Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 7)
Discussion
MX5Biologist said:
turbobloke said:
MikeyC said:
garyhun said:
My local Tesco removed all the direction arrows on the floor of the store last week which was a lovely step forward. Guess it's now another step back!
Yeah, I noticed this aswellIt seemed quite pointless when someone in an aisle typically wandered up & down in both directions!
The arrows were a hindrance to people with muddled minds. I never had an issue with them, nor did the majority of shoppers. Its only the odd idiot who couldn't read.
Not everyone shops on a regular basis; the evidence (sheer numbers) shows that more than the odd idiot doesn't know the 'order of the aisles'. Nor do regulars know in advance when the next soft shelf shuffle is going to take place. Folks are shopping for other folks more than previously and may well not know exactly where tinned armadillo toenails in brine are shelved if it's not something they usually buy.
The arrows were/are a triumph of fussy managerialism over reality.
Welshbeef said:
Great news apparently per Imperial College London they sampled 120,000 people during May and found that R was much lower than the previously govt announced.
Revised is 0.57 and it was 0.9-1.1
This is actually like Germany so all those badgers of the U.K. can now reevaluate. Clearly we had a much wider infection of the population hence why higher deaths but as a % no different to anyone else or possibly MUCH lower. Time will tell.
WB, Revised is 0.57 and it was 0.9-1.1
This is actually like Germany so all those badgers of the U.K. can now reevaluate. Clearly we had a much wider infection of the population hence why higher deaths but as a % no different to anyone else or possibly MUCH lower. Time will tell.
Can you explain why this is such good news, in small words so the hard of understanding can get their minds around it?
Thanks!
2Btoo said:
Welshbeef said:
Great news apparently per Imperial College London they sampled 120,000 people during May and found that R was much lower than the previously govt announced.
Revised is 0.57 and it was 0.9-1.1
This is actually like Germany so all those badgers of the U.K. can now reevaluate. Clearly we had a much wider infection of the population hence why higher deaths but as a % no different to anyone else or possibly MUCH lower. Time will tell.
WB, Revised is 0.57 and it was 0.9-1.1
This is actually like Germany so all those badgers of the U.K. can now reevaluate. Clearly we had a much wider infection of the population hence why higher deaths but as a % no different to anyone else or possibly MUCH lower. Time will tell.
Can you explain why this is such good news, in small words so the hard of understanding can get their minds around it?
Thanks!
I’ll simply pick one - everyone incl media we’re looking at R rates then and comparing the U.K. against other. Oh tried R rates and then bashing our country why are we so high... turns out we were not & the initial data set was wrong.
It’s a bit like it was BAD when it turned out counting of testing wasn’t right but then corrected. This is GOOD as again it was incorrect and the new data proves we were controlling it far better. In addition it helps understand what different elements and types of locking down social distancing closed schools had on the virus.
Can I ask why you asked this question - as clearly it’s a question that only someone who wouldn’t agree would raise (or have no comprehension whatsoever I’m assuming it’s the former).
Welshbeef said:
There are many reasons.
I’ll simply pick one - everyone incl media we’re looking at R rates then and comparing the U.K. against other. Oh tried R rates and then bashing our country why are we so high... turns out we were not & the initial data set was wrong.
It’s a bit like it was BAD when it turned out counting of testing wasn’t right but then corrected. This is GOOD as again it was incorrect and the new data proves we were controlling it far better. In addition it helps understand what different elements and types of locking down social distancing closed schools had on the virus.
Can I ask why you asked this question - as clearly it’s a question that only someone who wouldn’t agree would raise (or have no comprehension whatsoever I’m assuming it’s the former).
Does it change the death rate/number or the economic harm caused by the lockdown?I’ll simply pick one - everyone incl media we’re looking at R rates then and comparing the U.K. against other. Oh tried R rates and then bashing our country why are we so high... turns out we were not & the initial data set was wrong.
It’s a bit like it was BAD when it turned out counting of testing wasn’t right but then corrected. This is GOOD as again it was incorrect and the new data proves we were controlling it far better. In addition it helps understand what different elements and types of locking down social distancing closed schools had on the virus.
Can I ask why you asked this question - as clearly it’s a question that only someone who wouldn’t agree would raise (or have no comprehension whatsoever I’m assuming it’s the former).
What you appear to have posted suggests our understanding of the virus' spread was wildly inaccurate, leading to a harsher lockdown than was necessary, causing billions of pounds of unnecessary economic damage, whilst doing nothing to alter the fact our health and economic response has been one of the worst on the planet.
And you characterise this as 'good' news?
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Does it change the death rate/number or the economic harm caused by the lockdown?
What you appear to have posted suggests our understanding of the virus' spread was wildly inaccurate, leading to a harsher lockdown than was necessary, causing billions of pounds of unnecessary economic damage, whilst doing nothing to alter the fact our health and economic response has been one of the worst on the planet.
And you characterise this as 'good' news?
No as everyone against the govt keeps pointing out we had the 2nd highest death rate despite the lockdown the sWhat you appear to have posted suggests our understanding of the virus' spread was wildly inaccurate, leading to a harsher lockdown than was necessary, causing billions of pounds of unnecessary economic damage, whilst doing nothing to alter the fact our health and economic response has been one of the worst on the planet.
And you characterise this as 'good' news?
thole of Europe It proves the methods used worked rather well.
As you say worst on the planet - that’s lies & it’s become more and more evident that the U.K. have had far more widespread infections that other comparable countries so our deaths per 100,000 is better.
Unlike Italy (who do have a better healthcare system than the U.K.) they failed they overran their healthcare - U.K. didn’t and didn’t even get remotely close.
Stop bashing your country young man don’t pedal mucky narratives.
I bet you might be one who back in 2012 was really shouty about the double dip recession but then when the numbers were revised and no such thing happened you were silent or went Look panda there and vanish.... say no more young man.
Welshbeef said:
No as everyone against the govt keeps pointing out we had the 2nd highest death rate despite the lockdown the sthole of Europe
It proves the methods used worked rather well.
As you say worst on the planet - that’s lies & it’s become more and more evident that the U.K. have had far more widespread infections that other comparable countries so our deaths per 100,000 is better.
Unlike Italy (who do have a better healthcare system than the U.K.) they failed they overran their healthcare - U.K. didn’t and didn’t even get remotely close.
Stop bashing your country young man don’t pedal mucky narratives.
I bet you might be one who back in 2012 was really shouty about the double dip recession but then when the numbers were revised and no such thing happened you were silent or went Look panda there and vanish.... say no more young man.
Bit early for a drink isn't it?thole of Europe It proves the methods used worked rather well.
As you say worst on the planet - that’s lies & it’s become more and more evident that the U.K. have had far more widespread infections that other comparable countries so our deaths per 100,000 is better.
Unlike Italy (who do have a better healthcare system than the U.K.) they failed they overran their healthcare - U.K. didn’t and didn’t even get remotely close.
Stop bashing your country young man don’t pedal mucky narratives.
I bet you might be one who back in 2012 was really shouty about the double dip recession but then when the numbers were revised and no such thing happened you were silent or went Look panda there and vanish.... say no more young man.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Welshbeef said:
As you say worst on the planet - that’s lies
I didn't say it was the worst. Let's not even talk about the irony of a drunken world champion grade liar wrongly accusing someone else of lying.
I suggest you turn off the shouty left and focus on a balanced perspective. I’m guessing you were not in intensive care with covid? Whereas we know Boris was have some respect.
otolith said:
Ritalin to the rescue!Welshbeef said:
Can I ask why you asked this question - as clearly it’s a question that only someone who wouldn’t agree would raise (or have no comprehension whatsoever I’m assuming it’s the former).
No, there is no agenda behind my question. It's just that I didn't entirely understand the significance of the report in question and wasn't sure whether it was 'good news' or 'bad news'. (Although hasten to add that simply categorising things into good and bad is rarely helpful.)Thanks for the explanation.
2Btoo said:
No, there is no agenda behind my question. It's just that I didn't entirely understand the significance of the report in question and wasn't sure whether it was 'good news' or 'bad news'. (Although hasten to add that simply categorising things into good and bad is rarely helpful.)
Thanks for the explanation.
Was 0.7-1.1 corrected down to 0.57. Thanks for the explanation.
2Btoo said:
Welshbeef said:
Can I ask why you asked this question - as clearly it’s a question that only someone who wouldn’t agree would raise (or have no comprehension whatsoever I’m assuming it’s the former).
No, there is no agenda behind my question. It's just that I didn't entirely understand the significance of the report in question and wasn't sure whether it was 'good news' or 'bad news'. (Although hasten to add that simply categorising things into good and bad is rarely helpful.)Thanks for the explanation.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How do we get daily cases down from their stubborn 600-800 per day? If face masks can drop it down it might mean either no big winter spike OR the possibility of dropping this request.
Sorry to hear about the wedding plans hopefully it can happen as you both want as soon as possible.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff