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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"they want to keep lower classes down. simple as that. so making them jobless and with no future achieves that objective. the virus has given them ultimate control of peoples movements and chances of improvement." Of course, their whole idea is to have lots less money coming in and much more to pay out. It's clearly what every politician wants.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long." That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is justifying what? " Th so called government experts are trying to state that 0.05% cases is high. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long." 60 get on my kids bus to school as ith all about the profit. Then 390 of them in the same school. Just saying over reaction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"they want to keep lower classes down. simple as that. so making them jobless and with no future achieves that objective. the virus has given them ultimate control of peoples movements and chances of improvement. Of course, their whole idea is to have lots less money coming in and much more to pay out. It's clearly what every politician wants. "they want to erode any freedom people have. lockdown clearly hasnt controlled the virus yet they insist on it. and all the time people are losing jobs, getting further into debt and once landlords can start evicting loads are going to be homeless. politicians do not care they are earning all the time this is going on. and them same politicians and family members of politicians break the laws continually they lay down to us. they do not care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number." Go for an 8.5 kilometre walk and see how small it is. Planet earth is pretty small in the scale of the galaxy, doesn't mean you write it off as insignificant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"they want to keep lower classes down. simple as that. so making them jobless and with no future achieves that objective. the virus has given them ultimate control of peoples movements and chances of improvement. Of course, their whole idea is to have lots less money coming in and much more to pay out. It's clearly what every politician wants.
they want to erode any freedom people have. lockdown clearly hasnt controlled the virus yet they insist on it.
and all the time people are losing jobs, getting further into debt and once landlords can start evicting loads are going to be homeless.
politicians do not care they are earning all the time this is going on.
and them same politicians and family members of politicians break the laws continually they lay down to us.
they do not care."Absolutely none of this helps a politician. If you don't have the population working, ultimately there is no one to pay MP's salaries. They also need people to re-elect them. That's a pretty difficult sell if you make them all live on the street. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" Who's said that? It's the 500+/100k rates that are causing the impending lockdown. We're 516 here in Liverpool  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number. Go for an 8.5 kilometre walk and see how small it is. Planet earth is pretty small in the scale of the galaxy, doesn't mean you write it off as insignificant." I went for 8km run today so yes it was fine. So as you said the earth is small compared to the galaxy so 0.05% is low. I did not mention the word insignificant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number. Go for an 8.5 kilometre walk and see how small it is. Planet earth is pretty small in the scale of the galaxy, doesn't mean you write it off as insignificant. I went for 8km run today so yes it was fine. So as you said the earth is small compared to the galaxy so 0.05% is low. I did not mention the word insignificant." So you agree the earth is significant, even though it's really really tiny in the scale of the galaxy. Yet you can't see that a bus full of people might have some worth and value? I also didn't ask if you could run 8km, I asked how big or small that distance felt. For example, was it more significant than say, a walk round the supermarket? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Who's said that? It's the 500+/100k rates that are causing the impending lockdown. We're 516 here in Liverpool "Look at the local area figures they are classifying anything above 50 as high. Manchester is over 500 as well but even 500/100,000 is only 0.5% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number. Go for an 8.5 kilometre walk and see how small it is. Planet earth is pretty small in the scale of the galaxy, doesn't mean you write it off as insignificant. I went for 8km run today so yes it was fine. So as you said the earth is small compared to the galaxy so 0.05% is low. I did not mention the word insignificant. So you agree the earth is significant, even though it's really really tiny in the scale of the galaxy. Yet you can't see that a bus full of people might have some worth and value? I also didn't ask if you could run 8km, I asked how big or small that distance felt. For example, was it more significant than say, a walk round the supermarket?" I can't really see what your point is here you seem like the kind of person who would have argued I was wrong if I would have said 50/100,000 is high. You can't argue with maths 0.05% is low! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number. Go for an 8.5 kilometre walk and see how small it is. Planet earth is pretty small in the scale of the galaxy, doesn't mean you write it off as insignificant. I went for 8km run today so yes it was fine. So as you said the earth is small compared to the galaxy so 0.05% is low. I did not mention the word insignificant. So you agree the earth is significant, even though it's really really tiny in the scale of the galaxy. Yet you can't see that a bus full of people might have some worth and value? I also didn't ask if you could run 8km, I asked how big or small that distance felt. For example, was it more significant than say, a walk round the supermarket? I can't really see what your point is here you seem like the kind of person who would have argued I was wrong if I would have said 50/100,000 is high. You can't argue with maths 0.05% is low!" It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000" It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing." I absolutely promise you, if we sit back, go sod it I've had enough of even trying to do anything, just let it go nuts, you'll be on here longing for the number to get back down to anywhere close to 50 per 100,000. The health service cannot cope with that and given the number of posts on here asking for other diseases to be given greater priority, can you explain how that can happen if the staff are asymptomatic or only slightly symptomatic and then infect seriously vulnerable patients? Or can't work because they are too sick. Or can't treat anyone because the are dead. How do any of those scenarios help patients with other diseases? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. I absolutely promise you, if we sit back, go sod it I've had enough of even trying to do anything, just let it go nuts, you'll be on here longing for the number to get back down to anywhere close to 50 per 100,000. The health service cannot cope with that and given the number of posts on here asking for other diseases to be given greater priority, can you explain how that can happen if the staff are asymptomatic or only slightly symptomatic and then infect seriously vulnerable patients? Or can't work because they are too sick. Or can't treat anyone because the are dead. How do any of those scenarios help patients with other diseases? " They will be able to cope this is why we had the first lockdown to give them time to build all the additional hospital wings. Out of the number of persons with a positive Covid- 19 test (let's just say for now they are all Covid- 19 and not just coronavirus!) then less than 1% of these will need hospitalisation. You seem to be under the impression that anyone with a positive test will seriously ill. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" well as a comparison... for the international "corridor" no quarentine list... a country cases must be less than 20 cases per 100,000... so it is 2.5 times that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! well as a comparison... for the international "corridor" no quarentine list... a country cases must be less than 20 cases per 100,000... so it is 2.5 times that!" Another example of how these so called experts are making a complete arse of things!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. I absolutely promise you, if we sit back, go sod it I've had enough of even trying to do anything, just let it go nuts, you'll be on here longing for the number to get back down to anywhere close to 50 per 100,000. The health service cannot cope with that and given the number of posts on here asking for other diseases to be given greater priority, can you explain how that can happen if the staff are asymptomatic or only slightly symptomatic and then infect seriously vulnerable patients? Or can't work because they are too sick. Or can't treat anyone because the are dead. How do any of those scenarios help patients with other diseases? They will be able to cope this is why we had the first lockdown to give them time to build all the additional hospital wings. Out of the number of persons with a positive Covid- 19 test (let's just say for now they are all Covid- 19 and not just coronavirus!) then less than 1% of these will need hospitalisation. You seem to be under the impression that anyone with a positive test will seriously ill. " No I'm under the impression that 1% of the entire population of the country is vastly more than the health service can cope with. There is no cure for Covid at the moment (despite the Orange ones declaration). Hospitals can only manage symptoms. Also, who do you think ends up staffing those extra hospital facilities if that number of patients end up in hospital? That would be the same ones that are currently doing their utmost to try to treat all the other million and one things that people get sick from or injure themselves doing. You are also not factoring in the long term effects (including effects in people who are not initially sick enough to be admitted). Covid has also already been proven to cause significant, life changing organ damage in some people. This will then tie up hospital resources for literally decades. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" National average, some areas are 10x that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! National average, some areas are 10x that" Yes I know Manchester being one of them. My point being they are trying to justify further lockdowns on 0.05- 0.5% positive cases. Remember the figures mysteriously doubled overnight as well because "they forgot to add the data". Manchester went from around 200 cases to 500 per 100,000. Very suspect! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! No I'm under the impression that 1% of the entire population of the country is vastly more than the health service can cope with. There is no cure for Covid at the moment (despite the Orange ones declaration). Hospitals can only manage symptoms. Also, who do you think ends up staffing those extra hospital facilities if that number of patients end up in hospital? That would be the same ones that are currently doing their utmost to try to treat all the other million and one things that people get sick from or injure themselves doing. You are also not factoring in the long term effects (including effects in people who are not initially sick enough to be admitted). Covid has also already been proven to cause significant, life changing organ damage in some people. This will then tie up hospital resources for literally decades." So what is your answer kept delaying it and delaying it so we are dealing with it for years and the population does not build up a sufficient immunity? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cornwall is around 20, Nottingham is now over 600. Many places would welcome 50!" They certainly would! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! No I'm under the impression that 1% of the entire population of the country is vastly more than the health service can cope with. There is no cure for Covid at the moment (despite the Orange ones declaration). Hospitals can only manage symptoms. Also, who do you think ends up staffing those extra hospital facilities if that number of patients end up in hospital? That would be the same ones that are currently doing their utmost to try to treat all the other million and one things that people get sick from or injure themselves doing. You are also not factoring in the long term effects (including effects in people who are not initially sick enough to be admitted). Covid has also already been proven to cause significant, life changing organ damage in some people. This will then tie up hospital resources for literally decades. So what is your answer kept delaying it and delaying it so we are dealing with it for years and the population does not build up a sufficient immunity? " Delay gives time to better understand the disease, to research better treatments and potentially cures. For more vaccines to be developed. You are also assuming that lasting herd immunity can be achieved naturally. There is currently some limited evidence that re infection can occur and no compelling evidence that even if you develop antibodies after being infected that these persist for any significant length of time. Removing all restrictions and letting is spread like wildfire runs the risk of unleashing a cycle of uncontrollable infection and then reinfection. Each time rolling the dice as to whether you get symptoms all the way through to dying. Lockdowns are not a good solution, they are however the best we have right now based on our seriously limited understanding of this disease. Never in the history of mankind have so many minds and resources been thrown at a disease in such a short space of time, however it still takes time and no amount of frustration or complaining can shorten that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Delay gives time to better understand the disease, to research better treatments and potentially cures. For more vaccines to be developed. You are also assuming that lasting herd immunity can be achieved naturally. There is currently some limited evidence that re infection can occur and no compelling evidence that even if you develop antibodies after being infected that these persist for any significant length of time. Removing all restrictions and letting is spread like wildfire runs the risk of unleashing a cycle of uncontrollable infection and then reinfection. Each time rolling the dice as to whether you get symptoms all the way through to dying. Lockdowns are not a good solution, they are however the best we have right now based on our seriously limited understanding of this disease. Never in the history of mankind have so many minds and resources been thrown at a disease in such a short space of time, however it still takes time and no amount of frustration or complaining can shorten that." As you stated very limited evidence because it suits them to say re- infection is possible just as it suits them to say that asymptomatic transmission is possible with little evidence of that. It has already been shown in countries that did not have lockdown do not have any more cases and sometimes less cases. I have not stated we need to remove all restrictions but going back into lockdown will only make matters worse. Too many so called government experts are making the wrong decisions and making a total clusterfuck of it. The more people accept it will only add to that clusterfuck!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Delay gives time to better understand the disease, to research better treatments and potentially cures. For more vaccines to be developed. You are also assuming that lasting herd immunity can be achieved naturally. There is currently some limited evidence that re infection can occur and no compelling evidence that even if you develop antibodies after being infected that these persist for any significant length of time. Removing all restrictions and letting is spread like wildfire runs the risk of unleashing a cycle of uncontrollable infection and then reinfection. Each time rolling the dice as to whether you get symptoms all the way through to dying. Lockdowns are not a good solution, they are however the best we have right now based on our seriously limited understanding of this disease. Never in the history of mankind have so many minds and resources been thrown at a disease in such a short space of time, however it still takes time and no amount of frustration or complaining can shorten that. As you stated very limited evidence because it suits them to say re- infection is possible just as it suits them to say that asymptomatic transmission is possible with little evidence of that. It has already been shown in countries that did not have lockdown do not have any more cases and sometimes less cases. I have not stated we need to remove all restrictions but going back into lockdown will only make matters worse. Too many so called government experts are making the wrong decisions and making a total clusterfuck of it. The more people accept it will only add to that clusterfuck!!" Ok, let me clarify that for you, the limited evidence of re infection refers to the fact they don't know if everyone can be reinfected and if so, how long after initial infection. There is absolutely evidence that a small number have been reinfected. Also, as has been said on here many times, you cannot directly compare every country with each other, for every one your going to say did better without a lockdown (let me guess, your about to cite Sweden) there will be one that's doing much worse like Brazil. Does Brazil represent the UK, no, and neither does somewhere like Sweden. Also, no one is saying a full lockdown is coming, however it has always been a tool any government could use if they have to. The UK has also yet to have anything like a full lockdown applied to it. Yes some in the government might be making the wrong decisions, they are human, just like you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Ok, let me clarify that for you, the limited evidence of re infection refers to the fact they don't know if everyone can be reinfected and if so, how long after initial infection. There is absolutely evidence that a small number have been reinfected. Also, as has been said on here many times, you cannot directly compare every country with each other, for every one your going to say did better without a lockdown (let me guess, your about to cite Sweden) there will be one that's doing much worse like Brazil. Does Brazil represent the UK, no, and neither does somewhere like Sweden. Also, no one is saying a full lockdown is coming, however it has always been a tool any government could use if they have to. The UK has also yet to have anything like a full lockdown applied to it. Yes some in the government might be making the wrong decisions, they are human, just like you." No the limited evidence refers to the fact that a very small number of persons may have been re infected. What they are not stating if these few cases are immuno- suppressed. Yes you can directly compare other countries when you talk about number infected per population. As you quoted Sweden the still have large population areas so the number of infected per the population was considerably lower. I was referring to Bolivia who had a Marshall Law lockdown and still had a high infection number per population head than those without or with minimum lockdown. You seem to have taken a post about numbers and turned it into a debate about pro/anti lockdown. Are you one of these so called experts who is trying to justify a lockdown? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! National average, some areas are 10x that Yes I know Manchester being one of them. My point being they are trying to justify further lockdowns on 0.05- 0.5% positive cases. Remember the figures mysteriously doubled overnight as well because "they forgot to add the data". Manchester went from around 200 cases to 500 per 100,000. Very suspect!" Not really.... most of the 16000 missing cases just happened to be in the north west..... the figures did look weird before as it looked like England were doing better with the infection rates that the other 3 nations... with the revised figures it’s much more in line with the other nations | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! National average, some areas are 10x that Yes I know Manchester being one of them. My point being they are trying to justify further lockdowns on 0.05- 0.5% positive cases. Remember the figures mysteriously doubled overnight as well because "they forgot to add the data". Manchester went from around 200 cases to 500 per 100,000. Very suspect! Not really.... most of the 16000 missing cases just happened to be in the north west..... the figures did look weird before as it looked like England were doing better with the infection rates that the other 3 nations... with the revised figures it’s much more in line with the other nations " Sone other areas increased as well maybe not as much as NW but again seems to be the hiitting the North. It was certainly very "convenient" that some areas doubled and now they are trying to justify further restrictions in those areas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" It’s fairly simple, it gives Manchester around 15,000 live cases currently, it places on current admission rates our trusts 2 weeks away from capacity. There’s nothing to justify, the reality is we are as a region quickly heading to a point where we don’t have the resources to be able to treat everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you look at the total number of deaths as of today it is just under 50,000 , BUT take 26,000 out of that due to the total cock up with nursing homes, now take out another 5,000 for those with underlying health conditions and the true number of deaths is actually only 19,000 since March even with the lockdown and all the restrictions. Look at the number of people who have lost they jobs and business they have gone under. Put all nursing homes into full lockdown no vistors etc, put those with underlying health conditions in lockdown, then allow the rest of us to go back to work, or get ready for a depression that will last for a decade and make 1929 look like a picnic " Genius idea... those with “underlying health conditions” accounts for 15,000,000 U.K. residents. How exactly are you going to ‘lockdown’ them all amongst their families etc? As for “true number of deaths”... if you happen to be of a certain age or happen to be a mild asthmatic... do we conclude their deaths aren’t actually of any value? Let’s not even consider the fact the NHS has hospitalised around 150,000 people during this pandemic and now has a group in the 10,000’s with long term health issues despite recovery. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Ok, let me clarify that for you, the limited evidence of re infection refers to the fact they don't know if everyone can be reinfected and if so, how long after initial infection. There is absolutely evidence that a small number have been reinfected. Also, as has been said on here many times, you cannot directly compare every country with each other, for every one your going to say did better without a lockdown (let me guess, your about to cite Sweden) there will be one that's doing much worse like Brazil. Does Brazil represent the UK, no, and neither does somewhere like Sweden. Also, no one is saying a full lockdown is coming, however it has always been a tool any government could use if they have to. The UK has also yet to have anything like a full lockdown applied to it. Yes some in the government might be making the wrong decisions, they are human, just like you. No the limited evidence refers to the fact that a very small number of persons may have been re infected. What they are not stating if these few cases are immuno- suppressed. Yes you can directly compare other countries when you talk about number infected per population. As you quoted Sweden the still have large population areas so the number of infected per the population was considerably lower. I was referring to Bolivia who had a Marshall Law lockdown and still had a high infection number per population head than those without or with minimum lockdown. You seem to have taken a post about numbers and turned it into a debate about pro/anti lockdown. Are you one of these so called experts who is trying to justify a lockdown?" Ok, let's try this again, there is no ifs, buts or maybes, reinfection HAS occurred. In the case study I was reading they have sequenced the genome of the 2 virus' and found them sufficiently different that there was no doubt it was 2 infections not a continuation of the first. The patient concerned had no other underlying health conditions and was not suffering and immune system impairment. Your interpretation of how the per capita infection rate should be used is also flawed. Absolute direct comparison is only possible if other population criteria are comparable. It is easier to make a more accurate comparison between say Germany and the UK as they have similar levels of economic standards, general population health and similar centers of population. Bolivia has more significant divergence from these comparisons so the figure is less directly comparable. It can be used as an indicator, but in conjunction with other factors in order to properly understand it's relevance. You cannot look at individual facts or numbers in isolation, you have to understand how they are pieced together in the bigger picture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" So what are getting at? Would you be happy if it was much higher to justify higher figures? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!!" It shows rate of increase and an indicator only. Not everyone with the virus is getting tested but it shows a worrying upward trend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing." Delay it as long as possible ideally yes,we have got to get through winter at least in terms of the hospital admissions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No matter what figure you come out with even if it was 10 in every 100.000 people would still moan Because once you insert fear people it change people mind. The government Arguement the sector they closing where it spread and who done the test did the public leave home in a car and strait back No They walked caught taxi train etc Also why not shut all none essential shops All this government doing is ruining people's life health business and country and your kids will suffer "Think this must be a typo ... Replace "government" with "virus" then it makes sense  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It’s fairly simple, it gives Manchester around 15,000 live cases currently, it places on current admission rates our trusts 2 weeks away from capacity. There’s nothing to justify, the reality is we are as a region quickly heading to a point where we don’t have the resources to be able to treat everyone. " Hi Charli out of the 15,000 current cases how many will need hospitalisation and how many will be isolating at home? That depends which source you read and which one you trust. The NHS official page has only been calculated up to 1st October and has 688 Covid- 19 cases and 89 in ventilator beds. One source quotes 1030 (115 ventilator beds) which would put the hospitalisation figure at around 7%. Seems to be hard to find what the total number of available beds is though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cases have nothing to do with an increasing health risk. New cases are just a count of those who get a positive test result. Almost all of those are asymptomatic or false positives, i.e. they do not show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor can they ‘spread the virus’ to anyone else. There is no ‘gold standard’ test for COVID-19. A diagnostic process, namely PCR, has been used, but there has been no attempt to determine its accuracy. It has been shown it is possible to return a positive PCR test where a sample taken from the same patient never grows a viral culture – meaning the patient does not have an active COVID-19 infection despite the positive PCR test. Thus the false positive rate is astronomic. Additionally far more people are being tested – 280,000 per day now compared to 10,000 in March. So, while there are more ‘new cases’ per day now compared to earlier in the year, the number of ‘new cases’ per 1000 people tested now is actually only ONE-TENTH of what it was then." I couldn't agree more. Out of the total number of "confirmed" cases through testing, how many are actually Covid- 19? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. Delay it as long as possible ideally yes,we have got to get through winter at least in terms of the hospital admissions " How long is as long as possible? 2months? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"they want to keep lower classes down. simple as that. so making them jobless and with no future achieves that objective. the virus has given them ultimate control of peoples movements and chances of improvement." Who is ‘they’? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! So what are getting at? Would you be happy if it was much higher to justify higher figures?" What I am stating is the figures are too low to justify restrictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"they want to keep lower classes down. simple as that. so making them jobless and with no future achieves that objective. the virus has given them ultimate control of peoples movements and chances of improvement. Who is ‘they’? " Are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cases have nothing to do with an increasing health risk. New cases are just a count of those who get a positive test result. Almost all of those are asymptomatic or false positives, i.e. they do not show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor can they ‘spread the virus’ to anyone else. There is no ‘gold standard’ test for COVID-19. A diagnostic process, namely PCR, has been used, but there has been no attempt to determine its accuracy. It has been shown it is possible to return a positive PCR test where a sample taken from the same patient never grows a viral culture – meaning the patient does not have an active COVID-19 infection despite the positive PCR test. Thus the false positive rate is astronomic. Additionally far more people are being tested – 280,000 per day now compared to 10,000 in March. So, while there are more ‘new cases’ per day now compared to earlier in the year, the number of ‘new cases’ per 1000 people tested now is actually only ONE-TENTH of what it was then." Asymptomatic people can spread the virus https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-how-is-covid-19-transmitted#:~:text=Yes%2C%20infected%20people%20can,measures%20cannot%20be%20implemented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Ok, let's try this again, there is no ifs, buts or maybes, reinfection HAS occurred. In the case study I was reading they have sequenced the genome of the 2 virus' and found them sufficiently different that there was no doubt it was 2 infections not a continuation of the first. The patient concerned had no other underlying health conditions and was not suffering and immune system impairment. Your interpretation of how the per capita infection rate should be used is also flawed. Absolute direct comparison is only possible if other population criteria are comparable. It is easier to make a more accurate comparison between say Germany and the UK as they have similar levels of economic standards, general population health and similar centers of population. Bolivia has more significant divergence from these comparisons so the figure is less directly comparable. It can be used as an indicator, but in conjunction with other factors in order to properly understand it's relevance. You cannot look at individual facts or numbers in isolation, you have to understand how they are pieced together in the bigger picture." Again there is limited evidence, in this report that you read how many patients were looked at? It would be interesting to see the source. We are def not going not going to agree on on the comparison study it makes perfect it if look at it. Not sure if it will let me post this link: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac&feature=share Just remember this phrase when they put further restrictions in place: - Creeping change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Ok, let's try this again, there is no ifs, buts or maybes, reinfection HAS occurred. In the case study I was reading they have sequenced the genome of the 2 virus' and found them sufficiently different that there was no doubt it was 2 infections not a continuation of the first. The patient concerned had no other underlying health conditions and was not suffering and immune system impairment. Your interpretation of how the per capita infection rate should be used is also flawed. Absolute direct comparison is only possible if other population criteria are comparable. It is easier to make a more accurate comparison between say Germany and the UK as they have similar levels of economic standards, general population health and similar centers of population. Bolivia has more significant divergence from these comparisons so the figure is less directly comparable. It can be used as an indicator, but in conjunction with other factors in order to properly understand it's relevance. You cannot look at individual facts or numbers in isolation, you have to understand how they are pieced together in the bigger picture. Again there is limited evidence, in this report that you read how many patients were looked at? It would be interesting to see the source. We are def not going not going to agree on on the comparison study it makes perfect it if look at it. Not sure if it will let me post this link: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac&feature=share Just remember this phrase when they put further restrictions in place: - Creeping change. " I told you initially that it was limited evidence, you then changed that to tell me it was a "may" reinfect, it is not "may" it is "can". The sample pool is very small due to the newness of the disease, yet another reason to act to prevent what transmission we can till we understand it better. I cannot post a link to the material as it is on a site fab does not allow, however the doctors name was Akiko Iwasaki and it was a joint study between Hong Kong and Nevada USA. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cases have nothing to do with an increasing health risk. New cases are just a count of those who get a positive test result. Almost all of those are asymptomatic or false positives, i.e. they do not show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor can they ‘spread the virus’ to anyone else. There is no ‘gold standard’ test for COVID-19. A diagnostic process, namely PCR, has been used, but there has been no attempt to determine its accuracy. It has been shown it is possible to return a positive PCR test where a sample taken from the same patient never grows a viral culture – meaning the patient does not have an active COVID-19 infection despite the positive PCR test. Thus the false positive rate is astronomic. Additionally far more people are being tested – 280,000 per day now compared to 10,000 in March. So, while there are more ‘new cases’ per day now compared to earlier in the year, the number of ‘new cases’ per 1000 people tested now is actually only ONE-TENTH of what it was then." A word here - the false positive rate is not ‘astronomic’, it’s actually very small. Unfortunately people who don’t understand numbers have spread this idea on Facebook, and people who acquire their opinions from Facebook are now repeating this nonsense as if it’s a fact. What is far more prevalent than false positives in the testing is false negatives. This is a genuine issue, but naturally it’s not one you will hear people who ignore reality talking about. Furthermore, the ‘more testing = more cases’ argument is bunk - the number of tests we are managing to do has increased, but the number of cases that are being reported has risen by factors more, so when we use logic rather than Facebook arithmetic we can determine it is social behaviour driving the number of cases, not our (pretty poor) testing rates. Seriously, you should stop posting this utter nonsense. It is at best a waste of everyone’s time, and during a pandemic it’s genuinely dangerous to spread ignorant misinformation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cases have nothing to do with an increasing health risk. New cases are just a count of those who get a positive test result. Almost all of those are asymptomatic or false positives, i.e. they do not show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor can they ‘spread the virus’ to anyone else. There is no ‘gold standard’ test for COVID-19. A diagnostic process, namely PCR, has been used, but there has been no attempt to determine its accuracy. It has been shown it is possible to return a positive PCR test where a sample taken from the same patient never grows a viral culture – meaning the patient does not have an active COVID-19 infection despite the positive PCR test. Thus the false positive rate is astronomic. Additionally far more people are being tested – 280,000 per day now compared to 10,000 in March. So, while there are more ‘new cases’ per day now compared to earlier in the year, the number of ‘new cases’ per 1000 people tested now is actually only ONE-TENTH of what it was then. A word here - the false positive rate is not ‘astronomic’, it’s actually very small. Unfortunately people who don’t understand numbers have spread this idea on Facebook, and people who acquire their opinions from Facebook are now repeating this nonsense as if it’s a fact. What is far more prevalent than false positives in the testing is false negatives. This is a genuine issue, but naturally it’s not one you will hear people who ignore reality talking about. Furthermore, the ‘more testing = more cases’ argument is bunk - the number of tests we are managing to do has increased, but the number of cases that are being reported has risen by factors more, so when we use logic rather than Facebook arithmetic we can determine it is social behaviour driving the number of cases, not our (pretty poor) testing rates. Seriously, you should stop posting this utter nonsense. It is at best a waste of everyone’s time, and during a pandemic it’s genuinely dangerous to spread ignorant misinformation." Just one point on your response (apart from the fact you're saying it's utter nonsense with no evidence) how do you quantify the number of false positives? You can't, so you can't say the number is small if you can't measure them!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! I told you initially that it was limited evidence, you then changed that to tell me it was a "may" reinfect, it is not "may" it is "can". The sample pool is very small due to the newness of the disease, yet another reason to act to prevent what transmission we can till we understand it better. I cannot post a link to the material as it is on a site fab does not allow, however the doctors name was Akiko Iwasaki and it was a joint study between Hong Kong and Nevada USA." I didn't change my statement at all I said it may have infected from the tart of the debate point. Anyway I will have a search for Akiko and see what evidence he has. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. Delay it as long as possible ideally yes,we have got to get through winter at least in terms of the hospital admissions How long is as long as possible? 2months? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?" Never heard of a 5 year winter lol The winter flu season usually starts to tail off in March | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Infections up Hospitalisations up Deaths up Me me me people will deny this of course" Exactly, it's no good trawling through statistics and altering them to enable you put your head in the sand ... This is real | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cases have nothing to do with an increasing health risk. New cases are just a count of those who get a positive test result. Almost all of those are asymptomatic or false positives, i.e. they do not show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor can they ‘spread the virus’ to anyone else. There is no ‘gold standard’ test for COVID-19. A diagnostic process, namely PCR, has been used, but there has been no attempt to determine its accuracy. It has been shown it is possible to return a positive PCR test where a sample taken from the same patient never grows a viral culture – meaning the patient does not have an active COVID-19 infection despite the positive PCR test. Thus the false positive rate is astronomic. Additionally far more people are being tested – 280,000 per day now compared to 10,000 in March. So, while there are more ‘new cases’ per day now compared to earlier in the year, the number of ‘new cases’ per 1000 people tested now is actually only ONE-TENTH of what it was then." asymptomatic certainly CAN spread it thats the problem!! Whete have you been this year ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. Delay it as long as possible ideally yes,we have got to get through winter at least in terms of the hospital admissions How long is as long as possible? 2months? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?" Ideally until either we a) have a really effective way of treating (for example as happens currently for HIV) or b) we have an effective vaccine that protects the most vulnerable by developing some herd immunity (for example what has eradicated small pox globally). Once we have one or the other then we can risk spreading the disease but until that you want to keep the curve low unless you want the hospitals to be overrun and risk others dying for lack of services in nhs (cancer treatment, intensive care beds for other illnesses etc.) Or have the most vulnerable elderly or immuno suppressed people die. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. Delay it as long as possible ideally yes,we have got to get through winter at least in terms of the hospital admissions How long is as long as possible? 2months? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? Never heard of a 5 year winter lol The winter flu season usually starts to tail off in March "I was referring to your comment about delaying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It depends on what value you attach to it. If you see people as nothing more than a number then you are right, if you consider them as humans then it is a worrying statistic. You are not saying what the number would have to be for you to consider infections as high, I am basing my statement on the fact that only 1 year ago, the baseline for measuring this infection was 0 per 100,000 It is still not a worrying statistic the more we keep trying to delay Covid- 19 the longer we will have to deal with it. By imposing more lockdowns because we have a 0.05- 0.5% infection rate this is exactly what they are doing. Delay it as long as possible ideally yes,we have got to get through winter at least in terms of the hospital admissions How long is as long as possible? 2months? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? Never heard of a 5 year winter lol The winter flu season usually starts to tail off in March
I was referring to your comment about delaying"A delay through winter does make sense so ideally we can fully open up in March /April when the NHS can also better cope after the usual flu influx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% Ideally until either we a) have a really effective way of treating (for example as happens currently for HIV) or b) we have an effective vaccine that protects the most vulnerable by developing some herd immunity (for example what has eradicated small pox globally). Once we have one or the other then we can risk spreading the disease but until that you want to keep the curve low unless you want the hospitals to be overrun and risk others dying for lack of services in nhs (cancer treatment, intensive care beds for other illnesses etc.) Or have the most vulnerable elderly or immuno suppressed people die." So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% Ideally until either we a) have a really effective way of treating (for example as happens currently for HIV) or b) we have an effective vaccine that protects the most vulnerable by developing some herd immunity (for example what has eradicated small pox globally). Once we have one or the other then we can risk spreading the disease but until that you want to keep the curve low unless you want the hospitals to be overrun and risk others dying for lack of services in nhs (cancer treatment, intensive care beds for other illnesses etc.) Or have the most vulnerable elderly or immuno suppressed people die. So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity" Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It’s fairly simple, it gives Manchester around 15,000 live cases currently, it places on current admission rates our trusts 2 weeks away from capacity. There’s nothing to justify, the reality is we are as a region quickly heading to a point where we don’t have the resources to be able to treat everyone. Hi Charli out of the 15,000 current cases how many will need hospitalisation and how many will be isolating at home? That depends which source you read and which one you trust. The NHS official page has only been calculated up to 1st October and has 688 Covid- 19 cases and 89 in ventilator beds. One source quotes 1030 (115 ventilator beds) which would put the hospitalisation figure at around 7%. Seems to be hard to find what the total number of available beds is though." You may find it hard to find out but from experience hospitals through winter are generally near 100% occupancy there is limited extra capacity in terms of extra staff . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% Ideally until either we a) have a really effective way of treating (for example as happens currently for HIV) or b) we have an effective vaccine that protects the most vulnerable by developing some herd immunity (for example what has eradicated small pox globally). Once we have one or the other then we can risk spreading the disease but until that you want to keep the curve low unless you want the hospitals to be overrun and risk others dying for lack of services in nhs (cancer treatment, intensive care beds for other illnesses etc.) Or have the most vulnerable elderly or immuno suppressed people die. So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity" Eventually got over it !! 1/4 million dead in UK though . We are drawing on those mistakes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. " Why is natural herd immunity not an option? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option?" What percentage of the UK need to have had COVID for herd immunity to be affective? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option?" It may or may happen but we need to get through the winter period as I see it ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option?" Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die." Plus you would need 40-50 million people in the uk alone to be infected for herd immunity to work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die." Well the case you reffered to studied by Akiko showed that the patient tested positive a second time but was asymptomatic so his immune system was working and he had developed antibiotics to protect him from suffering any effects | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die. Well the case you reffered to studied by Akiko showed that the patient tested positive a second time but was asymptomatic so his immune system was working and he had developed antibiotics to protect him from suffering any effects" Yes, in that particular case. That one study is not a basis to suddenly say that will happen with another 7 billion people, likewise it doesn't say it won't. But you need significantly more evidence before you arbitrarily decide to let people just catch it and take their chances. Getting infected by accident is one thing, deliberately seeking it out is quite another. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die. Well the case you reffered to studied by Akiko showed that the patient tested positive a second time but was asymptomatic so his immune system was working and he had developed antibiotics to protect him from suffering any effects Yes, in that particular case. That one study is not a basis to suddenly say that will happen with another 7 billion people, likewise it doesn't say it won't. But you need significantly more evidence before you arbitrarily decide to let people just catch it and take their chances. Getting infected by accident is one thing, deliberately seeking it out is quite another. " I never mentioned deliberately still need to follow good practice but closing everything off is not the answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die. Well the case you reffered to studied by Akiko showed that the patient tested positive a second time but was asymptomatic so his immune system was working and he had developed antibiotics to protect him from suffering any effects Yes, in that particular case. That one study is not a basis to suddenly say that will happen with another 7 billion people, likewise it doesn't say it won't. But you need significantly more evidence before you arbitrarily decide to let people just catch it and take their chances. Getting infected by accident is one thing, deliberately seeking it out is quite another. I never mentioned deliberately still need to follow good practice but closing everything off is not the answer" I dont think there has ever been a proposal to close everything?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die. Well the case you reffered to studied by Akiko showed that the patient tested positive a second time but was asymptomatic so his immune system was working and he had developed antibiotics to protect him from suffering any effects Yes, in that particular case. That one study is not a basis to suddenly say that will happen with another 7 billion people, likewise it doesn't say it won't. But you need significantly more evidence before you arbitrarily decide to let people just catch it and take their chances. Getting infected by accident is one thing, deliberately seeking it out is quite another. I never mentioned deliberately still need to follow good practice but closing everything off is not the answer I dont think there has ever been a proposal to close everything?? " We'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It shows rate of increase and an indicator only. Not everyone with the virus is getting tested but it shows a worrying upward trend. " If you only look at the people who are showing symptoms, you are much more likely to find people who are infected. Government advice is to get tested only if you have symptoms. The other side of the coin....about 2 days ago the Telegraph published an article in which an independent body in the UK had randomly tested and found that 86% of the people they had found to be positive were in fact not showing symptoms. That report refers to April and May this year. Has Boris and pals done anything with this information? Did anyone hear about this for FIVE MONTHS? No. We may be closer to so called herd immunity than we think. But we can all rest assured that we'll be safe because the virus doesn't come out until it gets dark does it? Otherwise what's the point of a six o'clock curfew or closing the pubs at 10. There is no science behind the measures being taken by the bunch of clowns making decisions. OK RANT OVER. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% So 5, 10,15 years? They may never develop a vaccine. After the Spanish Flu pandemic the first "flu" vaccine was not developed until the 1940s. They eventually got over that through natural herd immunity Natural herd immunity is not an option, we will all have to learn to live with the changes for a while. Why is natural herd immunity not an option? Because no one knows if we can actually develop herd immunity yet. If the antibodies and the bodies immune response to Covid aren't persistent, then you need either a vaccine or continual reinfection to stimulate another immune response. Although you run the risk that even if you had it mildly before you could develop more severe or longer term complications, or worst case, die. Well the case you reffered to studied by Akiko showed that the patient tested positive a second time but was asymptomatic so his immune system was working and he had developed antibiotics to protect him from suffering any effects Yes, in that particular case. That one study is not a basis to suddenly say that will happen with another 7 billion people, likewise it doesn't say it won't. But you need significantly more evidence before you arbitrarily decide to let people just catch it and take their chances. Getting infected by accident is one thing, deliberately seeking it out is quite another. I never mentioned deliberately still need to follow good practice but closing everything off is not the answer I dont think there has ever been a proposal to close everything?? We'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks!" Even at the height of it anything vital stayed open and would do so again ! It's pure scaremongering again putting out nonsense about everything getting closed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! Because it is, to give you some more perspective, your 50 cases is an entire bus load of people. If you times that by the approximate population of the UK, it's around 700 bus loads, or enough to make a queue of busses 8.5 kilometres long. That is not a good way to look at it that is 8.5km out of millions of kms so no mater how you look at it it is still a small number. Go for an 8.5 kilometre walk and see how small it is. Planet earth is pretty small in the scale of the galaxy, doesn't mean you write it off as insignificant." Maybe you do though  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05% I never mentioned deliberately still need to follow good practice but closing everything off is not the answer I dont think there has ever been a proposal to close everything?? We'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks! Even at the height of it anything vital stayed open and would do so again ! It's pure scaremongering again putting out nonsense about everything getting closed" I didn't literally mean everything as in supermarkets, petrol stations, train stations I meant hospitality venues, sorry for the confusion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are lots of measurements being taken, reports and advice published. It's better to look at the pertinent and the bigger picture " Yes look at the bigger picture and ignore the data. Like one of those films from the sixties and seventies. "Carry on guessing." or perhaps, "Carry on getting it wrong." "Carry on ignoring the scientific facts."....... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can they justify saying 50 cases per 100,000 is high when it's only 0.05%?!!! It shows rate of increase and an indicator only. Not everyone with the virus is getting tested but it shows a worrying upward trend. If you only look at the people who are showing symptoms, you are much more likely to find people who are infected. Government advice is to get tested only if you have symptoms. The other side of the coin....about 2 days ago the Telegraph published an article in which an independent body in the UK had randomly tested and found that 86% of the people they had found to be positive were in fact not showing symptoms. That report refers to April and May this year. Has Boris and pals done anything with this information? Did anyone hear about this for FIVE MONTHS? No. We may be closer to so called herd immunity than we think. But we can all rest assured that we'll be safe because the virus doesn't come out until it gets dark does it? Otherwise what's the point of a six o'clock curfew or closing the pubs at 10. There is no science behind the measures being taken by the bunch of clowns making decisions. OK RANT OVER. "From the latest survey of infections "In the latest six-week period, there were 356,091 swab tests, and a total of 820 positive tests, in 682 people from 541 households. In the latest two-week period, there were 167,332 swab tests, and a total of 588 positive tests, in 532 people from 416 households." Make of it what you will | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
