Oh dear.
Please would you be kind enough to re-read your post and my reply.
Hopefully you will see that the 'numbers' comment referred to the 'media'.
(Or please show how my 'numbers' remark could have referred to you.)
Coronavirus tipping point
- Thread starter Wayne.Kerr
- Start date
Please would you be kind enough to re-read your post and my reply.
Hopefully you will see that the 'numbers' comment referred to the 'media'.
(Or please show how my 'numbers' remark could have referred to you.)
I did not say 'hoarding'.
Yet again you mis-attribute an emotive term in an attempt to deflect.
valenciagill
Vital Football Hero
It is the case yes.
Antibiotics tackle infections , where immunity to a virus can only be controlled by exposure , thus forming anti-bodies.
A vaccine is a 'controlled exposure'.
Last edited:
Maybe I haven't read ALL your posts - but the majority seem negative or critical.
It seems that you did not see MPs on both sides of the Chamber challenging the 2 years for Emergency Powers.
Conservative David Davis for one - and several Labour MPs.
In that case your quoting my post and making your point was senseless. How does my post relate to your point about the media misinterpreting statistics? What has leftie luvvies got to do with anything? Do lefty luvvies have less underastanding of statistics than, say, right wing media such as the DM?
A bit wierd and desperate. Are you related to Baghdad?
Last edited:
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
Antibiotics tackle bacteria - I was wrong with this type of pneumonia, which is viral as opposed to bacterial pnuemonia
I rather liked Wayne's earlier point that Boris was an authoritarian, they suggesting he could have introduced a bill that had to be renewed.
Hardly authoritarian is it?
Incidentally he's also complaining about Trump and his approach. I understand anybody who has the virus can get over it within a few weeks. Is this not Trump's understanding of the approach to be made? i.e. The sooner everybody gets it, the sooner it is all over, but keep people in isolation and away from it and months down the line when they come into social life again, they will get it and pass it on. i.e. the UK's approach is to drag it out for eternity!!!
Hardly authoritarian is it?
Incidentally he's also complaining about Trump and his approach. I understand anybody who has the virus can get over it within a few weeks. Is this not Trump's understanding of the approach to be made? i.e. The sooner everybody gets it, the sooner it is all over, but keep people in isolation and away from it and months down the line when they come into social life again, they will get it and pass it on. i.e. the UK's approach is to drag it out for eternity!!!
Still don't believe that media presenters don't understand numbers ?
5 minutes ago, on SKY News, Adam Boulton said:
'The USA has overtaken China as the epicentre of Coronavirus'
This based on the absolute number of Americans testing positive.
No mention of the US population being over 300 million.
Isn't virus per head relevant ?
I could be wrong, but surely Spain is the current 'epicentre' ?
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
That approach is OK as long as people only show mild symptoms - get hit hard and the NHS is overwhelmed
The Govt approach is to try and keep the peak down so the NHS can cope but it's likely to mean a prolonged period of contagion
I appreciate our approach Wayne.
I was merely laughing at DJT.
I won't claim a whoosh, because you are always so serious you never would recognise one.
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
Yes - once they reversed the herding concept. I'm not really sure they could do much more; if they could I'm sure the opposition would have been far more vocal. Yes there are things to be sorted no doubt and there are shortages but that's understandable. Plus, there are too many people abusing Govt. advice on staying at home etc; so it's likely we'll see a crackdown in the coming days.
MedwayModernist
Vital Squad Member
Yup, because unfortunately a sizeable portion of the country are idiots.
If they were only going to do harm to themselves, I wouldn't care, and put it up to Darwinism, but in this situation... fucking morons
Trev_GFC
Vital 1st Team Regular
I also think the current approach is sensible and don’t feel it was too late in implementation. We were kept our freedoms/economy running as much as possible for as long as possible. Testing only those in hospital with severe symptoms and/or high stops the risk of every man and his dog descending on the GPs and A&E. Compare to other places with widespread testing like UAE which led to huge waiting times and those who had it weren’t picked up quick enough.
Current projections as below is moderately comforting given the circumstances in other countries, though not that it’s comforting to those who have lost loved ones already.
Current projections as below is moderately comforting given the circumstances in other countries, though not that it’s comforting to those who have lost loved ones already.
You really are a hypocrite. You challenge people to justify a remark - yet refuse to provide evidence that the Govt had a "policy" of "herd immunity".
I really shouldn't have to waste MY time countering YOUR nonsense...but I have. So here goes with some evidence against a supposed herd immunity "policy".
On This Morning on 5th March, talking to Philip Schofield, what Boris said spawned a host of mis-informed claims that Boris and Co were content with a high death rate.
e.g. One commentator said:
“Boris Johnson said we should take the coronavirus ‘on the chin’ and count on ‘herd-immunity’.”
Except Boris did not say “should” - so the commentator invented a “policy”.
Neither was BJ the first to mention the concept of "herd immunity". That was a couple of scientists. David Halpern and Patrick Vallance
So places like the Guardian had several field days writing about this strawman, invented “policy”.
Boris:
“Well it’s a very, very important question, and that’s where a lot of the debate has been and one of the theories is, that perhaps you could take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease, as it were, to move through the population, without taking as many draconian measures.
I think we need to strike a balance, I think it is very important, we’ve got a fantastic NHS, we will give them all the support that they need, we will make sure that they have all preparations, all the kit that they need for us to get through it.
But I think it would be better if we take all the measures that we can now to stop the peak of the disease being as difficult for the NHS as it might be, I think there are things that we may be able to do”.
Doesn’t the bit in bold mean the opposite of actively pursuing "herd immunity” (which BJ hadn't mentioned on 5th March) ????
On 11th March Behavioural Scientist Dr David Halpern told the BBC
“There is going to be a point, assuming that the epidemic flows and grows, as we think it probably will do, where ....., you’ll want to protect those at risk groups, so they basically don’t catch the disease, ....
.....and by the time they come out of their cocooning, herd immunity has been achieved in the rest of the population."
This is no more than describing a natural phenomenon - that seems likely to occur - absent a vaccine ...... while protecting the vulnerable.
Yet this spawned more speculative, critical articles - whether mis-informed or mischievous is an educated guess.
Not sure that a "sizeable proportion of the country" are idiots.
Is it perhaps a few thousand, mostly in high density central London - where much of the media lives ?
In our outer London suburb, traffic has been much lighter.
Few shops have had long queues.
Most of the people my wife and I know are working from home....
Many more people are walking or cycling - in quiet suburban roads.
Only builders seem to be continuing - which being mostly outside, wearing gloves and usually at a safe distance - seems very low risk.
Was it wise for Mayor Khan to reduce Tube frequency - so crowding travellers on to fewer trains ?
