Coronavirus

[Dr Gloom 21940]

4 minutes ago, ewerk said:

You're working under the false assumption that they'd be big enough to choke him.

death by button mushroom

[Meenzer 15550]

3 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

You are not going to stop driving because of a small risk you might crash and die.

 

To be fair, that is one reason I don't drive unless I absolutely have to.   Not so much the death outright, but crashes and general inconvience caused by other people being terrible drivers.

[Gemmill 44931]

3 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

The point I’ve tried to make is that the chances of this killing anyone aged 16-64 are tiny where as the damage the lockdown is doing to health, jobs etc are very real.

 

You are not going to stop driving because of a small risk you might crash and die.

 

Throw everything at protecting those in danger and everyone else get back to life.

 

Other than a vaccine, THIS is the only way out.

 

Well get yourself back out to work then. Or let me guess, does this not apply to you cos your missus has severe asthma? 

 

You're basically Donald Trump here. 

[Alex 35095]

CT still only opening his mouth to change feet I see. 

[Christmas Tree 4728]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

Well get yourself back out to work then. Or let me guess, does this not apply to you cos your missus has severe asthma? 

 

You're basically Donald Trump here. 

There is no work

 

 

[Rayvin 5223]

3 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

The point I’ve tried to make is that the chances of this killing anyone aged 16-64 are tiny where as the damage the lockdown is doing to health, jobs etc are very real.

 

You are not going to stop driving because of a small risk you might crash and die.

 

Throw everything at protecting those in danger and everyone else get back to life.

 

Other than a vaccine, THIS is the only way out.

 

But your original example about car deaths being as bad is now redundant because your numbers were wrong. So we can now see that there is a far, far higher chance of dying from COVID than there is of being killed in a car accident. It's no longer a relevant comparison, you'd have to find something else with a similar death rate - and while I haven't looked into it for a while, I recall this is still roughly 10 times more lethal than the flu, for which we have a vaccine. So it's not like this is a small deal.

 

[Renton 21635]

2 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

The point I’ve tried to make is that the chances of this killing anyone aged 16-64 are tiny where as the damage the lockdown is doing to health, jobs etc are very real.

 

You are not going to stop driving because of a small risk you might crash and die.

 

Throw everything at protecting those in danger and everyone else get back to life.

 

Other than a vaccine, THIS is the only way out.

 

Oh ffs. The chances are small, but not as tiny as you think. Why is that? Because we massively reduced spread through an admittedly late lock down. It wouldn't be tiny without the lock down. I mean ffs CT, surely you can grasp this?

 

Okay, you dont do maths. How about anecdote? You're a similar age and weight to Boris Johnson. He almost died, do you remember that? There are thousands of people who have survived who will need extensive rehabilitation or will have permanent disabilities. There is no good evidence yet having covid 19 even gives you immunity. 

 

Leave it to the experts for once will you? 

[Alex 35095]

1 minute ago, Christmas Tree said:

There is no work

 

 

I’ve seen plenty taxi drivers working. No surprise you’re a massive fucking hypocrite though. You fat little cunt

[Renton 21635]

If there's no taxis, why are taxi drivers at greatest risk? 

 

A large proportion of cars on the road now are taxis, I see them on every commute. 

[Christmas Tree 4728]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

But your original example about car deaths being as bad is now redundant because your numbers were wrong. So we can now see that there is a far, far higher chance of dying from COVID than there is of being killed in a car accident. It's no longer a relevant comparison, you'd have to find something else with a similar death rate - and while I haven't looked into it for a while, I recall this is still roughly 10 times more lethal than the flu, for which we have a vaccine. So it's not like this is a small deal.

 

WRONG!  The death rate for 16-64 (the working population is tiny). 0.0062% according to professor Renton.

 

That level of risk is minuscule to the very real risk the lockdown is causing.

[Rayvin 5223]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Oh ffs. The chances are small, but not as tiny as you think. Why is that? Because we massively reduced spread through an admittedly late lock down. It wouldn't be tiny without the lock down. I mean ffs CT, surely you can grasp this?

 

Okay, you dont do maths. How about anecdote? You're a similar age and weight to Boris Johnson. He almost died, do you remember that? There are thousands of people who have survived who will need extensive rehabilitation or will have permanent disabilities. There is no good evidence yet having covid 19 even gives you immunity. 

 

Leave it to the experts for once will you? 

 

I cannot understand this underlying assumption from the Tory voting Brexit brigade that their years and years of total apathy about science, economics, trade, medicine, whatever, has somehow armed them to go toe to toe with people who work on this stuff every day of their fucking lives, for decades. As if common fucking sense, not that they have any, is somehow of comparable weight to years of professional expertise and study.

 

It's absolutely stunning that this is where we've come to. It's akin to communist purges of the intellectuals.

[PaddockLad 17283]

11 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

You're spreading actual lies. The mortality data for this month is by far the highest on record, ever. This virus kills and debilitates adults of all ages.  Your approach would kill hundreds of thousands and destroy the NHS. Why the fuck am I surprised. 

He’s plainly copied & pasted this mornings missive from some right wing nut job Facebook post or something. Still trying to be controversial,contrary and a right fuckin cunt. 

 

8 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

The point I’ve tried to make is that the chances of this killing anyone aged 16-64 are tiny where as the damage the lockdown is doing to health, jobs etc are very real.

 

You are not going to stop driving because of a small risk you might crash and die.

 

Throw everything at protecting those in danger and everyone else get back to life.

 

Other than a vaccine, THIS is the only way out.

This is where we were in early March until it was pointed out to Johnson by scientists that 500k would die. You’re suggesting a return to this after we’ve very belatedly gained some sort of control. I don’t understand. There was still 4000 new cases yesterday though. That will increase hugely if people are free to associate in the next few weeks then it’s another full lockdown for another two months. 

[Gemmill 44931]

So everyone else should go back to work but you can stay in the house. Thought so. 

[Christmas Tree 4728]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Oh ffs. The chances are small, but not as tiny as you think. Why is that? Because we massively reduced spread through an admittedly late lock down. It wouldn't be tiny without the lock down. I mean ffs CT, surely you can grasp this?

 

Okay, you dont do maths. How about anecdote? You're a similar age and weight to Boris Johnson. He almost died, do you remember that? There are thousands of people who have survived who will need extensive rehabilitation or will have permanent disabilities. There is no good evidence yet having covid 19 even gives you immunity. 

 

Leave it to the experts for once will you? 

Now you are being thick. The death rate for the working population is 0.0062%
 

Death rates move around a bit depending on sample size but not enough to vastly change the very small risk for that age group.

[Gemmill 44931]

That figure isn't the death rate for the virus. That's just the number of people in a certain age group that have died from it. It takes no account of the number of people that have caught it, which has been massively depressed by the lockdown because a huge number of the 40m have been removed from circulation. 

 

You are fucking lucky you can't die of stupidity or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

[Renton 21635]

2 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

WRONG!  The death rate for 16-64 (the working population is tiny). 0.0062% according to professor Renton.

 

That level of risk is minuscule to the very real risk the lockdown is causing.

 

Professor Renton has just calculated that if we fully released lock down 80,000 people of working age would die this year. This is using some very conservative assumptions including the NHS not being overwhelmed, which seems unlikely. And also ignores the hundreds of thousands of deaths in pensioners. A price worth paying? Yes, in the world of CT. 

[PaddockLad 17283]

2 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

So everyone else should go back to work but you can stay in the house. Thought so. 

I’m back a week today. The buildings we look after are almost all empty or at the most have half a dozen people in them. The risk to the sponges I have for lungs is a lot less than it was in mid March. Am reasonably happy to be going back tbh, I’m probably more at risk going to Sainsbury’s

 

 

[Christmas Tree 4728]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

If there's no taxis, why are taxi drivers at greatest risk? 

 

A large proportion of cars on the road now are taxis, I see them on every commute. 

 

Nobody’s flying, commuting to London via train, drinking in restaurants or pubs, visiting hospitals, getting home deliveries, and are instead working from home.....

 

Thought you were good at math.

[Dr Gloom 21940]

not looking good for johnson - even daytime telly is turning on him 

 

[ewerk 30630]

5 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

WRONG!  The death rate for 16-64 (the working population is tiny). 0.0062% according to professor Renton.

 

That level of risk is minuscule to the very real risk the lockdown is causing.

That is the risk while people are at home and the NHS isn't overwhelmed.

What happens if the 40,000,000 you state go back to work? Let's assume that the virus ends up running rampant (which it will) and 20,000,000 of working age become infected. Using the figure of 0.0062% that's 124,000 deaths. When you factor in that the NHS can't cope with that many infectious cases the death rate rises. Even a rate of 0.01 sees the death toll among the working population increase to 200,000.

 

So the question is, how many deaths do you think are acceptable?

[Renton 21635]

5 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

Now you are being thick. The death rate for the working population is 0.0062%
 

Death rates move around a bit depending on sample size but not enough to vastly change the very small risk for that age group.

 

You can't be this fucking stupid. Is there not a single subject you will reserve your wummery on? Not even a pandemic causing absolute misery.  Contrary  Twat. 

[Christmas Tree 4728]

9 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

He’s plainly copied & pasted this mornings missive from some right wing nut job Facebook post or something. Still trying to be controversial,contrary and a right fuckin cunt. 

 

This is where we were in early March until it was pointed out to Johnson by scientists that 500k would die. You’re suggesting a return to this after we’ve very belatedly gained some sort of control. I don’t understand. There was still 4000 new cases yesterday though. That will increase hugely if people are free to associate in the next few weeks then it’s another full lockdown for another two months. 

Not at all, I’ve suggested everything is radically focussed on protecting the elderly and getting the country back to normal.

[Christmas Tree 4728]

10 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

So everyone else should go back to work but you can stay in the house. Thought so. 

If everyone goes back to work I won’t need to stay in the house, I’ll have customers

[PaddockLad 17283]

Lots of folk suggesting advice is now deliberately vague & contradictory on purpose to remove blame from Johnson & Cummings and on to the public in general in the event of a second spike in infections. They’re truly back to letting ordinary folk fry tbh. 

[ewerk 30630]

1 minute ago, Christmas Tree said:

protecting the elderly

 

So in your great plan how do you protect the elderly?