutely agree, we are already tracked. if you raise the prospect of the government tracking us for public health safety, the shutters come down and a huge number of people start shouting about privacy and rights etc.. Look at why Taiwan have been so successful in keeping cases to an absolute minimum with incredibly low deaths.
Korea have been forcing people who have symptoms to wear a GPS tracking bracelet that contacts the police if they leave their home within the 14 days quarantine. It's worked very well the public refusing to serve or offer services such as taxis to people wearing the bracelets out side of their home. It's forced people to stay indoors till their symptoms have passed completely.
This 7 days after start of symptoms crap is ridiculous as Boris has shown. 7 days after his confirmed case and feeling slightly better he went out into the world he left isolation, 10th day he's in hospital. So how many people could he have potentially infected in those 3 days? Where did he go? Who did he come in close proximity to?
Would he consider the tracking bracelets system and would he have worn one himself?
Other countries have taken to using this method since its seems to be an effective method of controlling the spread.
Who would agree to the tracker bracelet if displaying symptoms?
Taiwan didnt take any risk on the weakness of a gps system - they used the existing mobile phone signals to locate users ... switch your phone off ... the police come knocking.
Check out this piece on
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52017993
What about the people who are asymptomatics
It is those in my opinion which make This virus so nasty
So let me be clear
Very few in Taiwan have had cov-sars2
Thus they will completely isolate from themselves and the rest of the world until they have received a vaccination??
Slowing the virus is easy
However beating it and returning "some" liberties is a whole different process, problem, task
Very few people are asymptomatic, majority will have a symptom of sorts be it increased temperature, sore throat etc anyone with symptoms of any kind have been forced to isolate. If people have tested positive they are forced to self quarantine.
What's to argue when these countries infection rates are better than everywhere else. They've taken strict measures to prevent the spread.
They make everyone getting off a plane self isolate/quarantine for 14 days. Unlike here.
What
You absolutely cannot say how many are asymptomatics that's the point
There is zero data the only data we have is they DO exist lol beyond that it's just not possible to know we are not testing many humans that are showing no symptoms are we lol
So in honesty your statement is false based upon unknowns"Based on information from China late February early March. Right now news reports are saying approximately 70% of the worlds population could have covid 19 but the tests haven't been proven to only show covid 19 and not other corona viruses too. Such as the cat and Tiger who tested ”positive" for coronavirus may be nothing to do with covid 19 but an existing feline strain of the virus. Asymptomatic people spreading it will be extremely low. More likely is people who've been sick and think they are not contagious any more making them convalescent carriers. They think they've recovered but haven't and spread the virus unaware they are still sick. Which has been reported of people "recovering" then sick again sometimes weeks later and it being worse than the "first" time around. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results? Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases. So germany is still quite low? Germany saw what was happening in the rest of the world and learned from their mistakes. They tested relentlessly, set up mobile test centers etc etc. As a result their figures look better better they have more known infected as a result of more testing. Let's compare? Germany: 111,779 known cases 2,196 deaths. UK: 60,733 known cases 7,097 deaths. Germany has a population of 83 million...." Those pesky germans with their organisation and efficiency. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results? Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases. So germany is still quite low? Germany saw what was happening in the rest of the world and learned from their mistakes. They tested relentlessly, set up mobile test centers etc etc. As a result their figures look better better they have more known infected as a result of more testing. Let's compare? Germany: 111,779 known cases 2,196 deaths. UK: 60,733 known cases 7,097 deaths. Germany has a population of 83 million.... Those pesky germans with their organisation and efficiency." "Asked about the differences with Germany, where the number of deaths appears to be increasing less rapidly than in the UK, Prof Chris Whitty told the daily government press briefing on Tuesday: “We all know that Germany got ahead in terms of its ability to do testing for the virus, and there’s a lot to learn from that.” Germany is already able to test 500,000 patients a week and is under pressure to increase this further" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-must-learn-from-german-response-to-covid-19-says-whitty | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts" As it is the Gaurdian best ignored | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results? Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases. So germany is still quite low? Germany saw what was happening in the rest of the world and learned from their mistakes. They tested relentlessly, set up mobile test centers etc etc. As a result their figures look better better they have more known infected as a result of more testing. Let's compare? Germany: 111,779 known cases 2,196 deaths. UK: 60,733 known cases 7,097 deaths. Germany has a population of 83 million.... Those pesky germans with their organisation and efficiency. "Asked about the differences with Germany, where the number of deaths appears to be increasing less rapidly than in the UK, Prof Chris Whitty told the daily government press briefing on Tuesday: “We all know that Germany got ahead in terms of its ability to do testing for the virus, and there’s a lot to learn from that.” Germany is already able to test 500,000 patients a week and is under pressure to increase this further" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-must-learn-from-german-response-to-covid-19-says-whitty" So basically..we fucked up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. " Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS." The last paragraph speaks volumes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What country's have had the best results? Well some countries have zero reported infections. Whether that's because there are no infections or because there is no detection is another question. Israel enforced a quarantine for all incoming. Their death toll is 72. 7 died today. Yes the have a population of 8 million.... but it's a low casualty rate. Germany reported 176 fatalities today despite having twice the number of known cases. So germany is still quite low? Germany saw what was happening in the rest of the world and learned from their mistakes. They tested relentlessly, set up mobile test centers etc etc. As a result their figures look better better they have more known infected as a result of more testing. Let's compare? Germany: 111,779 known cases 2,196 deaths. UK: 60,733 known cases 7,097 deaths. Germany has a population of 83 million.... Those pesky germans with their organisation and efficiency. "Asked about the differences with Germany, where the number of deaths appears to be increasing less rapidly than in the UK, Prof Chris Whitty told the daily government press briefing on Tuesday: “We all know that Germany got ahead in terms of its ability to do testing for the virus, and there’s a lot to learn from that.” Germany is already able to test 500,000 patients a week and is under pressure to increase this further" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-must-learn-from-german-response-to-covid-19-says-whitty So basically..we fucked up?" Either we fucked up.... or.... We don't have enough Generation X pension contributions to carry the baby boomers through retirement.... So I sincerely hope we fucked up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS." Everyone incoming means everyone. Not just foreign nations. Yes it would have caused an uproar. But still better than where we are now. As for the figures. Those aren't the national death stats. Those are the COVID-19 deaths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes." Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"World-leading disease data analysts have projected that the UK will become the country worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, accounting for more than 40% of total deaths across the continent. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle predicts 66,000 UK deaths from Covid-19 by August, with a peak of nearly 3,000 a day, based on a steep climb in daily deaths early in the outbreak. The analysts also claim discussions over “herd immunity” led to a delay in the UK introducing physical distancing measures, which were brought in from 23 March in England when the coronavirus daily death toll was 54. Portugal, by comparison, had just one confirmed death when distancing measures were imposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predictsAs it is the Gaurdian best ignored" Well it's a free world. You can get your information from billionaires who own newspapers and have a vested interest in misleading the public. Or you can get your information from a newspaper owned by a trust with no political agenda... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. " I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern." It's not like these things aren't happening anyway. In Didcot the postal workers are on strike because the premises were not wiped down after one of their colleagues became infected. Even without lockdown the effects of the virus would have been the same. Whether a factory has shut down because of regulations or shut down because too many people are infected.... it's still closed. Lockdown or knockdown.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern." The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. " The economy would have fared better if they made more effort to prevent spread in the first place. They knew there was a pandemic yet did nothing till it was too late and that was only done under duress of other countries threatening breakdown of alliances. Where would the UK be if it couldn't trade with the world? So now we have suicides, eventual homelessness, loss of employment, loss of businesses, increased poverty and society on lockdown slowing the economy and losing money because the government didn't want to spend money in the first place and thought to save money which is now put them haemorrhaging money down an endless chasm that is the virus. Early prevention measures would have cost a lot less | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. The economy would have fared better if they made more effort to prevent spread in the first place. They knew there was a pandemic yet did nothing till it was too late and that was only done under duress of other countries threatening breakdown of alliances. Where would the UK be if it couldn't trade with the world? So now we have suicides, eventual homelessness, loss of employment, loss of businesses, increased poverty and society on lockdown slowing the economy and losing money because the government didn't want to spend money in the first place and thought to save money which is now put them haemorrhaging money down an endless chasm that is the virus. Early prevention measures would have cost a lot less" At the end of the day we are facing all the same negatives as an early lockdown. Just worse and more deaths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? " Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher." You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher." Also, we are discussing Great Britain, not the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? " Did you notice the word "potentially"in my post? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? Did you notice the word "potentially"in my post?" Yep, who said that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. Also, we are discussing Great Britain, not the world. " Tell me exactly where I said millions will die in the uk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. The economy would have fared better if they made more effort to prevent spread in the first place. They knew there was a pandemic yet did nothing till it was too late and that was only done under duress of other countries threatening breakdown of alliances. Where would the UK be if it couldn't trade with the world? So now we have suicides, eventual homelessness, loss of employment, loss of businesses, increased poverty and society on lockdown slowing the economy and losing money because the government didn't want to spend money in the first place and thought to save money which is now put them haemorrhaging money down an endless chasm that is the virus. Early prevention measures would have cost a lot less At the end of the day we are facing all the same negatives as an early lockdown. Just worse and more deaths." That's an assumption that cannot be proved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? Did you notice the word "potentially"in my post? Yep, who said that?" I said 'potentially'.I didnt state it as a fact. We are looking at a brand new virus with no cure and is highly contagious. Quite frankly I'd rather play safe whatever the number of dead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. Also, we are discussing Great Britain, not the world. Tell me exactly where I said millions will die in the uk?" Flipping the argument. What proof is there to suggest that the virus wouldn't have had the same devastating effect that it has had in the rest of Europe. None. Even with the lockdown that we eventually enforced we are still looking at the highest death toll in Europe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? Did you notice the word "potentially"in my post? Yep, who said that? I said 'potentially'.I didnt state it as a fact. We are looking at a brand new virus with no cure and is highly contagious. Quite frankly I'd rather play safe whatever the number of dead." I didn't realise we knew the exact figure of people who would have been made homeless or take thier own lives had we gone into immediate lockdown. That's also a 'potential' estimate. It's not even established whether delaying lockdown hasn't been worse for the economy than an early lockdown. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? Did you notice the word "potentially"in my post? Yep, who said that? I said 'potentially'.I didnt state it as a fact. We are looking at a brand new virus with no cure and is highly contagious. Quite frankly I'd rather play safe whatever the number of dead. I didn't realise we knew the exact figure of people who would have been made homeless or take thier own lives had we gone into immediate lockdown. That's also a 'potential' estimate. It's not even established whether delaying lockdown hasn't been worse for the economy than an early lockdown. " Maybe I'm being naive but I thought being an island would have gave us greater protection than mainland europe with people crossing borders etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. Also, we are discussing Great Britain, not the world. Tell me exactly where I said millions will die in the uk?" We were discussing how our government has dealt with the virus and about balancing the economy, you said this 'I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern.' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. The economy would have fared better if they made more effort to prevent spread in the first place. They knew there was a pandemic yet did nothing till it was too late and that was only done under duress of other countries threatening breakdown of alliances. Where would the UK be if it couldn't trade with the world? So now we have suicides, eventual homelessness, loss of employment, loss of businesses, increased poverty and society on lockdown slowing the economy and losing money because the government didn't want to spend money in the first place and thought to save money which is now put them haemorrhaging money down an endless chasm that is the virus. Early prevention measures would have cost a lot less At the end of the day we are facing all the same negatives as an early lockdown. Just worse and more deaths. That's an assumption that cannot be proved. " It's a conclusion based on countries who imposed immediate measures vs those who didn't. The distinction between the two is obvious. You can put Italy, Spain, UK, USA etc in one column and South Korea, Germany, Israel etc in another. Chalk and cheese. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we had gone into immediate lockdown before the first case many of the 7000 people deceased today would still be alive today. COVID-19 did swim across the channel. It came to our shores via people who walked in through our airports and harbours with no quarantine or testing. Granted it would have been expensive and troublesome, but no less expensive and troublesome than what we are dealing with now. Yes some people would have broken the law until enough people were arrested to make an example. Yes people would have complained. But when you think that people have died because a government wanted to remain popular and maintain civil liberties. They are dead and we're still in lockdown just a few weeks later on. Where is your evidence for that? Up until a few days ago the daily number of deaths was considered normal for the average over previous years. Every death from covid19 is a person and if it could have reasonably been avoided then I would rather it was avoided. And it wasn't just foreign nationals that came to the UK with covid19. How many hundreds of thousands of Brita returned home or are still coming home. The government stated on all main stream media that they were trying to find a balance between the economy and not over whelming the NHS. The last paragraph speaks volumes. Think of all the suicides, homelessness, poverty etc the economy collapsing would cause. I'm not saying the wont be consequences but the death of potentially millions of people has to be The primary concern. The key word is potentially, who told you there might be that many deaths? Is it backed up by any scientific data? Well as off today we are on 89,000 Almost every country affected has adopted some sort of lockdown measures.If these hadnt have been introduced I'm fairly certain the rate would be a lot higher. You didn't answer my questions. Where did you get millions of deaths from? Where is the scientific data backing up your claims? Did you notice the word "potentially"in my post? Yep, who said that? I said 'potentially'.I didnt state it as a fact. We are looking at a brand new virus with no cure and is highly contagious. Quite frankly I'd rather play safe whatever the number of dead. I didn't realise we knew the exact figure of people who would have been made homeless or take thier own lives had we gone into immediate lockdown. That's also a 'potential' estimate. It's not even established whether delaying lockdown hasn't been worse for the economy than an early lockdown. " O there will probably be an economic downturn but no one knows the extent.We do know people will die. Anyway Poverty and homelessness has never really bothered the Tories before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
