Jump to content

Coronavirus


Henry

Recommended Posts

Just now, DelMonte said:

You can care about your fellow citizens in another way though. 

A lot of people think there is more danger from the consequences of lockdown rather than the virus itself. Its a perfectly reasonable argument. 

Totally is. I agree with you and wasn't disagreeing. I was Merely responding to what Poodler had said. 

Link to comment

10 minutes ago, Parklife said:

No, it's not. However your post seems to imply that anyone who's adhering to any of the guidelines is doing so solely because they're told to. When that is not the case either. 

There's a plenty things in life that can't be proven. Especially negatives. There's plenty evidence that good hand hygiene and wearing of coverings can reduce the spread/risk of spread. No one is claiming that they will eliminate the spread. 

We all want to get on with our lives. 

We all have to be able to look ourselves in the mirror at the end of the day. You don't want to care about anyone else, that's fine. If you're happy with that, then there's little anyone can do to change that. Most people are not like that though. Most people do care about their fellow citizens. 

I am being deliberately obtuse but the point stands 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Parklife said:

No, it's not. However your post seems to imply that anyone who's adhering to any of the guidelines is doing so solely because they're told to. When that is not the case either. 

There's a plenty things in life that can't be proven. Especially negatives. There's plenty evidence that good hand hygiene and wearing of coverings can reduce the spread/risk of spread. No one is claiming that they will eliminate the spread. 

We all want to get on with our lives. 

We all have to be able to look ourselves in the mirror at the end of the day. You don't want to care about anyone else, that's fine. If you're happy with that, then there's little anyone can do to change that. Most people are not like that though. Most people do care about their fellow citizens. 

The tinhat weirdos with their "Masks do nothing" mentality do my head in.  Why then do we all put a hand to our mouth and nose when sneezing/coughing? It's to stop the germs from SPREADING. It's simple physics. The mask is simply a way to stop the virus from spraying out when people are talking / breathing.  Nobody has ever said that it's 100% effective, but it's about reducing the risk. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, StandFree1982 said:

The tinhat weirdos with their "Masks do nothing" mentality do my head in.  Why then do we all put a hand to our mouth and nose when sneezing/coughing? It's to stop the germs from SPREADING. It's simple physics. The mask is simply a way to stop the virus from spraying out when people are talking / breathing.  Nobody has ever said that it's 100% effective, but it's about reducing the risk. 

It's not physics surely? 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Parklife said:

I know someone experiencing similar. A 32 year old woman with no underlying health issues. Pretty similar to the story there actually. 

I work with someone who has had it. His lungs are still a bit iffy at the moment.

 

The woman in the link that manboobs provided is at it though make no mistake about it.

 

Obvious from the photos of her.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Not having a pop Parky but the lady in that story does have an underlying respiratory condition. 

Yeah. I did almost add "apart from the asthma" but I felt it would be superfluous given I'd already said the person I know has no underlying issues. 

Just now, cheesepipes said:

You would enjoy a hot dose(black mans sperm) of physics up your resistance(anal canal). 

Thanks for the recommendation. I've never tried it but if you have and are recommending it, I'm sure it's ace. You are breaking the "what happens in Africa, stays in Africa" code though. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Guest the shepherd
20 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Not having a pop Parky but the lady in that story does have an underlying respiratory condition. 

Not an underlying condition min, she had been already diagnosed with asthma.

An underlying condition relates to a condition which has yet to be investigated, identified and diagnosed by a certified medical professional.

With having asthma, she is/was classed as being "clinically, extremely vulnerable", therefore being more at risk and susceptible of catching symptoms of the virus, or the virus itself. 

As for having a go at the parademics for allegedly "refusing to enter her property" to attend to her, fucking classless. 

I am sure the money she'll receive from the BBC and other media outlets, describing her "plight", will soften the blow.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, the shepherd said:

Not an underlying condition min, she had been already diagnosed with asthma.

An underlying condition relates to a condition which has yet to be investigated, identified and diagnosed by a certified medical professional

Nope. 
 

An underlying health condition is a chronic or long-term illness, which in turn weakens the immune system. "This refers to a medical problem that is usually chronic or significant, and which usually requires long-term treatment," Dr Henderson says.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

I thought underlying meant the same as pre-existing which complicated and worsened the reaction to Covid19?  Happy to be corrected if Im wrong. 

Correct.

Bit of a stange article that, states that around 300k have reported long lasting symptoms from covid. The UK's total figure for cases is just under 400k. Not denying the existance of 'long-covid' but 75% of all sufferers? Something doesnt sit right with paramedics telling someone in respiratory distress its not worth their time because they're young. ?

Yesterdays Valance and Whitty double act was a complete shambles. How are they coming to the conclusions that they are? A quick look at the French and Spanish figures that they refferred to showed no such doubling trend. They seem to be at odds with the actual 'science' they puport to follow. No-one was allowed to question them either which is quite telling.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

I learned my first something today, thanks to the Shepherd's post. Like you, when they were speaking about "underlying conditions" six months ago, I assumed they were talking about pre-existing, and in some cases, they probably meant pre-existing. But they are two different things. The conditions may be identical but the underlying v. pre-existing distinction is applied based on the diagnosis, the former not known when treatment is first applied, the latter being known. The clue should've been in the English language and the definition of the word "underlying", under being not yet determined from a medical point of view. 

In that case I'll blame the media for consistently using the term 'underlying' when referring to pre diagnosed conditions.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, thedandydon said:

Correct.

Bit of a stange article that, states that around 300k have reported long lasting symptoms from covid. The UK's total figure for cases is just under 400k. Not denying the existance of 'long-covid' but 75% of all sufferers? 

I'd imagine it's going by suspected and confirmed cases. Only a small percentage of people who've had Covid will have been tested. 400k as a percentage of the UK would be 0.006% of the population. However serology studies show the likely infection rate closer to 5% (which would be around 3.25m)

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment

If underlying health conditions refer to conditions that haven't been diagnosed, then how can those with serious underlying conditions that they don't know they have be advised as per below!? Lolz
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51997151

When lockdown began, certain people were advised to take extra steps - or shield - to avoid contracting Covid-19, because they were considered more at risk of needing hospital treatment. 

Shielding has now been paused everywhere in the UK, except in some parts of England where infection rates remain higher. 

Why is shielding ending?

Infection levels in the community are generally now much lower than they were a few months ago, so the risk of exposure is significantly less than it has been.

People will no longer have to "stay at home" and follow shielding guidelines , although they are advised to take particular care when outside, and maintain strict social distancing. 

Do I have to stop shielding?

For some people this will be welcome news, while others will be understandably anxious.

Shielding was never compulsory and it is still your choice to decide what you are comfortable about doing - you may still want to spend a lot of time at home, for example. 

If possible, take things at your own pace and talk through any worries you have. 

The relaxation of the rules allows those who have been shielding to see more people, enjoy the summer and be more active. 

Experts strongly advise people with serious underlying health conditions to follow social distancing recommendations - keep 2m away from other people outside your home and, whenever possible, limit the number of people you meet, shops you visit, and non-essential journeys.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Parklife said:

I'd imagine it's going by suspected and confirmed cases. Only a small percentage of people who've had Covid will have been tested. 400k as a percentage of the UK would be 0.006% of the population. However serology studies show the likely infection rate closer to 5% (which would be around 3.25m)

You need a calculator

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, thedandydon said:

Correct.

Bit of a stange article that, states that around 300k have reported long lasting symptoms from covid. The UK's total figure for cases is just under 400k. Not denying the existance of 'long-covid' but 75% of all sufferers? Something doesnt sit right with paramedics telling someone in respiratory distress its not worth their time because they're young. ?

Yesterdays Valance and Whitty double act was a complete shambles. How are they coming to the conclusions that they are? A quick look at the French and Spanish figures that they refferred to showed no such doubling trend. They seem to be at odds with the actual 'science' they puport to follow. No-one was allowed to question them either which is quite telling.

The tide is turning amongst the MSM on this one now. Andrew Neil got ripped into them today.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Good to hear. Neil is a love hate figure. I love that sometimes he has courage. I hate that he sometimes he licks arse. Most of all I hate his lack of humility and how he thinks he's right all the time. So yeah, he's an arse. 

Named in the flight logs to ol Epos island.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...