Coronavirus

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

So many words to say fuck all.

 

You must be really pissed off that Sweden suffered less than we did despite not subjecting their citizens to draconian measures.

 

Unfortunately the giant plot hole is that if you'd "expect" to see cases rising and falling around the same time irrespective of whether restrictions were mandated or not, why bother mandating them? And then argue until you are blue in the face that those mandated restrictions were the reason cases rose and fell, when you've just argued that cases would rise and fall regardless.

Sweden has a population density of 25.4 people per square km. The UK has a population density of 275 people per square km. Explain the relevance in comparing them both? Lockdown saved lives. Why can't you accept that? 

[TheHowieLama]

Dense populations are a real problem.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Sweden has a population density of 25.4 people per square km. The UK has a population density of 275 people per square km. Explain the relevance in comparing them both? Lockdown saved lives. Why can't you accept that? 

 

Because land doesn't catch coronavirus. 99.7% of Sweden is uninhabited. They live in cities just like we do, where densities are comparable.

 

Stockholm population density = 5,200 people per square km

London = 5,701

Malmo = 4,049

Birmingham = 3,649

Uppsala = 3,600

Greater Manchester = 2,204

Gothenburg = 1,300

Sheffield = 1,583

 

etc etc

 

This is about the fifth time I've made the same point. I desperately hope there won't need to be a sixth.

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

about the fifth time I've made the same point. I desperately hope there won't need to be a sixth.

Add Portsmouth in next time.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Because land doesn't catch coronavirus. 99.7% of Sweden is uninhabited. They live in cities just like we do, where densities are comparable.

 

Stockholm population density = 5,200 people per square km

London = 5,701

Malmo = 4,049

Birmingham = 3,649

Uppsala = 3,600

Greater Manchester = 2,204

Gothenburg = 1,300

Sheffield = 1,583

 

etc etc

 

This is about the fifth time I've made the same point. I desperately hope there won't need to be a sixth.

You've selected a number of cities. You've missed the towns out. There is no comparison. You still haven't answered my question from earlier but to be fair I knew you wouldn't when I asked it. 

 

Actual scientists (you know those who are qualified) 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/50b5563a-c025-44ce-a135-2eb13be96c07

 

Lockdowns worked in the UK and SAVED LIVES. Only a lying cunt would deny that. 

 

 

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

You've selected a number of cities. You've missed the towns out

 

Yeah, imagine selecting the biggest cities in the respective countries and ignoring hamlets were 7 people live. What was I thinking. Never mind that a higher proportion of people live in urban areas in Sweden than they do in the UK. What really matters is whether Hammarlyngstadborg had a higher death rate than Little Snoring.

 

This is honestly amazing stuff.

[TheHowieLama]

All of Sweden is basically equal to just London innit? So wouldn't the entire population of the country need to be as dense for this point to not seem so dense?

[Section_31]

Anyone else find they're losing track of dates? I went all the way to St Helens tonight for my vaccine and it's not for another three weeks. I was certain it was today but the date is there clear as day on the text, but the date itself means nothing to me save for the word "May". I had this last week too, was supposed to be having a zoom meeting with someone but was certain it was the following week, but it was that week. Looked in the diary and I'd written it down but despite reading it hadn't registered as it being that week, just "April".

 

Dunno if it's build up of stress or lockdowm has just made days bleed into the next, although by and large I've never had much need to keep track of dates as I've always just been in nine to five jobs with very few appointments as such, save for the odd regular thing like the dentist or whatever.

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Yeah, imagine selecting the biggest cities in the respective countries and ignoring hamlets were 7 people live. What was I thinking. Never mind that a higher proportion of people live in urban areas in Sweden than they do in the UK. What really matters is whether Hammarlyngstadborg had a higher death rate than Little Snoring.

 

This is honestly amazing stuff.

You are full of absolute shit. It's clear for everyone to see. I notice you deleted my other points when replying because... well we all know don't we. 

[Mudface]

24 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

So many words to say fuck all.

 

You must be really pissed off that Sweden suffered less than we did despite not subjecting their citizens to draconian measures.

 

Unfortunately the giant plot hole is that if you'd "expect" to see cases rising and falling around the same time irrespective of whether restrictions were mandated or not, why bother mandating them? And then argue until you are blue in the face that those mandated restrictions were the reason cases rose and fell, when you've just argued that cases would rise and fall regardless!

Are you honestly this dense? The general pattern is the same, sure- the point is that the number of cases and deaths is lowered if you take proper, timely measures and keep at least a degree of control. The fact that Sweden is even vaguely comparable to the UK is a damning indictment of their strategy, not some sort of triumph.

[Curly]

37 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

It was a very funny joke about the evidence the UK population were dense as they’d voted for Brexit and Boris.

 

It was quite good.

Oh! Fuck. Sorry Bruce

[Curly]

42 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Well, of course there is that, and the fact that Swedes are better looking, smarter, care more about their community while having a cooler accent.

Haha - I see what you did there.

[Curly]

43 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I thought I'd clearly explained what my post meant. I apologise if you've struggled to understand it. 

Thanks for apologising for my lack of understanding. Big of you that 

[Strontium]

25 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Are you honestly this dense? The general pattern is the same, sure- the point is that the number of cases and deaths is lowered if you take proper, timely measures and keep at least a degree of control. The fact that Sweden is even vaguely comparable to the UK is a damning indictment of their strategy, not some sort of triumph.

 

Sweden's deaths being substantially lower than ours is a damning indictment of the fact that they didn't follow us into lockdown. Yep, I've heard it all now.

 

They must be kicking themselves for not doing what we did.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

On 02/05/2021 at 09:10, Rick Sanchez C-137 said:

Vacinne reaction: day 1

 

Sore shoulder - 2/10

Flu-ish chills - 3/10

 

Not bad so far.

 

 

Day 2

 

Shoulder not sore

Armpit sore - 3/10

Flu-ish aches and chills down - 2/10

 

 

[Bjornebye]

A substantially lower population and population density but let’s not let reality get in the way of fantasy. 

[Guest]

Anyone sum this up? 

[The-Sir]

1 minute ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

Anyone sum this up? 

 

[Mudface]

25 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Sweden's deaths being substantially lower than ours is a damning indictment of the fact that they didn't follow us into lockdown. Yep, I've heard it all now.

 

They must be kicking themselves for not doing what we did.

Sweden's deaths being substantially higher than their near neighbours- you know, the countries that they're much more comparable to in terms of culture, climate and demographics- is a damning indictment of their own strategy. Denmark, Norway and Finland introduced much more stringent measures and did much better. 

 

We, or rather the Tories, completely fucked up our initial response, relaxed too early after the first lockdown and then completely lost control in the Winter and had to lockdown again in case the NHS was overwhelmed. It's been an utter disaster and we've had to use lockdowns to avoid an even worse scenario. That Sweden is even approaching our death rate (1384 vs 1871 per million) isn't an achievement or a vindication of what they did, both countries have been shit.

[Mudface]

4 minutes ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

Anyone sum this up? 

Strontium Dog reckoned that we'd be 'embarrassed' by the response last March when things became clearer. He's spent over a year now making increasingly stupid pronouncements to try and justify what he said because he's too pompous and arrogant to admit he was wrong. 

[Strontium]

I dare say if you're going to cherry-pick countries with lower death rates, then Sweden will look bad. That's cherry-picking for you.

 

But yeah, world population grew by only 81 million last year versus 82 million the year before, so stick us on the endangered species list.

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

But yeah, world population grew by only 81 million last year versus 82 million the year before, so stick us on the endangered species list.

Hugely disrespectful to people who have died from this. 

[Mudface]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I dare say if you're going to cherry-pick countries with lower death rates, then Sweden will look bad. That's cherry-picking for you.

 

But yeah, world population grew by only 81 million last year versus 82 million the year before, so stick us on the endangered species list.

189/ 222 countries have a lower death rate than Sweden. 

 

As for the second sentence, get fucked you utter cunt.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Hugely disrespectful to people who have died from this. 

 

What about the 98% of people who died from something else? Or the many, many people who have died or are going to die due to the effects of lockdown? Where's their respect?

 

If you want to devote our health service and all of our energy as a society to a disease that a fraction of a percentage of people die from (with), almost all of them morbidly old and/or sick already, then be honest about it. If the Nikki Grahames and Sarah Hardings of the world are acceptable collateral damage to you, then own it.

 

You want to pretend that the choices we have are good and bad when they're just a whole bunch of different bad ones. You want to make out that your bad choice is better than my bad choice, regardless of what happens in the real-world.

 

I'm fucking fed up of this shit.

[Kepler-186]

13 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said: