Coronavirus

[Alex 35083]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

That Times article is creating a bit of a storm on our side of the political fence. And it is Indeed interesting coming from the Times.

 

What I find particularly interesting about it is that there's very little in it that we didn't technically know more or less as it was happening. People on here has a more serious and well informed grasp of the risks posed by COVID than the government. And we weren't alone. Millions of people could see it for what it was.

 

How are we supposed to trust a government that failed where so many ordinary people succeeded? They actually, genuinely, are incompetent. In the extreme.

 

If the fallout from this doesn’t finish them politically I think we can safely conclude our version of democracy is a complete waste of time 

[Rayvin 5223]

It's also this anti-expert thing coming home to roost. The government is truly representative of the people who voted for it in the sense that as a grouping they are united by rejection of people who actually know what they're talking about. As if all of these complex scientific concepts can just be dealt with through 'common sense'.

 

COVID has exposed the utter insanity of that position immediately.

 

[Rayvin 5223]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

If the fallout from this doesn’t finish them politically I think we can safely conclude our version of democracy is a complete waste of time 

 

Yes. I have a real feeling of dread that I know which way that's going to go though.

[Meenzer 15531]

I was saying to a mate the other day that in a weird way it might be better for the population that it's not a Corbyn government in charge right now. Not just because the Tories should have to carry for the can for this (I say "should" because let's be honest, we all know they won't). But more to the point, we know Johnson and his team were surprised (disappointed, even) by just how obedient the public have largely been with regard to the lockdown restrictions - and part of that is absolutely because people with a left to left-of-centre leaning are way more likely to appreciate the bigger social picture, the NHS factors and the need for a cohesive response by themselves, regardless of who's telling them, while more selfish Tory voters will at least follow what they're being told by other Tories to some extent, as we're seeing. Flip that around and you can easily imagine a situation where the big chunk of the population who flat-out dislike like Corbyn would be openly and happily flouting everything "his" government was asking them to do, leading to god knows what kind of outcomes.

 

So basically it's a no-win situation.

 

[Alex 35083]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

It's also this anti-expert thing coming home to roost. The government is truly representative of the people who voted for it in the sense that as a grouping they are united by rejection of people who actually know what they're talking about. As if all of these complex scientific concepts can just be dealt with through 'common sense'.

 

COVID has exposed the utter insanity of that position immediately.

 

Yeah, absolutely. They’re also lying about stuff that’s literally just happened. Like the herd immunity thing never being a policy. It absolutely was for a few days. They were arrogant enough to think they were right and the rest of the world had somehow got  it wrong. And that was motivated purely based on the economic benefits of the UK being open for business when virtually everywhere else was living under martial law. It was only when those dreaded experts pointed out the potential death toll that they realised it was a bad idea. And even that’ll just been because it might have cost them the next election. 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

20 minutes ago, Alex said:

Does he not mean that the more of the virus you’re exposed to, the worse the infection is likely to be? As with the Chinese doctor who discovered it and subsequent died? Possibly anyway. 

 

Come on.

[Alex 35083]

2 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

I was saying to a mate the other day that in a weird way it might be better for the population that it's not a Corbyn government in charge right now. Not just because the Tories should have to carry for the can for this (I say "should" because let's be honest, we all know they won't). But more to the point, we know Johnson and his team were surprised (disappointed, even) by just how obedient the public have largely been with regard to the lockdown restrictions - and part of that is absolutely because people with a left to left-of-centre leaning are way more likely to appreciate the bigger social picture, the NHS factors and the need for a cohesive response by themselves, regardless of who's telling them, while more selfish Tory voters will at least follow what they're being told by other Tories to some extent, as we're seeing. Flip that around and you can easily imagine a situation where the big chunk of the population who flat-out dislike like Corbyn would be openly and happily flouting everything "his" government was asking them to do, leading to god knows what kind of outcomes.

 

So basically it's a no-win situation.

 

I think that’s probably depressingly spot on 

[Alex 35083]

1 minute ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

 

Come on.

It’s more plausible than the conspiracy theories 

[ewerk 30616]

2 minutes ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

 

Come on.

Dr. Miso Sik to give him his full name, let’s have a little respect here.

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

It’s more plausible than the conspiracy theories 

 

I think 0.2% is or was the quoted death rate for his age group at the time. Then there were reports that the media were told to report him as still being treated when he was already dead. 

[Alex 35083]

The low death for his age group would back up the theory re: greater exposure being more dangerous then, wouldn’t it? 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

The low death for his age group would back up the theory re: greater exposure being more dangerous then, wouldn’t it? 

 

I don't really know. J69s version of the science is how I thought things worked. I would want to know how long after exposure you started to make antibodies. I also find it suspect that he managed to evade infection for so long even though he essentially discovered this thing. Surely he would have caught it when it was an unknown rather than several months later after embarrassing his government 

[Alex 35083]

I agree that it’s not exactly beyond the realms of possibility that he was bumped off. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Alex

[Rayvin 5223]

Daily Mail running that Times story too.. Not just our side of the fence anymore. Turns out this is actually enough for some Tories to open their eyes.

 

Gove incoming as PM?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

1 hour ago, Kid Dynamite said:

I don’t believe so. 
 

Im not a virologist, but I’m fairly sure that once you’ve got it, you’ve got it. Your body then produces antibodies and you can’t catch it again.

Not true on the last bit apparently 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection-get-covid-19-twice-sick-spread-relapse-a9400691.html%3famp

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 hour ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

I've read or seen it mentioned, to my surprise, that you can be infected with different levels of the virus? Is that accurate? Does that theoretically mean a sick person exposed to more virus could become sicker? 

yes, my brother in law reckons viral load is a big factor in the how severity of the illness differs case to case 

[ewerk 30616]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

yes, my brother in law reckons viral load is a big factor in the how severity of the illness differs case to case 

Aye but your brother in law is a plumber from Kiddiminster.

[PaddockLad 17274]

If daily death rates remain the similar  for another month or so it’s another 23K-25K poor souls who’ll die..that should be enough in the light of the Times piece for him to resign in the morning. 
 

Piers Morgan is annihilating him on Twitter this morning but stopping short of demanding his resignation so Johnson will plod on hiding from public scrutiny at Chequers till Christmas when the white rabbit cunt will appear from his hidey hole to lead the nations jolly festivities. 

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

He's a problem to be dealt with in the aftermath.

 

In my brief stint at 3m, I was working on a production line that had been stood for years out of action after being installed during SARS. It was a truly impressive line and was installed and set up in just a few weeks during that crisis. It could bray 200k masks out in a 12 hour shift.

 

Sorting out similar facilities for gowns and other p.p.e should and could have been relatively simple.

[NJS 4386]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

It's also this anti-expert thing coming home to roost. The government is truly representative of the people who voted for it in the sense that as a grouping they are united by rejection of people who actually know what they're talking about. As if all of these complex scientific concepts can just be dealt with through 'common sense'.

 

COVID has exposed the utter insanity of that position immediately.

 

The ventilator fiasco is the best "anti-expert" example so far imo.

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Does he not mean that the more of the virus you’re exposed to, the worse the infection is likely to be? As with the Chinese doctor who discovered it and subsequent died? Possibly anyway. 

Yeah, but I’m fairly sure that’s not how it works. You don’t get worse AIDS by shagging a carrier more than once 

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

1 hour ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Not true on the last bit apparently 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection-get-covid-19-twice-sick-spread-relapse-a9400691.html%3famp

Aye but that article says you “might” be able

to acquire a mutated version of the virus further down the line. Certainly no evidence that anyone in the UK has caught COVID twice 

[Alex 35083]

17 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Yeah, but I’m fairly sure that’s not how it works. You don’t get worse AIDS by shagging a carrier more than once 

I have just read bits about it here and there but I’m not sure how that works as an analogy here. I thought it was about how much of the virus you are infected with, ie the greater the quantity initially then the more it increases as it multiplies. Then, by extension, the more chance of the immune system being overwhelmed. Isn’t that the ‘viral load’ Gloom refers to above? 

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

12 minutes ago, Alex said:

I have just read bits about it here and there but I’m not sure how that works as an analogy here. I thought it was about how much of the virus you are infected with, ie the greater the quantity initially then the more it increases as it multiplies. Then, by extension, the more chance of the immune system being overwhelmed. Isn’t that the ‘viral load’ Gloom refers to above? 

 

That's not my understanding of it but I'd be lying if I said I knew enough about it to argue.

 

From speaking with an A&E Consultant last week she suggested there's no rhyme nor reason as to who gets very sick and who has mild symptoms and I can;t see it being linked to how long you are stood next to someone with COVID

[Alex 35083]

Well that’s not how I described it anyway but never mind.