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 |
"They said restrictions not necessarily lockdowns " But what restrictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They said restrictions not necessarily lockdowns But what restrictions. " Could be anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They said restrictions not necessarily lockdowns But what restrictions. " She also said she "might" which suggests that she doesn't know either yet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe after the kids go back, depends on the new variants really. " First thing that should be investigated is how the Scottish government has failed kids by allowing SQA to deliver a shambolic performance the past two years. There are kids who still haven't had assessment issues resolved from 2020 and now we have the 2021 'exams by another name' fallout. Appeals process is not for purpose either... the grounds for appeal on the basis of a breach of the equality act is discriminatory itself. I don't know how they can get away with destroying the mental health and wellbeing of so many kids who have had enough to deal with already. She's just trying to point score and detract from her failings elsewhere. How about an independent investigation into their handling of covid instead? And while they're at it, an independent investigation into their handling of the Scottish education system. Because while it should be a part of the original 'internal' review, I bet it won't be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe after the kids go back, depends on the new variants really. " Kids are already in 2nd week back here. Hence cases are rising | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicola Sturgeon as said she might bring back some covid restrictions because the number of infections as reached a record high a total of 4,323 new cases on Tuesday. So do you think Boris will follow her and do the same even though the scientists have said there will be no more lockdowns as long as hospital levels keep low. " Course we will all of bullshit lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population." Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They said restrictions not necessarily lockdowns But what restrictions. " Didn’t say, but there are lots of options as we have seen before | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She is vindictive she's a liar and she is in my opinion a vicious pitiful excuse of a woman . She is eradicating womans rights which as a male I find abhorrent. " What? How? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about "Place is full of them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about "People can test positive and have no symptoms. That’s a fact. There’s no data reported on asymptomatic cases. There’s also those walking about who are positive and not tested so the numbers are probably higher. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Something needs to be done. 6,800 positive tests on Friday and over 5,000 the day before! My son tested positive on Friday but me and my other two kids are negative. They are all in their 20’s. The impact isn’t just about the positive cases, we now need to self isolate for 10 days. If you take the 6,800 there’s probably about 5 people needing to self isolate for every positive case. That’s 34,000 self isolating. This has a huge impact on employers. " If you are double vaxxed and test negative via pcr you don't need to isolate after a clear pcr. I wasn't well (double vaxxed) and tested positive, the folk I work with that were deemed close contacts all went for pcr and were clear, they returned to work within 48 hours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population." That is, to put it politely, just nonsense.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Something needs to be done. 6,800 positive tests on Friday and over 5,000 the day before! My son tested positive on Friday but me and my other two kids are negative. They are all in their 20’s. The impact isn’t just about the positive cases, we now need to self isolate for 10 days. If you take the 6,800 there’s probably about 5 people needing to self isolate for every positive case. That’s 34,000 self isolating. This has a huge impact on employers. " Why are you self isolating? Are none of you vaccinated? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't wait I absaloutly loved lockdown no traffic ment I earnt more money and was home earlier, just imagine if you can going on to a motorway and actually doing 70 miles in one hour not having the 2nd and 3rd lane full of cars doing 60 so bring lockdown in again I'm ready for the quiet life again. " Hmm move to Devon the average speed on the m5 is 80 unless there's works/an accident in which case its gridlock. Either or. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicola Sturgeon as said she might bring back some covid restrictions because the number of infections as reached a record high a total of 4,323 new cases on Tuesday. So do you think Boris will follow her and do the same even though the scientists have said there will be no more lockdowns as long as hospital levels keep low. " it normally starts north and then travels south over the border so yes; there will be more lockdowns (firebreaks as Boris calls them) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicola Sturgeon as said she might bring back some covid restrictions because the number of infections as reached a record high a total of 4,323 new cases on Tuesday. So do you think Boris will follow her and do the same even though the scientists have said there will be no more lockdowns as long as hospital levels keep low. it normally starts north and then travels south over the border so yes; there will be more lockdowns (firebreaks as Boris calls them) " Yep it always likes to move south it’s warmer down here  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Something needs to be done. 6,800 positive tests on Friday and over 5,000 the day before! My son tested positive on Friday but me and my other two kids are negative. They are all in their 20’s. The impact isn’t just about the positive cases, we now need to self isolate for 10 days. If you take the 6,800 there’s probably about 5 people needing to self isolate for every positive case. That’s 34,000 self isolating. This has a huge impact on employers. Why are you self isolating? Are none of you vaccinated?" The legal position and doing the right thing from an epidemiological point are at odds now. I don’t know if there are any stats but the likelihood of Covid spreading to other members of a household must be pretty high? If say spouses have a 50% chance of being infected by their partner it is surely inexcusable to not have at least some form of isolation or require daily PCR. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicola Sturgeon as said she might bring back some covid restrictions because the number of infections as reached a record high a total of 4,323 new cases on Tuesday. So do you think Boris will follow her and do the same even though the scientists have said there will be no more lockdowns as long as hospital levels keep low. it normally starts north and then travels south over the border so yes; there will be more lockdowns (firebreaks as Boris calls them) Yep it always likes to move south it’s warmer down here "it certainly looks hot down your way; that’s for sure ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Something needs to be done. 6,800 positive tests on Friday and over 5,000 the day before! My son tested positive on Friday but me and my other two kids are negative. They are all in their 20’s. The impact isn’t just about the positive cases, we now need to self isolate for 10 days. If you take the 6,800 there’s probably about 5 people needing to self isolate for every positive case. That’s 34,000 self isolating. This has a huge impact on employers. " The 10 days isn't required if have a negative PCR and double vaxxed. See Nicola Sturgeon. Perhaps this is why a the number of tests conducted a day is now double what it was 2 weeks ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Something needs to be done. 6,800 positive tests on Friday and over 5,000 the day before! My son tested positive on Friday but me and my other two kids are negative. They are all in their 20’s. The impact isn’t just about the positive cases, we now need to self isolate for 10 days. If you take the 6,800 there’s probably about 5 people needing to self isolate for every positive case. That’s 34,000 self isolating. This has a huge impact on employers. The 10 days isn't required if have a negative PCR and double vaxxed. See Nicola Sturgeon. Perhaps this is why a the number of tests conducted a day is now double what it was 2 weeks ago. " But whilst legal is it right? What are that stats for transmission occurring within households, both those vaccinated and unvaccinated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about "Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all. Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life. "You actually both are correct. A PCR test is a good standard test for testing for a particular DNA being present, it does this extremely reliably. However it doesn't diagnose covid as your son's and friends proved, they had the sars-cov2 virus in there system but had either no covid or such a small case it would be barely diagnosable without PCR because basically at heart it just tells you whether sars-cov2 is present and by tweeking the CT even at what level. It doesn't tell you whether it's growing in presence or declining, or how many cells it's infected or even whether it's alive or dead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life. "I'm glad you think so Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece Have a nice day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicola Sturgeon as said she might bring back some covid restrictions because the number of infections as reached a record high a total of 4,323 new cases on Tuesday. So do you think Boris will follow her and do the same even though the scientists have said there will be no more lockdowns as long as hospital levels keep low. " Absolutely coming And this time it will last months. It's been planned all along. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day"Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t! "Not even "some" Not even "most" The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact."That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11."Well, that's also true. But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died. Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should do a bit research on sturgeon . She took her old boss to the highest court in Scotland for such charges as hair flicking and a d*unken cuddle . The cuddle woman continued to work with him for a further 7 years . " A few people I know believe and I believe this too, that she had a "thing" with him and it all went belly up when he was up on those charges x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die."A lot of people are currently suffering from Long Covid. And that includes young and healthy people. Death is not the only consequence of contracting covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
A lot of people are currently suffering from Long Covid. And that includes young and healthy people.
Death is not the only consequence of contracting covid. "Still a small minority. Again the vast majority make a full recovery. The figures are all there for anyone to read. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people should do a bit research on sturgeon . She took her old boss to the highest court in Scotland for such charges as hair flicking and a d*unken cuddle . The cuddle woman continued to work with him for a further 7 years . A few people I know believe and I believe this too, that she had a "thing" with him and it all went belly up when he was up on those charges x" I don’t think he’s her “type” if you know what I mean  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die."It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?"But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic. So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%. 99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime. The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me."99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning? A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific."id take a 99% chance,if your waiting for this to be 100% gone u will be waiting forever,the genie is out the bottle now.we have two choices either get on with life or hide away forever,im choosing to get on with it,if u feel like you dont wana do that then thats good to, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific."My post was clear. I will happily accept a 1% risk of death 'at some point' to carry on living my life the rest of the time. That's what we are talking about here - not a 1% risk every time you leave the house. I've assessed my risk and I'm more than happy with that level. As I said before, being alive means nothing if you aren't able to actually live free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
My post was clear.
I will happily accept a 1% risk of death 'at some point' to carry on living my life the rest of the time.
That's what we are talking about here - not a 1% risk every time you leave the house.
I've assessed my risk and I'm more than happy with that level.
As I said before, being alive means nothing if you aren't able to actually live free."It's not even 1%, it's less than that. And ultimately, it's down to every individual to decide if the odds are worth whatever risk is apparent to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Something needs to be done. 6,800 positive tests on Friday and over 5,000 the day before! My son tested positive on Friday but me and my other two kids are negative. They are all in their 20’s. The impact isn’t just about the positive cases, we now need to self isolate for 10 days. If you take the 6,800 there’s probably about 5 people needing to self isolate for every positive case. That’s 34,000 self isolating. This has a huge impact on employers. " Unless the rules are different where you are thats not the case. If you are 'pinged' or live with someone who has rested positive, you need to take a pcr test. If you pass as a negative, you DO NOT need to isolate, its only if you yourself show posisitive that you do. (As of 16th August in england) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me."You keep going on about the 1%, and that’s why I referred you to Long Covid. Long Covid affect approx 10-15% of people who contract the virus. Now ADD the 1% who die of covid, to the approx 10% who get long covid, and that’s adds up to 11% or more that covid affects. I’m not suggesting people should hide behind their sofas, just saying that covid has more serious consequences than just the 1% that die of it. By all means you can crack on with life as normal - your choice. The same way others have the choice to proceed with caution based on their own personal needs and circumstances - realising that death is not the only consequence of catching covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
You keep going on about the 1%, and that’s why I referred you to Long Covid.
Long Covid affect approx 10-15% of people who contract the virus.
Now ADD the 1% who die of covid, to the approx 10% who get long covid, and that’s adds up to 11% or more that covid affects.
I’m not suggesting people should hide behind their sofas, just saying that covid has more serious consequences than just the 1% that die of it.
By all means you can crack on with life as normal - your choice. The same way others have the choice to proceed with caution based on their own personal needs and circumstances - realising that death is not the only consequence of catching covid. "Meh. Most people with 'long Covid' recover. Another tiny amount that actually have lasting serious symptoms. The death rate is now only a fraction of 1%. Knock it up to a full 1% if you want to include those with LC that have lasting serious issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
You keep going on about the 1%, and that’s why I referred you to Long Covid.
Long Covid affect approx 10-15% of people who contract the virus.
Now ADD the 1% who die of covid, to the approx 10% who get long covid, and that’s adds up to 11% or more that covid affects.
I’m not suggesting people should hide behind their sofas, just saying that covid has more serious consequences than just the 1% that die of it.
By all means you can crack on with life as normal - your choice. The same way others have the choice to proceed with caution based on their own personal needs and circumstances - realising that death is not the only consequence of catching covid.
Meh.
Most people with 'long Covid' recover. Another tiny amount that actually have lasting serious symptoms.
The death rate is now only a fraction of 1%. Knock it up to a full 1% if you want to include those with LC that have lasting serious issues."“...Most people with 'long Covid' recover…” ——————————— Recover in the sense that they don’t die - you are just stating the obvious. Some people suffer from long covid for more than12 months; which is much longer than the time they are infectious for, hence the reason why it’s called long covid - in case you didn’t know that. Also some people who suffer from long covid are: -unable to go to work to earn a living - Some can’t continue with their education, - some are unable to have a social life - some have been confine to a wheel chair - some even have difficulty getting out of bed to use the loo - some may need surgery or organ transplant and may never fully recover to their previous state of health. Like I said before, nobody stops you from cracking on; just don’t belittle the choices others are taking by claiming covid affects only 1%; when it’s obviously higher than 1% when you factor in Long covid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
You keep going on about the 1%, and that’s why I referred you to Long Covid.
Long Covid affect approx 10-15% of people who contract the virus.
Now ADD the 1% who die of covid, to the approx 10% who get long covid, and that’s adds up to 11% or more that covid affects.
I’m not suggesting people should hide behind their sofas, just saying that covid has more serious consequences than just the 1% that die of it.
By all means you can crack on with life as normal - your choice. The same way others have the choice to proceed with caution based on their own personal needs and circumstances - realising that death is not the only consequence of catching covid.
Meh.
Most people with 'long Covid' recover. Another tiny amount that actually have lasting serious symptoms.
The death rate is now only a fraction of 1%. Knock it up to a full 1% if you want to include those with LC that have lasting serious issues.
“...Most people with 'long Covid' recover…”
———————————
Recover in the sense that they don’t die - you are just stating the obvious.
Some people suffer from long covid for more than12 months; which is much longer than the time they are infectious for, hence the reason why it’s called long covid - in case you didn’t know that.
Also some people who suffer from long covid are:
-unable to go to work to earn a living
- Some can’t continue with their education,
- some are unable to have a social life
- some have been confine to a wheel chair
- some even have difficulty getting out of bed to use the loo
- some may need surgery or organ transplant and may never fully recover to their previous state of health.
Like I said before, nobody stops you from cracking on; just don’t belittle the choices others are taking by claiming covid affects only 1%; when it’s obviously higher than 1% when you factor in Long covid. "These numbers are relatively tiny. For balance, the chances of getting cancer in your lifetime is 50%. Everyone can choose to get a grip or live in fear. I've made my choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific."Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year? I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%."Is it? In 2019 there were 531k deaths in England and wales, from a population of c 56m. So just shy of 1pc. Not that I'm disagreeing with your wider point. Just a maths pedant.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%."This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes. Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate. Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing. How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional. Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?). All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness. Still feeling lucky? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%.
This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes.
Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate.
Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing.
How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional.
Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?).
All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness.
Still feeling lucky?"u told us all after the euros everyone would be infected within weeks nothing of the sort happend so forgive me for not beliving the figures your spouting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
You keep going on about the 1%, and that’s why I referred you to Long Covid.
Long Covid affect approx 10-15% of people who contract the virus.
Now ADD the 1% who die of covid, to the approx 10% who get long covid, and that’s adds up to 11% or more that covid affects.
I’m not suggesting people should hide behind their sofas, just saying that covid has more serious consequences than just the 1% that die of it.
By all means you can crack on with life as normal - your choice. The same way others have the choice to proceed with caution based on their own personal needs and circumstances - realising that death is not the only consequence of catching covid.
Meh.
Most people with 'long Covid' recover. Another tiny amount that actually have lasting serious symptoms.
The death rate is now only a fraction of 1%. Knock it up to a full 1% if you want to include those with LC that have lasting serious issues.
“...Most people with 'long Covid' recover…”
———————————
Recover in the sense that they don’t die - you are just stating the obvious.
Some people suffer from long covid for more than12 months; which is much longer than the time they are infectious for, hence the reason why it’s called long covid - in case you didn’t know that.
Also some people who suffer from long covid are:
-unable to go to work to earn a living
- Some can’t continue with their education,
- some are unable to have a social life
- some have been confine to a wheel chair
- some even have difficulty getting out of bed to use the loo
- some may need surgery or organ transplant and may never fully recover to their previous state of health.
Like I said before, nobody stops you from cracking on; just don’t belittle the choices others are taking by claiming covid affects only 1%; when it’s obviously higher than 1% when you factor in Long covid.
These numbers are relatively tiny. For balance, the chances of getting cancer in your lifetime is 50%.
Everyone can choose to get a grip or live in fear. I've made my choice.""....These numbers are relatively tiny..." --------------------- The operative word you've used above is = 'relatively' So, what is relatively tiny to you is average to some, and much to others. It's all 'relative', as you yourself have confessed. And as I've said a few times before I say again; nobody stops you from carrying on with your life the way you wish ( as long as you are not breaking the law.) You just need to be aware that other people have different needs and circumstances compared to yours. As such, people will make their own choices and take their own risks based on their own personal circumstances - and some of those choices will be different from the choice you have taken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%.
This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes.
Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate.
Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing.
How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional.
Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?).
All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness.
Still feeling lucky?"1pc is 500,000 a year. Were at what 150k over 18 months. And most pre vaccinations. Plus there's overlap, they are not mutually exclusive probabilities. You can't die or covid and then later die of other causes. I get your concerns but I fear your maths is off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Il believe what my reality is . Not some guy dressed as a woman thinking he is a woman spouting nonsense. Let's face it if your getting medical advice or guidance on these forums I think your looking under the wrong rock" That's bang out of order. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year? I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%. This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes. Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate. Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing. How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional. Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?). All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness. Still feeling lucky?" There is so much nonsense in this thread I dispair. Natural immunity from infections will drastically bring down future numbers, even with most variants. We are not going to see silly short life expectancies - it's not the black death! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%.
This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes.
Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate.
Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing.
How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional.
Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?).
All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness.
Still feeling lucky?1pc is 500,000 a year. Were at what 150k over 18 months. And most pre vaccinations. Plus there's overlap, they are not mutually exclusive probabilities. You can't die or covid and then later die of other causes. I get your concerns but I fear your maths is off. "We've kept it down to 150k over 18 months because at the moment most people haven't yet been exposed to it. It has been pretty consistent at about 1% of cases ending up in death. But all the masking, lockdowns, test/trace/isolation managed to keep the absolute number of infections relatively low. Since throwing away all the masks and other restrictions though, we are fast heading towards a situation where there will be at least one active covid case in every classroom, passing it on to multiple others, and thence into multiple households. We have already had schools open up after holidays and close down again within days. With case numbers heading upwards, we inevitably head towards the situation where everybody that is going to catch it, will get exposed within about 12 months. How many people get a cold every year? How many people working in an office get a cough for a couple of weeks every year? How many people come down with norovirus during a year? Everyone in that sort of circumstance, who comes within breathing distance of a few people regularly, is going to get covid. This is what endemic covid means - covid that gets everywhere, covid that you can't get away from. The thing with being a bit off with the maths for a pandemic is this: If my maths is a bit off, and I've overestimated causing us to do a teensy bit too much to control it, then there's a bunch of people alive who I feared were going to die. And maybe because the numbers are lower than I thought they would be, hospital places didn't get overwhelmed, cancer treatments didn't get cancelled, accident victims could still get into critical care units. People live to be able to catch covid later, when possibly treatments are better. But if your maths is off, and more people die than you thought would, there's a bunch of dead people. Who don't get another chance because they're already dead. And possibly hospital places are fuller. So more cancer treatments are cancelled and people die. And there are no ICU places for accident victims and people die. Which is it better to do - apologise because more people stay alive than I thought they would, or have to apologise because more people have died than you thought they would? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%.
This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes.
Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate.
Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing.
How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional.
Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?).
All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness.
Still feeling lucky?1pc is 500,000 a year. Were at what 150k over 18 months. And most pre vaccinations. Plus there's overlap, they are not mutually exclusive probabilities. You can't die or covid and then later die of other causes. I get your concerns but I fear your maths is off.
We've kept it down to 150k over 18 months because at the moment most people haven't yet been exposed to it. It has been pretty consistent at about 1% of cases ending up in death. But all the masking, lockdowns, test/trace/isolation managed to keep the absolute number of infections relatively low. Since throwing away all the masks and other restrictions though, we are fast heading towards a situation where there will be at least one active covid case in every classroom, passing it on to multiple others, and thence into multiple households. We have already had schools open up after holidays and close down again within days. With case numbers heading upwards, we inevitably head towards the situation where everybody that is going to catch it, will get exposed within about 12 months. How many people get a cold every year? How many people working in an office get a cough for a couple of weeks every year? How many people come down with norovirus during a year? Everyone in that sort of circumstance, who comes within breathing distance of a few people regularly, is going to get covid. This is what endemic covid means - covid that gets everywhere, covid that you can't get away from.
The thing with being a bit off with the maths for a pandemic is this: If my maths is a bit off, and I've overestimated causing us to do a teensy bit too much to control it, then there's a bunch of people alive who I feared were going to die. And maybe because the numbers are lower than I thought they would be, hospital places didn't get overwhelmed, cancer treatments didn't get cancelled, accident victims could still get into critical care units. People live to be able to catch covid later, when possibly treatments are better.
But if your maths is off, and more people die than you thought would, there's a bunch of dead people. Who don't get another chance because they're already dead. And possibly hospital places are fuller. So more cancer treatments are cancelled and people die. And there are no ICU places for accident victims and people die.
Which is it better to do - apologise because more people stay alive than I thought they would, or have to apologise because more people have died than you thought they would?"In your way the disruption to essential services would appear to last forever because this isn't going away. The country cannot afford the financial fallout and public services fall further behind, killin even more people. The economy is fucked for decades. In the sensible way, we get it over, get people's natural immunity working and start to move on. The economy recovers quicker. Your way kills more in the long term. The government knows this. Sage knows this. This is why we aren't doing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"4,323 new cases on Tuesday actually means 4,323 positive tests. A positive tesat is NOT a case of illness. A positive test is NOT a sick person. Humans take on viral loads every day and defeat them. It is perfectly natural and good. It is how we stay healthy. A test which vastly amplifies some pointless strands of a virus we kicked for six some months ago is not any kind of indicator of the health of a population. Such tests are not harmful per se... but they are not a true indication of levels of disease or sickness in the population. Another amateur molecular biologist who has no idea what they're on about
Actually they have a point. My 17 year old son and many of his friends caught covid as a result of watching the Euros together. One of them experienced slight aching and a headache for a day or two - the others no symptoms at all.
Whilst I’m well aware that for some unfortunate people Covid is a death sentence - and should therefore be taken seriously - for a growing number of vaccinated and younger people it’s merely a temporary halt to their work and social life.
I'm glad you think so
Perhaps you should speak with an ICU nurse such as my niece
Have a nice day
Please re-read my last paragraph. On no account am I suggesting that no one who contracts covid becomes seriously ill - I’m just stating that *some people don’t!
Not even "some"
Not even "most"
The vast majority of people have mild or no symptoms. That is a fact.
That is like saying the vast majority of people in New York did not die on 9-11.
Well, that's also true.
But it's a crap analogy, because most people 'in the towers' died.
Whereas over 99% of people who contract the Virus do not die.
It’s a perfect analogy, read it again... I very specifically said “being in New York” not being in the towers. More than 99% of 8 million New Yorkers did not die in the towers that day but that doesn’t mean we should discount or devalue the lost lives of those less than 1% that did! For those that go on about 99% survival rates and disregard the 1% would you go to a football match or gig accepting that somewhere in the stadium was a bomb intended to kill about 1% of those attending?
But it's not like that at all. Catching Covid is inevitable unless you lock yourself away as it is now endemic.
So yes, I would happily live my life, go to clubs and events on the basis that one of those, sometime, will have a bomb (catch the virus) that will kill 1%.
99% is fucking good odds. I would take that anytime.
The alternative of being alive, but not actually living is of interest to me.
99% is fucking terrible odds. You're saying that you would be happy if, for instance, every wedding with 100 guests resulted in one funeral? Or that every Ariana Grande concert with 14,200 people attending resulted in 142 deaths (for reference, the suicide bomber at the Manchester concert only killed 23, a 1% death rate would be the equivalent of 6 suicide bombers at _every_ concert). You would be happy with a sniper sat on a motorway bridge that took a shot at every hundredth car? Or that a party night at an average sized swingers club meant that one of the guests was going home in a box? That every time a 747 lifted from the runway, three of the passengers on board were going to die? When you check into a hotel with 100 guests, one of the guests was going to be dead before morning?
A 99% survival rate is the same as a 1% death rate, utterly horrific.
Post like this are nothing short of scandalous and misinformation. For a start these ridiculous figures would only stack up if the whole population contracted Covid at the same time…and secondly what percentage of the population do you think die every year?
I’ll give you a clue - it’s more than 1%.
This is 1% on top of the existing approx 1%, not instead of, so doubling the death rate. And with completely endemic covid, mitigated only by vaccination - no masks, no lockdowns, no social distancing, no test and trace - in other words pretty well exactly what is happening now since freedumb day - everyone in the country is going to catch it within 12 months. So before this time next year, that's 1 in a hundred gone, on top of all the deaths by other causes.
Then during the year after that, everyone is going to catch it again, some new variant. And the ones with organ damage from first time covid are going to be worse second time. So second time round, more than 1% death rate.
Third time round? New variants are just going to keep appearing.
How lucky are you feeling now then? What will the average lifetime reduce to? Nobody left alive above 65? 60? 50? 40? Perhaps in the "living with covid" era, reaching 30 will be quite exceptional.
Or maybe there's a particular section of humanity that is genetically susceptible to covid? That's okay then. It's just the unlucky 2% will all die. Or is it 5%? Or is it 15%? Maybe it's everyone of blood type A? Or everyone that is ginger? Perhaps it goes with susceptibility to type 2 diabetes (what's that, maybe 20% of westerners?).
All we do know is that endemic covid means a shitload of dead people and a bigger shitload of people with long term illness.
Still feeling lucky?1pc is 500,000 a year. Were at what 150k over 18 months. And most pre vaccinations. Plus there's overlap, they are not mutually exclusive probabilities. You can't die or covid and then later die of other causes. I get your concerns but I fear your maths is off.
We've kept it down to 150k over 18 months because at the moment most people haven't yet been exposed to it. It has been pretty consistent at about 1% of cases ending up in death. But all the masking, lockdowns, test/trace/isolation managed to keep the absolute number of infections relatively low. Since throwing away all the masks and other restrictions though, we are fast heading towards a situation where there will be at least one active covid case in every classroom, passing it on to multiple others, and thence into multiple households. We have already had schools open up after holidays and close down again within days. With case numbers heading upwards, we inevitably head towards the situation where everybody that is going to catch it, will get exposed within about 12 months. How many people get a cold every year? How many people working in an office get a cough for a couple of weeks every year? How many people come down with norovirus during a year? Everyone in that sort of circumstance, who comes within breathing distance of a few people regularly, is going to get covid. This is what endemic covid means - covid that gets everywhere, covid that you can't get away from.
The thing with being a bit off with the maths for a pandemic is this: If my maths is a bit off, and I've overestimated causing us to do a teensy bit too much to control it, then there's a bunch of people alive who I feared were going to die. And maybe because the numbers are lower than I thought they would be, hospital places didn't get overwhelmed, cancer treatments didn't get cancelled, accident victims could still get into critical care units. People live to be able to catch covid later, when possibly treatments are better.
But if your maths is off, and more people die than you thought would, there's a bunch of dead people. Who don't get another chance because they're already dead. And possibly hospital places are fuller. So more cancer treatments are cancelled and people die. And there are no ICU places for accident victims and people die.
Which is it better to do - apologise because more people stay alive than I thought they would, or have to apologise because more people have died than you thought they would?
In your way the disruption to essential services would appear to last forever because this isn't going away. The country cannot afford the financial fallout and public services fall further behind, killin even more people. The economy is fucked for decades.
In the sensible way, we get it over, get people's natural immunity working and start to move on. The economy recovers quicker.
Your way kills more in the long term. The government knows this. Sage knows this. This is why we aren't doing it."So what you are saying is that the best way to help the economy and save lives would be to get as many people infected now as possible. That attempts to protect the economy and reduce damage to the population by way of moderate and proportionate interventions (basically amounting to "it would be a good idea if people didn't cough and sneeze all over each other") are only ever going to drag out the agony and ultimately result in higher cost both economically and in lives. Okay I can see your point. What you are saying in fact is that the best way through covid would be to deliberately allow every person to be exposed to it. Attain "herd immunity" through ensuring that the entire herd catches the disease. Make sure that anyone that is going to have a bad outcome gets it as soon as possible, so they don't drag down the country any more. This makes excellent sense. Also cancel all treatment of cancer, diabetes, accidents - all of these just tie up resources and result in economic drag. It would also make sense to get rid of old people the moment that they change from being an economic asset to being an economic drain - they're going to die anyway, better to get it over with sooner. Yes, it is ridiculous to suggest these things. But they all amount to exactly the same as saying "just let everyone get covid, get it over with, then move on". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
