FabSwingers.com mobile

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

Is it time?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley

I do think that time will have to come soon, I'm hoping covid is simply dying out, we definitely seem to be on a downward trend.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a tough one, I think people should do as they see fit but also people shouldn't be penalised if they have a serious health condition and don't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life. "

Yes it's time protect the elderly and the vulnerable... Rest need to get on with their life's... But the work shy will find this being the new gravy train

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwalkerMan
over a year ago

South Lincs

I think we will return to normal soon, but we are not there yet.

It will be when the daily number of new infections is down to a handful and realistically there is very little chance of actually bumping into an infected person.

We have all been traumatised by what we have seen over the last 3 months and the government 'stay at home and save lives' message is still fresh in our memories and many people will be frightened to jump into bed with others for a while yet, I suspect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was wondering this myself...are we still classed as locked down?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lamourpussyCouple
over a year ago

Warwick

At the moment I think there is a big difference between going to the shops and jumping in to bed with someone. Even if you were unlucky enough to get infected while shopping the dose of the virus is likely to be low. kissing and close contact are likely to create a much greater and potentially fatal risk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Just for the record I didn't mean just from a sexual activity point of view.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Love how you are waiting for a statement to say yes we can carry on as we did before....... We are all grown up and should be making our own judgements on w h at we should or shouldn't do

What would you do if they said you needed to stay in for the next 12months??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

Chesterfield

The problem is there is neither vaccine nor herd immunity and folk are too ignorant to distance properly.

NHS are planning to be able to cope with a much larger rebound in 4-6 weeks when the R number jumps up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is there is neither vaccine nor herd immunity and folk are too ignorant to distance properly.

NHS are planning to be able to cope with a much larger rebound in 4-6 weeks when the R number jumps up. "

What happened to all the nightingale hospitals what were built???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogerBottomsMan
over a year ago

Aberdare


"

Yes it's time protect the elderly and the vulnerable... Rest need to get on with their life's... But the work shy will find this being the new gravy train"

Can't do a job if there aren't any jobs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

Chesterfield


"What happened to all the nightingale hospitals what were built??? "

Still there and available for use afaik

The problem is there’s so much backlog of care, but COVID hasn’t gone away.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Yes it's time protect the elderly and the vulnerable... Rest need to get on with their life's... But the work shy will find this being the new gravy train

Can't do a job if there aren't any jobs. "

Then if there isn't a job it should be job seekers allowance

The government biggest mistakes in all this was the job retention scheme...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *-4pleasureCouple
over a year ago

Belfast


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life.

Yes it's time protect the elderly and the vulnerable... Rest need to get on with their life's... But the work shy will find this being the new gravy train"

The work shy ??

Unemployment was at a record low before the pandemic.

Sweeping statements like that make my blood boil when hundreds of thousands have lost their living through no fault of their own.

A lack of empathy is a particularly unattractive quality

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackformore100Man
over a year ago

Tin town


"Love how you are waiting for a statement to say yes we can carry on as we did before....... We are all grown up and should be making our own judgements on w h at we should or shouldn't do

What would you do if they said you needed to stay in for the next 12months?? "

Well said. I know we all wish we had a time machine and could go back 4 months and make better decisions and at least I hope our leaders feel the same. But the reality is we know all we need to know at this point and it's on us to act like intelligent grown ups to keep control of this awful situation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *est Wales WifeCouple
over a year ago

Near Carmarthen


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

"

That point was reached around 2 months ago when it was clear that the infection fatality rate was similar to severe flu and that cases were not growing exponentially but were actually starting to tail off from around the 8th April (i.e before lockdown could have had any effect)

The economic, social and health costs will almost certainly include:

Earlier deaths for cancer sufferers (and others) due to diagnosis and treatment delays, business failures, suicides and mental health issues.

In the long term, there will be a huge price to pay for the lockdown in terms of damage to the economy and in knock-on effects to health and mortality. The lockdown is already having a measurable negative impact on mortality; already there is clearly an excess of 15,000 deaths that have occurred that cannot be attributed to Covid-19

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogerBottomsMan
over a year ago

Aberdare


"

Then if there isn't a job it should be job seekers allowance

The government biggest mistakes in all this was the job retention scheme... "

Opinions are like arseholes. We've all got them and most of them stink.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ap d agde coupleCouple
over a year ago

Broadstairs

Definitely time to get back to normal, we now know who’s most at risk they will have to take extra precautions

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *-4pleasureCouple
over a year ago

Belfast


"

Then if there isn't a job it should be job seekers allowance

The government biggest mistakes in all this was the job retention scheme...

Opinions are like arseholes. We've all got them and most of them stink. "

Such an apt word arsehole is...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancs_tgirl_38TV/TS
over a year ago

Blackpool

It's time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *9089Man
over a year ago

Bradford

The relaxation of lockdown isnt an indication of 'all clear' its merely a statement of fact that there is sufficient capacity in the hospitals

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Then if there isn't a job it should be job seekers allowance

The government biggest mistakes in all this was the job retention scheme...

Opinions are like arseholes. We've all got them and most of them stink.

Such an apt word arsehole is... "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ap d agde coupleCouple
over a year ago

Broadstairs


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

That point was reached around 2 months ago when it was clear that the infection fatality rate was similar to severe flu and that cases were not growing exponentially but were actually starting to tail off from around the 8th April (i.e before lockdown could have had any effect)

The economic, social and health costs will almost certainly include:

Earlier deaths for cancer sufferers (and others) due to diagnosis and treatment delays, business failures, suicides and mental health issues.

In the long term, there will be a huge price to pay for the lockdown in terms of damage to the economy and in knock-on effects to health and mortality. The lockdown is already having a measurable negative impact on mortality; already there is clearly an excess of 15,000 deaths that have occurred that cannot be attributed to Covid-19

"
. Waiting times for operations will be horrendous after this ,cancer heart trouble and many other illness has taken a back seat

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *on manMan
over a year ago

N West

They already have and how

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyladMan
over a year ago

Hereorthere

I'll be happy just to get out there and do my own thing without judgement of others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancs_tgirl_38TV/TS
over a year ago

Blackpool

The phrases "safe to do so" and "the new normal" should be banned

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If people are daft enough to listen to them... Let them carry on

Is right hand man wasn't listening when he said save life's / stay home/ protect the NHS

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think we are almost there, there won’t be a back to normal as such but new normal for a while... hopefully we’ll be able to touch each other again soon

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

Chesterfield


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?"

This isn’t flu. It’s far more virulent and can have debilitating long term effects. It attacks the organs and folk not serious enough to require hospital treatment can still struggle for months afterwards.

And it’s just all kicked off again in Beijing with a different strain.

But we’re all adults - make your own decisions.

If you feel it’s all fine, you go out.

Just don’t give it to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire


"The phrases "safe to do so" and "the new normal" should be banned "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think we are getting to the stage where people will have to decide for themselves how much risk they are prepared to accept.

It's hard for people like me... I long for some sense of normality, yet have health conditions that put me at high risk should I catch the virus. News like non-essential shops opening means little to me, because it will be some time before I can shop for pleasure, go for a drink in the pub, meet up in a group situation, or meet a fuck buddy for sex. When I weigh up my personal circumstances, the risk and reward, none of those things are potentially worth dying for.

And I think that given that this virus probably isn't going anywhere, everybody needs to make that decision for themselves, and those decisions should be respected.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *astMidsCouple555Couple
over a year ago

Leicester


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life.

Yes it's time protect the elderly and the vulnerable... Rest need to get on with their life's... But the work shy will find this being the new gravy train"

Ah, here we go. The standard Tory drivel. Lecturing pepple about being workshy and gravy trains. That mob. Priceless. Led by a fraud who has never done a serious day's work in his life

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What would you do???

Are you kids in school??

Are you back working???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Shielding to end in July..... So not long now if its safe for them it's safe for everyone

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *old1974Man
over a year ago

Manchester


"I was wondering this myself...are we still classed as locked down?"
I think this has effectively ended and we be should move on if healthy and fit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared "

Have you been tested? You could be asymptomatic and the one infecting people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I do think that time will have to come soon, I'm hoping covid is simply dying out, we definitely seem to be on a downward trend. "

I hope this too.

Maybe we will know more in the next couple of weeks if infected numbers shoot up because of all the mass gatherings.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lack UhuruMan
over a year ago

Leeds


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared "

I think more people haven't caught it because we stayed at home (unless like yourself who had to work), protected the NHS (by staying at home unless like yourself again who had to work) and protecting lives.

If we'd have been left to our own devices people would have gone out and inflected others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovegames42Man
over a year ago

london

On this evening new, a break through in common steroid drug that has been around since the 60 world wide and cheep to produce has had a significant break through in trials.

Not a cure but but the nearest they have come to finding a vaccine

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is there is neither vaccine nor herd immunity and folk are too ignorant to distance properly.

NHS are planning to be able to cope with a much larger rebound in 4-6 weeks when the R number jumps up.

What happened to all the nightingale hospitals what were built??? "

They just became the holiday or retirement fund of a chosen few ... profit in construction but none in ppe which is why that riddle was never solved

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds

I have seen the devastating impact this virus has/is having through work and all I can say is "good luck" to those idiots who think it is ok to still be meeting and those still asking to meet on this site. Just goes to show who have respect for themselves and other peoples health all for "sex"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics "

Plenty of staff were available lots of those who work in other areas of the NHS that were put on hold were on standby to staff them and ex nhs staff were also asked to return, huge numbers volunteered

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics

Plenty of staff were available lots of those who work in other areas of the NHS that were put on hold were on standby to staff them and ex nhs staff were also asked to return, huge numbers volunteered "

If that's the case why not put all covid 19 cases in there and leave other hospitals to treat all the other people??????

How many people are going to die or have died due to not being able to get treatment??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hrista BellendWoman
over a year ago

surrounded by twinkly lights


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics "

I'd rather have them and they not need to be used rather than it be the other way round though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics

I'd rather have them and they not need to be used rather than it be the other way round though"

They should have been used so the rest of us could have had access to medical care if needed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics

I'd rather have them and they not need to be used rather than it be the other way round though

They should have been used so the rest of us could have had access to medical care if needed "

No one knew how many would need hospital treatment, in the end nowhere near the numbers that the experts thought

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People have needed treatment since the hospitals have been closed to covid only cases.... These hospitals should have taken them all it wasn't like there wasn't enough space in the all to accommodate these... Then the NHS could have carried on saving the lives of all the people they were doing before

If anyone thinks all the exessive deaths are from covid19 your very much mistaken

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics

I'd rather have them and they not need to be used rather than it be the other way round though"

Totally this..

To have not planned ahead for the what if with this that woukd have been grossly negligent..

The government have made many mistakes but the nightingales are not one of them..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life. "

All depends upon your morals

How many over 65 do you want to die prematurely??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andAukCouple
over a year ago

leeds


"

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared "

1500?

41,969 reported deaths have tested positive. Maybe not died of covid but very possible that it had contributed to part of the cause.

All of these in around 3 months against 12 months worth of flu deaths last year.

The sooner everyone is infected the better. Those who are strong enough can fight it off, those who are not well... We all know that outcome

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 16/06/20 21:28:37]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Definitely, people need to do their own risk assessments and people need to live their lives now, let's face it undiagnosed cancer problems alone will be way worse than this virus ever was.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem is there is neither vaccine nor herd immunity and folk are too ignorant to distance properly.

NHS are planning to be able to cope with a much larger rebound in 4-6 weeks when the R number jumps up.

What happened to all the nightingale hospitals what were built??? "

Still there on standby

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life. "
No we have a long way to go

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Both my parents are in their 80s never worried from the start never went into lock down went shopping once a week and went for walk every day. Think there has been a lot of scaremongering by the media.

Oh and both parents are fine.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovelybumCouple
over a year ago

Tunbridge Wells

Definitely! People need to wake up and carry on with their lives. If one is scared to death from doing so, can hide away for the rest of their life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovelybumCouple
over a year ago

Tunbridge Wells


"Both my parents are in their 80s never worried from the start never went into lock down went shopping once a week and went for walk every day. Think there has been a lot of scaremongering by the media.

Oh and both parents are fine. "

And so are ours

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"Both my parents are in their 80s never worried from the start never went into lock down went shopping once a week and went for walk every day. Think there has been a lot of scaremongering by the media.

Oh and both parents are fine. "

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Both my parents are in their 80s never worried from the start never went into lock down went shopping once a week and went for walk every day. Think there has been a lot of scaremongering by the media.

Oh and both parents are fine.

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life. "

There will come a point when politics and economics will take presidency over deaths from covid and its effects then we’ll be back to normal and if there’s a second spike it won’t be handled in the same way as lockdown

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovelybumCouple
over a year ago

Tunbridge Wells


"

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance "

We know a person in his 30s who was the happiest person ever committed suicide.

A couple in their 40s with two perfectly healthy children who haven't been out for three months scared to death

A neighbour who's afraid to take the dustbin out so he doesn't get infected

If that's the "new normal", we are OUT

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Both my parents are in their 80s never worried from the start never went into lock down went shopping once a week and went for walk every day. Think there has been a lot of scaremongering by the media.

Oh and both parents are fine.

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance "

Neither of my parents are ignorant thanks. They just decided not to hide under the duvet with the door locked for weeks on end and it’s done them no harm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andomfodCouple
over a year ago

walsall


"

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance

We know a person in his 30s who was the happiest person ever committed suicide.

A couple in their 40s with two perfectly healthy children who haven't been out for three months scared to death

A neighbour who's afraid to take the dustbin out so he doesn't get infected

If that's the "new normal", we are OUT"

This is something we have spoken about. The two attitudes to the situation.

Those locked down for the last 3 months are a lot more scared generally. They stayed home because they were told the virus was rampant outside.

Those who worked the whole time had to act like it wasn't rampant. They're a lot less stressed because they've been out there every day.

No approach is wrong as such. N is in the former category and myself the latter. From my personal experience, if I had the fear that those locked down had, I couldn't have functioned at work.

B

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance

We know a person in his 30s who was the happiest person ever committed suicide.

A couple in their 40s with two perfectly healthy children who haven't been out for three months scared to death

A neighbour who's afraid to take the dustbin out so he doesn't get infected

If that's the "new normal", we are OUT

This is something we have spoken about. The two attitudes to the situation.

Those locked down for the last 3 months are a lot more scared generally. They stayed home because they were told the virus was rampant outside.

Those who worked the whole time had to act like it wasn't rampant. They're a lot less stressed because they've been out there every day.

No approach is wrong as such. N is in the former category and myself the latter. From my personal experience, if I had the fear that those locked down had, I couldn't have functioned at work.

B"

I have worked with it every day but I am certainly not "less scared"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

No op, it isn't. Just because we have had some incrementally relaxed stages doesn't mean that we've been ready for all of them, nor that it would have been equally safe to relax everything in one go.

Progressive relaxation was safer and could have prevented NHS overload or preventable deaths. That would have been inexcusable.

The UK is still one of the most severely impacted countries. Things have changed since the lockdown belatedly started but it's a very dangerous place still - this is why we are not as welcome around Europe now, as other countries didn't let the virus take over as bad as it did here.

What has saved the UK from even more atrocious infection and death rates is the dedication and all the sacrifices that the population have made. We still need all of us to continue to make sacrifices, to keep the infection levels suppressed.

Despite the country having managed this so much worse than many countries, it doesn't have to go for broke and just give up all control. No one should die, if it's reasonable to prevent their death. If we'd just started complete relaxation, instead of via progressive steps, we would have had less visibility of what effects we were having nor ability to rectify as easily.

We may be in a mess but we don't have to take bigger risks with people's lives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"

I know 2 people in their 80s who smoke

A guy 63 who still smokes crack

A 65 year old rock climber who loves climbing solo

And a 64 year old who drinks 8 plus pints nightly drives and hasn't been banned

What is your point exactly

Covid is statistically dangerous to over 65s

Being blase is a proof only of ignorance

We know a person in his 30s who was the happiest person ever committed suicide.

A couple in their 40s with two perfectly healthy children who haven't been out for three months scared to death

A neighbour who's afraid to take the dustbin out so he doesn't get infected

If that's the "new normal", we are OUT"

I was out once it became apparent the NHS wasn't going to be overrun and the nonsense about a second wave started. Second wave is the new WMDs.

15,000 people can protest with no social distancing and a rave attracts 6,000 people but the cases and deaths still fall.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared "

1,692 people died from flu in 2018)9 according to PHE.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ylonSlutTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared

1,692 people died from flu in 2018)9 according to PHE.

"

So pretty much the opposite of the previous poster said.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared

1,692 people died from flu in 2018)9 according to PHE.

So pretty much the opposite of the previous poster said."

As many state, flu is a different level of problem for us. This is partly the much higher infectivity of the covid-19 virus, the permanent damages it can cause to our vital organs, including our brain but also the fact that we have treatments for flu including high usage levels of the annual vaccinations, which creates herd immunity.

The trope that flu is the same was quickly discounted in this epidemic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll make a sweeping claim... The nightingale hospitals will never be used........ Because there wasn't anyone to run the other than the army medics

I'd rather have them and they not need to be used rather than it be the other way round though

Totally this..

To have not planned ahead for the what if with this that woukd have been grossly negligent..

The government have made many mistakes but the nightingales are not one of them.. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared

1,692 people died from flu in 2018)9 according to PHE.

"

19,408 in england according to the ONS. Chapter 2 of Health Profile for England. PHE also say that an average year is 17,000 deaths.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't know where people are getting these figures on the "deaths by flu" being in the +50,000

For 2018-2019, the recorded deaths by seasonal Flu was 350 odd... Three Hundred and Fifty.

The highest recorded seasonal flu reached 0.1% fatality. Corona is anywhere between 5-12% depending on the country you're in and when you were infected. A whole order of magnitude higher.

Over 42,000 in the UK along have died from it. It's well above the 20,000 - best case they came up with.

Appealing to the fact that you don't know anyone who died from it just doesn't cut it. You're not omnicscient. You don't meet all 64 million people in the UK. That's what the scientific data collection is for.

I'm amazed people are complaining about the lockdown rules we had. They were some of the most lax out there, short of Sweden who just didn't have ANY.

Perhaps if they'd been stricter, we'd have ended the lockdown far sooner. It seems people are treating the concessions given to them as some kind of excuse to act like "it's not so bad as people make out".

This is probably the worst kind of attitude to have because it shows that you've never taken it seriously from the get-go.

The fact that people have been ignoring the rules, having public BBQs, camping on the beach in groups of 10+, all manner of insanity with no precautions just shows how vague and clueless the government has made this out to be.

Short of having someone drop dead of it in your family. I don't know what could convince people at this point. Which is sad unto itself, because no-one wants that to happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The case fatality rate is 5-12% depending on country.

If you're talking about Crude mortality rate, then I agree.

But the obvious point here being, that you still get an order of magnitude higher than the seasonal flu in both cases.

You can't pick one measure and then assume you can use another measure to compare it to a different disease.

Like comparing number of cars broken down with number of cars sold in a given country to see how popular they are.

One measure is a different set of instances to the other entirely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *D835Man
over a year ago

London


"Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%. "

5-12% death rate is correct

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%.

5-12% death rate is correct"
so that's 3,250,000 - 7,800,000

don't think we have reached that figure yet. lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%.

5-12% death rate is correctso that's 3,250,000 - 7,800,000

don't think we have reached that figure yet. lol "

You need to calculate the death rate based on the number of infections Vs number of fatalities, you are basing it on percentage of population.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *D835Man
over a year ago

London


"Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%.

5-12% death rate is correctso that's 3,250,000 - 7,800,000

don't think we have reached that figure yet. lol "

There is something you are missing in that calculation which suggests 0.2-0.6% death rate. Go Figure !!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *D835Man
over a year ago

London


"Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%.

5-12% death rate is correctso that's 3,250,000 - 7,800,000

don't think we have reached that figure yet. lol "

You seem to be using a calculator; but don't understand the basic principles of Maths.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"The case fatality rate is 5-12% depending on country.

If you're talking about Crude mortality rate, then I agree.

But the obvious point here being, that you still get an order of magnitude higher than the seasonal flu in both cases.

You can't pick one measure and then assume you can use another measure to compare it to a different disease.

Like comparing number of cars broken down with number of cars sold in a given country to see how popular they are.

One measure is a different set of instances to the other entirely.

"

No I'm talking about the case fatality rate when you do some actual antibody tests and realise how many people never did the swab test because they didn't have symptoms. Testing in this country, and most others, has always been a joke because it usually wasn't available during the peak and was later restricted to key workers and people with symptoms. Those are the only ways you fudge the figures to such a ludicrous death rate.

The ONS already has the metric you should care about. It's "contribution to difference in life expectancy". In Italy the average age of a so-called covid19 death is identical to the average life expectancy of a male.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Of the people infected so far, depending on the country, 5-12% have died from it.

Thus the "Case Fatality Rate" is this. i.e. your chances of survival IF you catch it. This is a rough average as it varies slightly over time due to statistical factors.

If you take the total populations vs deaths, then you are calculating the "Crude Fatality Rate" which is more to do with your chances of catching it AND dying from it".

Case FR gives you the likely risk of dying

Crude FR gives you the likely risk of infection + dying.

Both will lack complete data due to lack of testing and asymptomatic cases but this affects most outbreaks, including the seasonal flu, so it won't change anything about the dangers of Covid-19 vs Seasonal Flu.

Covid-19 is roughly 10x more deadly than the flu even when you take the WORST CASE scenario for the seasonal flu.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"Of the people infected so far, depending on the country, 5-12% have died from it.

Thus the "Case Fatality Rate" is this. i.e. your chances of survival IF you catch it. This is a rough average as it varies slightly over time due to statistical factors.

If you take the total populations vs deaths, then you are calculating the "Crude Fatality Rate" which is more to do with your chances of catching it AND dying from it".

Case FR gives you the likely risk of dying

Crude FR gives you the likely risk of infection + dying.

Both will lack complete data due to lack of testing and asymptomatic cases but this affects most outbreaks, including the seasonal flu, so it won't change anything about the dangers of Covid-19 vs Seasonal Flu.

Covid-19 is roughly 10x more deadly than the flu even when you take the WORST CASE scenario for the seasonal flu."

Your case numbers are nonsense for the reasons I explained.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a tough one, I think people should do as they see fit but also people shouldn't be penalised if they have a serious health condition and don't. "

Exactly this.

Its a very difficult ballance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"realise how many people never did the swab test because they didn't have symptoms... Those are the only ways you fudge the figures to such a ludicrous death rate. "

The same logic can be applied to the Flu. Countless millions of people will no doubt get it, but never even go to the doctor, so there are just as many unreported cases if not more which skew the data away from the flu being as dangerous.


"In Italy the average age of a so-called covid19 death is identical to the average life expectancy of a male. "

That can easily be put down to a range factor.

If you say "all people above the age of 70" count as one category and covid kills everyone 70 and above

That doesn't mean that everything else kills them 70 and above.

If everyone usually died at 100 they'd still be included in the same age category yet you have everyone dying 30 years later but still have the same average lifespan.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"Of the people infected so far, depending on the country, 5-12% have died from it.

Thus the "Case Fatality Rate" is this. i.e. your chances of survival IF you catch it. This is a rough average as it varies slightly over time due to statistical factors.

If you take the total populations vs deaths, then you are calculating the "Crude Fatality Rate" which is more to do with your chances of catching it AND dying from it".

Case FR gives you the likely risk of dying

Crude FR gives you the likely risk of infection + dying.

Both will lack complete data due to lack of testing and asymptomatic cases but this affects most outbreaks, including the seasonal flu, so it won't change anything about the dangers of Covid-19 vs Seasonal Flu.

Covid-19 is roughly 10x more deadly than the flu even when you take the WORST CASE scenario for the seasonal flu."

Not according to the WHO, who probably know a bit more than us about it, but hey keep spreading fear and panic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"realise how many people never did the swab test because they didn't have symptoms... Those are the only ways you fudge the figures to such a ludicrous death rate.

The same logic can be applied to the Flu. Countless millions of people will no doubt get it, but never even go to the doctor, so there are just as many unreported cases if not more which skew the data away from the flu being as dangerous.

In Italy the average age of a so-called covid19 death is identical to the average life expectancy of a male.

That can easily be put down to a range factor.

If you say "all people above the age of 70" count as one category and covid kills everyone 70 and above

That doesn't mean that everything else kills them 70 and above.

If everyone usually died at 100 they'd still be included in the same age category yet you have everyone dying 30 years later but still have the same average lifespan.

"

There's a reason that 10/11 so-called covid19 deaths had other health conditions, often multiple ones. Your risk of dying from covid19 if you are otherwise healthy is so small that we're arguing about decimal places. Even that idiot Neil Ferguson only argues for a 1% case fatality rate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

End it. If you want to and need to shield then do so allocate more support for them.

Everyone else back to some sort of new normal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well if you're going to refer to a lead epidemiologist as "an idiot" then you're really going to have to put your 5 Phds in medical biology on the table if you're claiming such lauded authority on the matter my dear :D

Just a quick correction on the non-at risk of course. That would be 4.5% of all deaths. Not exactly miniscule.

So with 42,000 thats...... 1890 people. That's about 2x the entire population of your average UK school for context.

You can proclaim all you want about fear mongering. But I'd appreciate it if you'd bother to at least back it up by getting your numbers at least somewhat in line.

That 1% estimate btw? That was back in FEBRUARY. Before we had any solid data.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Not according to the WHO, who probably know a bit more than us about it, but hey keep spreading fear and panic"

That was back on March 3rd of this year, back when the global death toll was only around 3000. They also said Flu kills (globally) 1% of all people infected. So back then it was still 3x more deadly according to them.

Far too early to make a reliable indicator and if you look to their report on June 17th gives the average global rate as 7.25% (using the exact same math I might add).

Is this the bit where you say something about spreading misinformation being bad for people wanting to make informed decisions?

All data I got from the WHO website just now under the General Director's speech section, which is open access for anyone wanting to look it up if they don't believe me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"Well if you're going to refer to a lead epidemiologist as "an idiot" then you're really going to have to put your 5 Phds in medical biology on the table if you're claiming such lauded authority on the matter my dear :D

Just a quick correction on the non-at risk of course. That would be 4.5% of all deaths. Not exactly miniscule.

So with 42,000 thats...... 1890 people. That's about 2x the entire population of your average UK school for context.

You can proclaim all you want about fear mongering. But I'd appreciate it if you'd bother to at least back it up by getting your numbers at least somewhat in line.

That 1% estimate btw? That was back in FEBRUARY. Before we had any solid data."

This is what really depresses me about the British public. You'll throw away 800 years of hard won civil liberties just because an absolute moron calls themself an epidemiologist. Just show me one model of a pandemic that professor lockdown has accurately forecast? Do you not think it might be an idea to check the track record of these people before swallowing what they are selling. The guy is a complete con artist, I can't believe there are still people who haven't realised this in June 2020.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Pretty sure he's not the only epidemiologist that had any input to this. Nor is he the only one doing research on the matter.

Not quite sure what 800 years of civil liberties has to do with anything. The virus doesn't care about your political leanings. It'll bump you off or make you severely ill all the same.

I really do worry quite who you've been listening to, to get all these ideas in your head.

Are you suggesting that because he UNDER estimated the actual death toll that makes it LESS likely to die?

Because that would suggest you've just ignored everything i've tried to explain and are just resorting to using this Ferguson guy as some political scape goat for any actual facts about the matter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"Pretty sure he's not the only epidemiologist that had any input to this. Nor is he the only one doing research on the matter.

Not quite sure what 800 years of civil liberties has to do with anything. The virus doesn't care about your political leanings. It'll bump you off or make you severely ill all the same.

I really do worry quite who you've been listening to, to get all these ideas in your head.

Are you suggesting that because he UNDER estimated the actual death toll that makes it LESS likely to die?

Because that would suggest you've just ignored everything i've tried to explain and are just resorting to using this Ferguson guy as some political scape goat for any actual facts about the matter."

Ok I'll rephrase. Can you show me any pandemic that imperial college london department of infectious diseases have accurately forecasted?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What's your statistical confidence level and criteria for accepting accurate?

What does predictive power have to do with the known level of people dead? Does having an accurate prediction suddenly make those people 'un' dead?

Do you think the only person who makes any predictions on Pandemics is Neil Ferguson? Because rephrasing it, still doesn't change that it's a political scape goat.

I have to admit upfront, I don't have access to any peer review database on Imperial's history, so it seems a bit of a non-starter to ask me for some historical source on a group I don't have access to.

But I'd still at least like my two questions answered as it might shine light on why this question's a bit of a red herring.

When it comes down to claims like these, i'm not interested in opinion pieces in the press. I'd like to actually see what the scientists themselves said.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

[Removed by poster at 17/06/20 22:58:45]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"What's your statistical confidence level and criteria for accepting accurate?

What does predictive power have to do with the known level of people dead? Does having an accurate prediction suddenly make those people 'un' dead?

Do you think the only person who makes any predictions on Pandemics is Neil Ferguson? Because rephrasing it, still doesn't change that it's a political scape goat.

I have to admit upfront, I don't have access to any peer review database on Imperial's history, so it seems a bit of a non-starter to ask me for some historical source on a group I don't have access to.

But I'd still at least like my two questions answered as it might shine light on why this question's a bit of a red herring.

When it comes down to claims like these, i'm not interested in opinion pieces in the press. I'd like to actually see what the scientists themselves said."

Listen honeybun, when you check their appalling track record then you won't be concerning yourself with confidence levels, we're talking about results way outside the entire range they predicted.

The relevance is that you were the one being smug about my credentials and having the audacity to challenge a government stooge. It's clear that you're happy to accept complete nonsense from people as long as they have the right job title. You were the once who bought up PhDs, what use is putting 5 years into an organisation that has massively failed on every single pandemic model in the last 20 years? Why is that a marker of credibility to you!!! There's just too much you've gotten wrong to unpack in one thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lol at 5-12% death rate. Try 0.2-0.6%.

5-12% death rate is correctso that's 3,250,000 - 7,800,000

don't think we have reached that figure yet. lol

You need to calculate the death rate based on the number of infections Vs number of fatalities, you are basing it on percentage of population."
No one knows how many people have been infected, some say for every one tested positive ten could have had it without knowing. So death rate v infected is just a guess.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"What's your statistical confidence level and criteria for accepting accurate?

What does predictive power have to do with the known level of people dead? Does having an accurate prediction suddenly make those people 'un' dead?

Do you think the only person who makes any predictions on Pandemics is Neil Ferguson? Because rephrasing it, still doesn't change that it's a political scape goat.

I have to admit upfront, I don't have access to any peer review database on Imperial's history, so it seems a bit of a non-starter to ask me for some historical source on a group I don't have access to.

But I'd still at least like my two questions answered as it might shine light on why this question's a bit of a red herring.

When it comes down to claims like these, i'm not interested in opinion pieces in the press. I'd like to actually see what the scientists themselves said.

Listen honeybun, when you check their appalling track record then you won't be concerning yourself with confidence levels, we're talking about results way outside the entire range they predicted.

The relevance is that you were the one being smug about my credentials and having the audacity to challenge a government stooge. It's clear that you're happy to accept complete nonsense from people as long as they have the right job title. You were the once who bought up PhDs, what use is putting 5 years into an organisation that has massively failed on every single pandemic model in the last 20 years? Why is that a marker of credibility to you!!! There's just too much you've gotten wrong to unpack in one thread."

If you'd answered the questions posed, it would have clarified your levels of understanding of the points being discussed. Otherwise it's a potential apples and oranges discussion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"What's your statistical confidence level and criteria for accepting accurate?

What does predictive power have to do with the known level of people dead? Does having an accurate prediction suddenly make those people 'un' dead?

Do you think the only person who makes any predictions on Pandemics is Neil Ferguson? Because rephrasing it, still doesn't change that it's a political scape goat.

I have to admit upfront, I don't have access to any peer review database on Imperial's history, so it seems a bit of a non-starter to ask me for some historical source on a group I don't have access to.

But I'd still at least like my two questions answered as it might shine light on why this question's a bit of a red herring.

When it comes down to claims like these, i'm not interested in opinion pieces in the press. I'd like to actually see what the scientists themselves said.

Listen honeybun, when you check their appalling track record then you won't be concerning yourself with confidence levels, we're talking about results way outside the entire range they predicted.

The relevance is that you were the one being smug about my credentials and having the audacity to challenge a government stooge. It's clear that you're happy to accept complete nonsense from people as long as they have the right job title. You were the once who bought up PhDs, what use is putting 5 years into an organisation that has massively failed on every single pandemic model in the last 20 years? Why is that a marker of credibility to you!!! There's just too much you've gotten wrong to unpack in one thread.

If you'd answered the questions posed, it would have clarified your levels of understanding of the points being discussed. Otherwise it's a potential apples and oranges discussion. "

My original comment was about their death rate claims which are patent nonsense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *on12xxMan
over a year ago

leeds

https://news.sky.com/video/excess-deaths-of-64-000-during-pandemic-11995102

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *on12xxMan
over a year ago

leeds

We are no way near out of this

Don't worry tho Boris wants to spend million pound on paint job for his plane

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm just trying to actually get you to address the points.

You made the claims about a particular scientist being wrong. I'm just trying to establish what you mean by that.

Models can often be out of sync with outcomes and they get corrected with new data. That's nothing new. Hardly justification for dismissing any findings.

So again, I just want to know what exactly you're basing your conclusions off, seeing as you've not provided me with anything to work with there's nothing to convince me.

I address your weird claims about the actual count. It's always going to be an estimate as you can't test everyone. But like any boundary condition you can apply the same logic to other infections as the Flu gets underreported so it's hardly an argument against a disease like Covid that gets over-reported in comparison. I can explain that in more detail if you don't get it, but responding with indignation just makes that an uphill battle i'm honestly not going to bother with.

If you want to take it personally, that's up to you. But i'm not going to have people throw random numbers around that come from the ether. Especially if there's no context to it.

The conspiratorial bent that comes with all these accusations of "fear mongering" just show you out to be uninformed. Smug or not, that isn't my problem really.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awtyjeniWoman
over a year ago

Bromley

I have had my cancer surgery cancelled 5 times due to covid and I agree why not use Nightingale hospitals for covid and free up other hospitals for other essential operations. I'm very frustrated and scared that this has been going on so long .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oojCouple
over a year ago

Exeter


"I have had my cancer surgery cancelled 5 times due to covid and I agree why not use Nightingale hospitals for covid and free up other hospitals for other essential operations. I'm very frustrated and scared that this has been going on so long ."

Both worked right through here, we would like our lives to be whole again and we can decide what risks are out there

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

The whole point though isn't about an individual deciding what the risk to themselves might be. It is about a decision about what the risk infected individuals may be to others. We are currently still in a situation where there are 1500 new cases every day, much more than when lockdown started.

Yes most of is will be fine is we catch it, but will everyone you come into contact with be ok... and everyone that THEY come into contact with. We need to remember that this whole global pandemic has spread from a very small number of primary infections in China, it wouldn't take much to put us right back to where we were.

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

With all the expertise on show here. I am surprised we did as bad as we did.

If I'd have known, I wouldn't have wasted hours reading scientific data. I would have just asked you lot. Who needs a government when a bunch of middle aged swingers have all the answers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *D835Man
over a year ago

London


"The whole point though isn't about an individual deciding what the risk to themselves might be. It is about a decision about what the risk infected individuals may be to others. We are currently still in a situation where there are 1500 new cases every day, much more than when lockdown started.

Yes most of is will be fine is we catch it, but will everyone you come into contact with be ok... and everyone that THEY come into contact with. We need to remember that this whole global pandemic has spread from a very small number of primary infections in China, it wouldn't take much to put us right back to where we were.

Cal"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

None of us are under house arrest and can do what we want, but I can't go on public transport without a mask. My employer still has its doors firmly closed. Friends are only meeting family. Can't go for a coffee as still closed.

I don't need the government to tell me what to do, but if others are following the recommendations well kind of limits my rebellious streak.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm following my own advice and have been from the start of all this

If anyone is followewing the government advice I feel sorry for you

Anything they easy people have been doing for weeks already

Social distancing will be reduced on 4th July confirmed next Thursday 25th june

But most people havnt been keeping 2m apart since this started

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With all the expertise on show here. I am surprised we did as bad as we did.

If I'd have known, I wouldn't have wasted hours reading scientific data. I would have just asked you lot. Who needs a government when a bunch of middle aged swingers have all the answers."

If you want to follow a bunch of public school boys who don't know there hand from there arse and have never lived in the real world please carry.... Just let the rest of us get on with our life's

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky SpiceWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places "

56000 people did not die from the flu in the U.K. last year, stop spreading shite.

Accurate figures are pretty easy to come by, why don't you try it sometime.

"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places

56000 people did not die from the flu in the U.K. last year, stop spreading shite.

Accurate figures are pretty easy to come by, why don't you try it sometime.

"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu"

"
2017 figures was

13,746 flu deaths and 18,587 Bronchitis/lung deaths so like cv19 22,333 died. If you go on ONS website all figures there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places

56000 people did not die from the flu in the U.K. last year, stop spreading shite.

Accurate figures are pretty easy to come by, why don't you try it sometime.

"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu"

"

50000 exessive deaths last winter in UK FACT

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich


"At the moment I think there is a big difference between going to the shops and jumping in to bed with someone. Even if you were unlucky enough to get infected while shopping the dose of the virus is likely to be low. kissing and close contact are likely to create a much greater and potentially fatal risk."

LOL I don't think how you catch it bears any relationship to the seriousness

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places

56000 people did not die from the flu in the U.K. last year, stop spreading shite.

Accurate figures are pretty easy to come by, why don't you try it sometime.

"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu"

50000 exessive deaths last winter in UK FACT"
8,000 fewer dying now each month so we have to wait till end of year to know full excess deaths?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places

56000 people did not die from the flu in the U.K. last year, stop spreading shite.

Accurate figures are pretty easy to come by, why don't you try it sometime.

"Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu"

50000 exessive deaths last winter in UK FACT8,000 fewer dying now each month so we have to wait till end of year to know full excess deaths?"

I'm on about 2019

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hubaysiWoman
over a year ago

Leeds


"I was wondering this myself...are we still classed as locked down?"

There has never been lockdown, people have done what they wanted......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was wondering this myself...are we still classed as locked down?

There has never been lockdown, people have done what they wanted......"

Very very true ????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was wondering this myself...are we still classed as locked down?

There has never been lockdown, people have done what they wanted......

Very very true ????"
oh I missed out then, which pub have you been drinking in, and was all your family with you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was wondering this myself...are we still classed as locked down?

There has never been lockdown, people have done what they wanted......

Very very true ????oh I missed out then, which pub have you been drinking in, and was all your family with you? "

No not been in a pub not needed weather's been fine to sit and chat / drink / eat with family and friends..... Funny enough none of us have caught it wounder why.... Guess we must be very very lucky

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just walked past the playing fields at the top of my road. Last week barely half a dozen people on an area big enough to house 4 or 5 footy pitches.

Tonight....

An 11 v 11 footy match about to kick off

Rugby League training involving 10 or so people

Footy training involving around 8-10 people

Looks like back to normal then.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" Funny enough none of us have caught it wounder why.... Guess we must be very very lucky "

I mean that's all entirely contingent on how you were interacting. Can you tell me how many of you were asymptomatic, or had a mild case and passed it onto other people unknowingly?

Short of just having no friends to speak or, or having access to testing kits, the honest answer is you don't know.

This is like saying "i've broken the speed limit loads of times and gotten away with it, therefore speeding is perfectly safe"

Humans have trouble conceptualising risk without concrete examples. And this complacency using folk common sense is just silly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Neither me or and member of my friends or family have shown any signs of it.... People need to realise it was never as bad as its been made out as.... And it's just following the normal path of a virus

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People to realise what it means to appeal to anecdotal evidence. That's literally all there is to it.

eg: "I didn't starve when I was a kid, therefore poverty doesn't exist"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"56000 people died of the flu in the UK last year... Why wasn't there a lockdown then?

Looking back over all the this the lockdown will be seen as a massive mistakes by all the world's governments.... Except Sweden... Its been bad there but nothing more than most places "

I don't know where you're getting your figures from but last year (2018/19) flu deaths in the UK were at a 10 year low of 1,692. The highest death rate over the last 10 years was 28,330 in 2014/15 and averaged at about 17,000 per year over the period.

I agree with a lot of things people are saying about the lockdown and whether it'll turn out to be worse for most than Covid would ever have been but in making the argument it is important that the 'facts' used are real facts not false, fake or made up 'facts'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"I've been working and going about my normal life since all this started... Funny enough I work in a factory with over 200 people.... I know 3 people who have had two of whom I was working with the night before they went off... Either I'm very lucky as are most who work with me

But if it was as BAD as its been made out why haven't more people caught it....we work in a very communal area with all of us touching the same things

1500 people have died due to COVID19

56000 people died from the flu virus last year

This virus was never as infectus as they first feared "

As already said, you're figure for flu deaths last year was 1,692 not 56,000.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

300 people under the age of 60 have died because of COVID19 ( NO UNDERLYING HEATH ISSUES) 300 now you work out the maths

Maybe the 56000 that dies last winter were put down to the real cause of death and not flu ( but when they died they had the virus)

Strange isn't it as to what you want to belive

I'll carry on living my life if your happy to stay home please do and I hope you enjoy yours locked up in your 4 walls

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life. "

Yes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Take not a blind bit of notice!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sm265Woman
over a year ago

Shangri-la


"300 people under the age of 60 have died because of COVID19 ( NO UNDERLYING HEATH ISSUES) 300 now you work out the maths

Maybe the 56000 that dies last winter were put down to the real cause of death and not flu ( but when they died they had the virus)

Strange isn't it as to what you want to belive

I'll carry on living my life if your happy to stay home please do and I hope you enjoy yours locked up in your 4 walls "

Can you give a source to back up these figures you keep stating are facts? Because they are totally different to any statistics I can find

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's down to the weather. The heat helps, possibly to eradicate covid

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I'll carry on living my life if your happy to stay home please do and I hope you enjoy yours locked up in your 4 walls "

I mean so long as you're content you're risking killing anyone over the age of 60. At least you're being honest about your contribution.

Of course you also know exactly who does and doesn't have underlying health issues also. Just like you know who's suffering from kidney stones, or asthma, just by looking at them.

Jesus. The level of rationalisation is unreal with some people. If you're going to cherry pick your data to meet some predetermined conclusion. At least be honest about it.

You don't care what happens to other people, you just want to do what you want, and pretend like there's no consequences to it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The latest NHS figures for England show that 253 people under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions have died from Covid-19 in hospitals."

I mean I can do the math. Can you at least start with getting your facts right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"Neither me or and member of my friends or family have shown any signs of it.... People need to realise it was never as bad as its been made out as.... And it's just following the normal path of a virus "

I'm glad you, your friends and family have shown no signs of it but that does not mean you haven't had it in some way. I have worked all through this pandemic with ones who have contracted this awful virus and believe me, it isn't pretty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rank speakerMan
over a year ago

Worcester


"I think we are getting to the stage where people will have to decide for themselves how much risk they are prepared to accept.

It's hard for people like me... I long for some sense of normality, yet have health conditions that put me at high risk should I catch the virus. News like non-essential shops opening means little to me, because it will be some time before I can shop for pleasure, go for a drink in the pub, meet up in a group situation, or meet a fuck buddy for sex. When I weigh up my personal circumstances, the risk and reward, none of those things are potentially worth dying for.

And I think that given that this virus probably isn't going anywhere, everybody needs to make that decision for themselves, and those decisions should be respected. "

A sensible and balanced approach here! I'm also in the vulnerable group so will continue to be very cautious. However on my rare outings I have seen some very stupid activities by some younger members of the population. If you're fit,healthy and have noone close you could pass it on to I would suggest that you could get on with as close to normal as possible and us vulnerables will have to keep a low profile for a little longer? Good luck to you fit ones!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sm265Woman
over a year ago

Shangri-la


"

I'll carry on living my life if your happy to stay home please do and I hope you enjoy yours locked up in your 4 walls

I mean so long as you're content you're risking killing anyone over the age of 60. At least you're being honest about your contribution.

Of course you also know exactly who does and doesn't have underlying health issues also. Just like you know who's suffering from kidney stones, or asthma, just by looking at them.

Jesus. The level of rationalisation is unreal with some people. If you're going to cherry pick your data to meet some predetermined conclusion. At least be honest about it.

You don't care what happens to other people, you just want to do what you want, and pretend like there's no consequences to it."

Not just that, he also wants to criticise all the people who are behaving responsibly and following the rules

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life. "

A new normal, yes

The old normal, no

It started with a handful of people and there are still many thousands of known and god knows how many unknown cases.

If the vast majority could be trusted to act responsibly then things could pretty much get back to normal but you just have to look at the news.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life.

A new normal, yes

The old normal, no

It started with a handful of people and there are still many thousands of known and god knows how many unknown cases.

If the vast majority could be trusted to act responsibly then things could pretty much get back to normal but you just have to look at the news."

Next Thursday 25th june the government will announce that science will now allow the 2m rule to be changed to 1m.... Just in time for the pubs and restaurants to open

They have been fudging the figures for weeks now to make w it look like the 3month lockdown was needed... When it wasn't even needed at the start and a more measured approach should have been put in place like

Social distancing

Mask worn from the start

Mass gathering banned

Track and trace introduced from the beginning

Covid hotels ( to hold those who are self isolating)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *D835Man
over a year ago

London


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life.

A new normal, yes

The old normal, no

It started with a handful of people and there are still many thousands of known and god knows how many unknown cases.

If the vast majority could be trusted to act responsibly then things could pretty much get back to normal but you just have to look at the news."

This

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The government is under pressure to increase the GDP once more, and with very little actual game plans people are seeing that as an excuse to reason that there was never a threat before.

As if a political party can't act hypocritically and in it's own interests.

I'm not exactly what you think the Tories were thinking they'd get out of crippling the economy during a brexit transition and having to go into debt by 15% of the GDP which would be against any of their economic policies that the got voted in on.

I just see some really backwards logic in here from people wanting to justify their own personal biases and ignorance over the facts on how pandemics work.

"look at this cherry picked, unsourced figure I read on some facebook meme! It totally agrees with me!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Have we reached the point where we just need to accept that we have to get back to normal and live our lives as we see fit?

If we are allowed to go to work, go shopping and go out parks & beaches etc then surely the time has come to say enough is enough and get on with life.

A new normal, yes

The old normal, no

It started with a handful of people and there are still many thousands of known and god knows how many unknown cases.

If the vast majority could be trusted to act responsibly then things could pretty much get back to normal but you just have to look at the news.

Next Thursday 25th june the government will announce that science will now allow the 2m rule to be changed to 1m.... Just in time for the pubs and restaurants to open

They have been fudging the figures for weeks now to make w it look like the 3month lockdown was needed... When it wasn't even needed at the start and a more measured approach should have been put in place like

Social distancing

Mask worn from the start

Mass gathering banned

Track and trace introduced from the beginning

Covid hotels ( to hold those who are self isolating)

"

So the news I gave here was leaked in the papers this morning..... Lol. I knew about this 2weeks ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *on12xxMan
over a year ago

leeds

Knew, what 2 weeks ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Knew, what 2 weeks ago "

That they would be reducing the 2m too 1m on 4th July

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"Knew, what 2 weeks ago

That they would be reducing the 2m too 1m on 4th July "

Hardly remarkable insight when a lot of the world already uses 1 meter and the WHO recommend 1 meter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top