Coronavirus

[Danishfurniturelover]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1351115555638550533

Despite myself I listened to that utter rubbish all the way through.

If what she said is now accepted wisdom and that savings lives should be the go to no matter the cost. Then everyone who has to go private because N.I.C.E deem their medication to expensive, should be due a wacking great big rebate.

This government are a shower of. The fact that they are only just talking about putting people into quarantine hotels when they arrive might be the perfect example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The is a lot this government has done badly wrong no matter how good their intentions, but to try and make out every life counts as much as the next is wilfully naive or smacks of trying to push an agenda.

 

[scaramanga]

I’m not saying one dose has no effect.

I’m saying two doses is the “full vaccination” as prescribed by those that made the vaccines.

It’s more a comment on how this government will spin absolutely anything and happily skate over what might be more inconvenient details in search of any positive headline or a trending hashtag rather than being upfront and engaging in the substance of the matter.

They were up front. They explained their reasoning and the science behind it.

So far, there's absolutely no good reason to believe their assumptions are wrong.

 

[LutonSpurs]

To put that into some perspective, here are the years (from ONS data) where the deaths per 100,000 of population were higher than in 2020:

2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980....

...and all the other years for all of history.

Advances in modern medicine and healthy lifestyle choices have accounted for people living for longer since 2003. What a fudgein shocker Scara. What else were you gonna tell me?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

It’s more a comment on how this government will spin absolutely anything and happily skate over what might be more inconvenient details in search of any positive headline or a trending hashtag rather than being upfront and engaging in the substance of the matter.

What has shocked me most about this government and the have been a few to choose from is how much they listen to that awful twitter thing. When everyone knows it is populated by cnuts and idiots, seemingly most seem to be both. Horrid thing.

 

[LutonSpurs]

What has shocked me most about this government and the have been a few to choose from is how much they listen to that awful twitter thing. When everyone knows it is populated by cnuts and idiots, seemingly most seem to be both. Horrid thing.

Chich mate. Twitter has everyone. Some clams and some awesome folk. It is what you want it to be. Obviously you don't have to use it. But I think your understanding with the platform is possibly flawed.

 

[scaramanga]

Advances in modern medicine and healthy lifestyle choices have accounted for people living for longer since 2003. What a fudgein shocker Scara. What else were you gonna tell me?

2003 wasn't exactly the dark ages in terms of life expectancy.

The whole point is one of context and avoiding hysteria. Hyperbolic statements like that from the BBC of "most excess deaths since WWII" don't help.

Applying context makes everything seem a lot less scary.

 

[LutonSpurs]

2003 wasn't exactly the dark ages in terms of life expectancy.

The whole point is one of context and avoiding hysteria. Hyperbolic statements like that from the BBC of "most excess deaths since WWII" don't help.

Applying context makes everything seem a lot less scary.

The context was that a load of people have been pushing the idea that excess deaths are not a thing this wave. They clearly are. And your post in response to mine was meaningless in context.

 

[Mikey10]

Remember when we thought Trump’s response to covid was fudged up?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-covid-death-rate-coronavirus-b1788817.html

Damning.

 

[johnola]

I’m not saying one dose has no effect.

I’m saying two doses is the “full vaccination” as prescribed by those that made the vaccines.

It’s more a comment on how this government will spin absolutely anything and happily skate over what might be more inconvenient details in search of any positive headline or a trending hashtag rather than being upfront and engaging in the substance of the matter.[/QUOTE

Let me put it this way. Should my mum have her second jab boosting her protection against covid from 80% to 95%, or should she give that jab to my Dad, improving his chances from nil to 80%?

They got a lot of negative press for this, even Fauci in the US was given airtime here to cast it in a negative light.

Yet it is so absolutely blindingly obviously the correct thing to do I’m a bit surprised you are calling them out on this of all things.

 

[scaramanga]

The context was that a load of people have been pushing the idea that excess deaths are not a thing this wave. They clearly are. And your post in response to mine was meaningless in context.

Have they? I've not heard that from anyone.

 

[awesome dawson]

Have they? I've not heard that from anyone.

Hahahaha you talk so much crap on this thread. It's exactly the sort of comment that has come from anti lockdown/save the high street muppets like yourself.

2003 wasn't exactly the dark ages in terms of life expectancy.

The whole point is one of context and avoiding hysteria. Hyperbolic statements like that from the BBC of "most excess deaths since WWII" don't help.

Applying context makes everything seem a lot less scary.

You don't think life expectancy has increased in nearly 20 years? Lifestyles haven't improved, advancements in medicine etc?

 

[DTA]

Let me put it this way. Should my mum have her second jab boosting her protection against covid from 80% to 95%, or should she give that jab to my Dad, improving his chances from nil to 80%?

They got a lot of negative press for this, even Fauci in the US was given airtime here to cast it in a negative light.

Yet it is so absolutely blindingly obviously the correct thing to do I’m a bit surprised you are calling them out on this of all things.

Could you please show a link from the drug companies themselves that says that 1 jab will give 80% protection against covid.

Again from the drug companies themselves please.

 

[awesome dawson]

No doubt all the selfish tacos that went to Ibiza in the summer won't be listening to this advice;

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-booking-holidays-abroad-great-british-summer

 

[Robspur12]

Let me put it this way. Should my mum have her second jab boosting her protection against covid from 80% to 95%, or should she give that jab to my Dad, improving his chances from nil to 80%?

They got a lot of negative press for this, even Fauci in the US was given airtime here to cast it in a negative light.

Yet it is so absolutely blindingly obviously the correct thing to do I’m a bit surprised you are calling them out on this of all things.

It is not so black and white. There is no data to support the increase in time between the doses. It’s is a calculated decision based on circumstantial evidence surrounding the experience from other vaccines. It is not taking into account that the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer vaccine is new. The early studies from Israel suggest that having two doses cuts down your transmission risk significantly. If we lengthen the interval between doses many people may not bother to get their second dose. This makes them potential transmitters. That’s not to say that I disagree with the decision, just that thge jury is still very much out as to whether it will offer the protection that the medical officers are saying it will. It is an experiment, one borne out of necessity.

As hard as it is for this government to do it should refrain from triumphalism over vaccine numbers. After all It obsessed about test numbers last year rather than concern itself with whether or not the test, trace and isolate system was fit for purpose. I worry that the government will see the vaccine as a silver bullet rather than learn from the mistakes of its infection control strategy.

 

[thfcsteff]

2003 wasn't exactly the dark ages in terms of life expectancy.

The whole point is one of context and avoiding hysteria. Hyperbolic statements like that from the BBC of "most excess deaths since WWII" don't help.

Applying context makes everything seem a lot less scary.

The rate of advance in both science and tech ology since 2003 has been rapid.
Proportionately speaking, it has been very, very fast.

As for context, sometimes facts are facts regardless of the context. As you might know, I am a great fan of the "c" word so I don't say that lightly!

 

[scaramanga]

Hahahaha you talk so much crap on this thread. It's exactly the sort of comment that has come from anti lockdown/save the high street muppets like yourself.

This post is useless without quotes.

You don't think life expectancy has increased in nearly 20 years? Lifestyles haven't improved, advancements in medicine etc?

It has a little, yes.

Offer most people the choice of life as it was in 2003 or cowering indoors and I suspect most would take the former.

 

[Mikey10]

Offer most people the choice of life as it was in 2003 or cowering indoors and I suspect most would take the former.

There wasn’t a virulent novel - and potentially fatal - virus globally out of control in 2003, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to offer that (hypothetical) choice.

 

[scaramanga]

There wasn’t a virulent novel - and potentially fatal - virus globally out of control in 2003, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to offer that (hypothetical) choice.

Obviously it's only a hypothetical choice, but it's a useful measure for reining in hysteria.

 

[awesome dawson]

This post is useless without quotes.


It has a little, yes.

Offer most people the choice of life as it was in 2003 or cowering indoors and I suspect most would take the former.

I don't need to go through 600 pages of your drivel on here to prove that you haven't advocated for letting people die in favour of 'saving' the economy. Those that have to unfortunately read them on a daily basis know what your thoughts on that are.

As for cowering indoors, I've just got back from a lovely dinner and have many plans for the coming year which involve trips to the Great Barrier reef, Tasmania, gigs and a fast recovering economy, now that the public health emergency has been addressed.

2003 was a year I remember well, and trust me, 2021 will be infinitely better.

 

[LutonSpurs]

The whole giving us data up to 2003 was a truly shocking bastardisation and wilful intellectual dishonesty with data from you Scara. The thing is, I'm absolutely convinced you know its a BS response but I can't work out why you do it.