Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

The social interaction is something I miss. I am the only one who has been working from the office at our place. It's boring. Although I do get to listed to JRE or my music all day.


Most work colleagues are boring cunts. 
 

I’d love some time away from them. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

A mortality rate of 1.5% is just bollocks, but I simple said "You can say that again" because SD double posted. I didn't even bother reading it.

 

Looking like 109 deaths today from what I can gather. Down from 359 last week.

You should do. It's well set out and a good warning not to be complacent about things at this stage. As for the mortality rate, no one knows what that actually is or will be, he's just extrapolating from available data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mudface said:

You should do. It's well set out and a good warning not to be complacent about things at this stage. As for the mortality rate, no one knows what that actually is or will be, he's just extrapolating from available data.

And disingenuously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Yep. Getting close to dipping under 1000 new infections a day though, which (horrifically) is at least something positive.

 

CORONAVIRUS: Daily update

As of 9am 10 June, there have been 6,042,622 tests, with 170,379 tests on 9 June. 

290,143 people have tested positive. 

As of 5pm on 9 June, of those tested positive for coronavirus, across all settings, 41,128 have sadly died.


This is still an appalling mismanagement and every death, at this point, is blood on the hands of a tragically incompetent government.

 

Lets not celebrate ‘less than a thousand infections’ let’s be fucking incandescent that this is still happening, no matter what the number.

 

We can’t let apathy seep in, they have fucked this up, badly.

 

This isn’t a dig at you in any way, but I’ve noticed a certain nonchalance that’s creeping in.
 

We’re still much, much higher than any competent handling would have had us and we mustn’t forget that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mattyq said:

Interesting article but a little terrifying.

Focuses mainly on how Sweden have dealt with it all (badly) but mentions the UK a lot (in disparaging terms)

Reckons that covid is about 50 times worse than a flu outbreak

Death rates 0.5 - 1.5% of those infected and many more become seriously ill 

Effects can last a lifetime on survivors especially blood clots on lung

To reach herd immunity 0.4 - 1.0% of country's population will die. In the UK 270.000 - 680.000 so best estimate we're about a quarter of the way there

 

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b

With all due respect, this guy has no relevant credentials and is plucking stuff out of thin air. The most ridiculous is the lifetime effects part. The virus is like 6 months old give or take, how could anyone possibly know of its long term effects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


This is still an appalling mismanagement and every death, at this point, is blood on the hands of a tragically incompetent government.

 

Lets not celebrate ‘less than a thousand infections’ let’s be fucking incandescent that this is still happening, no matter what the number.

 

We can’t let apathy seep in, they have fucked this up, badly.

 

This isn’t a dig at you in any way, but I’ve noticed a certain nonchalance that’s creeping in.
 

We’re still much, much higher than any competent handling would have had us and we mustn’t forget that.

Yep. Basically between 40,000 and 60,000 people dead in a little over three months. There is definitely an apathy now. 

 

I still can't work out whether the government are blundering or scheming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

With all due respect, this guy has no relevant credentials and is plucking stuff out of thin air. The most ridiculous is the lifetime effects part. The virus is like 6 months old give or take, how could anyone possibly know of its long term effects?

Those that died from it will stay dead? Apart from that, yeah who knows what the long term direct physical effects of it will be to those who have recovered. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Those that died from it will stay dead? Apart from that, yeah who knows what the long term direct physical effects of it will be to those who have recovered. 

 

I'll let you know in a few years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I'm not dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


This is still an appalling mismanagement and every death, at this point, is blood on the hands of a tragically incompetent government.

 

Lets not celebrate ‘less than a thousand infections’ let’s be fucking incandescent that this is still happening, no matter what the number.

 

We can’t let apathy seep in, they have fucked this up, badly.

 

This isn’t a dig at you in any way, but I’ve noticed a certain nonchalance that’s creeping in.
 

We’re still much, much higher than any competent handling would have had us and we mustn’t forget that.

I'm not nonchalant at all mate, I'm really worried that we're setting ourselves up for a second wave which will be worse than this one as there won't be any political will to lockdown again. And you're right, the infection rate is still way too high for track and trace to be effective (plus it's run by fucking Serco).

 

The only bright spot for me is that the numbers in Scotland are pretty much halving each week- there's only been 2 new infections in the health board area where I live since Saturday and 44 across the whole country since Sunday- and Sturgeon is head and shoulders above Johnson. England looks an utter shambles though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

With all due respect, this guy has no relevant credentials and is plucking stuff out of thin air. The most ridiculous is the lifetime effects part. The virus is like 6 months old give or take, how could anyone possibly know of its long term effects?

Because they know what chronic lung/heart disease looks like and how it presents clinically?

 

COPD/Cystic Fibrosis will be a good reference point for some of those who’ve suffered extensive lung scarring, for example.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go, pressure on Johnson from his loonie MPs to reduce the 2 metre rule, and lo and behold their pet scientist sets it up to be relaxed-

 

Vallance says two metres not a fixed scientific rule

Johnson says he wants to get all schools back in September, after a summer of catch-up. And it won’t just be a summer of catch-up. Pupils will get help for months and months to come.

Q: Is relaxing the two-metre rule a political decision? And are you willing to ignore your scientific advisers?

Johnson says there is a balance of risk to be struck. It is important to get the rate down. Only one in 1,000 has it. But it is not down yet as far as he would like, he says.

Vallance says two metres is not a rule. It is a scientific assessment of risk. Other factors are relevant, such as time and mitigating factors in place. All those need to be taken into account. It is wrong to portray that as a scientific rule, two metre or nothing. That is not what the advice is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Captain Milk said:

Because they know what chronic lung/heart disease looks like and how it presents clinically?

 

COPD/Cystic Fibrosis will be a good reference point for some of those who’ve suffered extensive lung scarring, for example.

Maybe, but pretty sure people who had SARS are all good now and that virus was more potent. The point, though is the person who wrote this isn't qualified to tell us this. He's some guy who has gained a following from "reporting" on the Coronavirus, though he's neither in the medical field, or a journalist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomas Pueyo getting ridiculed again because he doesn't have a degree in epidemiology, surprise.

 

Almost everything he's said about this from the off, ever since he was on Channel 4 news warning us to lockdown fast before things went to shit, (and as John Edmunds the epidemiologist was sat there relaxed waffling on about herd immunity) has been a lot more accurate than the shite peddled by many of our so-called experts.

 

Want us to lock down fast to save tens of thousands of lives? Ah but you don't have the correct qualifications.

 

Want herd immunity even though that's clearly fucking insane? Ah but you're an epidemiologist so you should be listened to and accepted.

 

And here we are now with over 40k dead.

 

Remember that many of these guys needed a scientific report before they knew what any of us did with internet access and a calculator before they shit it and started locking down. Pueyo had already warned them well in advance.

 

An epidemiologist going on about herd immunity should be under the dictionary definition for junk science. Or maybe we could invent a new term for that, maybe psycho science? Either way, when Pueyo without the "correct qualifications" was on Channel 4 with John "acceptable epidemiologist" Edmunds, he was the correct one. Maybe he's still correct for the most part.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...