fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yep. Middle super output area. Usually about 10k in population
Yep. Middle super output area. Usually about 10k in populationWhat is MSOA? Is it just a way of dividing the country up into chunks with each having roughly the same population?
How are they pinpointing exactly where people got it without reliable testing or tracing in place? Be interesting to know the methodology in use.
For example person A goes to work in an office, then stops at the supermarket on the way home, picks up a takeaway from a restaurant and takes it home to a house shared with his family. Later on goes to the pub and when that shuts at 10pm back to his mates house. How are PHE determining where he became infected when he tests positive?
Is she a reliable source? Her twitter feed looks fairly sane.
How are they pinpointing exactly where people got it without reliable testing or tracing in place? Be interesting to know the methodology in use.
For example person A goes to work in an office, then stops at the supermarket on the way home, picks up a takeaway from a restaurant and takes it home to a house shared with his family. Later on goes to the pub and when that shuts at 10pm back to his mates house. How are PHE determining where he became infected when he tests positive?
Stop trying to change peoples opinions with evidencei know we’ve talked about it, but this article is a good overview of the criticisms of that “Declaration” saying end lockdown and the science behind it (or not).
There is no ‘scientific divide’ over herd immunity
There’s a lot of talk of scientists divided over Covid-19, but when you look at the evidence any so-called divide starts to evaporatewww.wired.co.uk
Has killed three times as many people in the U.K. this year as influenza and pneumonia combined.
Stop trying to change peoples opinions with evidence
It’s a decent article but the problem with all of this is there is little strong scientific evidence for a lot of what’s happening and the decisions being made here and elsewhere in the world, albeit our collective knowledge is improving rapidly.
We still don’t know about immunity, which will have a huge bearing on something like the Barrington Declaration or what the impact of lockdowns will be on peoples health (mental and physical - people missing operations, screenings etc) and kids in relation to missed schooling and their own mental health. I don’t want to even think of the potential financial and health implications of 100,000s or millions of redundancies which are could take place and will be further accentuated by additional lockdowns.
Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account, however, unfortunately insufficient time has past to prove or disprove the various theories, so in the meantime we’ll have to accept (hopefully calculated) trial and error.
Is she a reliable source? Her twitter feed looks fairly sane.
Wonder what they mean by "Not feasible to go 'shield vulnerable'", presumably that there's too many people in that group as it looks like over half the population. Good guidance would be fantastic. Between the mixed messages from our government and the lack of trust in them its hard to believe a lot of what they come out with. Perfect example in PMQs today, Johnson was asked for the science behind the 10pm pub closing and had no answer.
One tweet of hers in particular hit home for me, "Receiving notes from those w/ risk factors (asthma, overweight, hypertension, cancer survivors, diabetes) or elderly who are saddened by their lives being portrayed as worthless (ie acceptable loss, would die anyways).".
Yet is anticipated to be less dangerous to under 35s than those diseases
Under 35s also share houses / workspaces etc with people far over 35, too...But there are more cases of them suffering from 'Long Covid' with fatigue and pain after the infection which was asymptomatic. As I suggested ages ago it needs to be more considered what the long term effects might be over the months and years. It's all very well knowing a young person isn't likely to die from Covid but if they then have years of ill health ahead of them as a consequence that's arguably even worse. The effect on their mental and physical health and the cost to the NHS of caring/treating this will dwarf any benefits of letting things carry on largely as normal for those who're younger.
Saying 'young people are largely unaffected so should be allowed to catch the disease' is a massively short-sighted and irresponsible position.
Under 35s also share houses / workspaces etc with people far over 35, too...
That must be a joke.The mindset of the people who question what "the real truth" is and think its all a scam to control them is nuts
I still take the virus seriously, but I must say, something still doesn't add up about this.
Whenever I question the death numbers people seem to get very defensive.
Piers Morgan shared a graph today and it was meant to paint a picture of how deadly it was, but again it showed deaths and nearly all were in 65+ or with underlying health conditions.
You can understand the frustration and complacency from a lot of people. The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.
It’s a decent article but the problem with all of this is there is little strong scientific evidence for a lot of what’s happening and the decisions being made here and elsewhere in the world, albeit our collective knowledge is improving rapidly.
We still don’t know about immunity, which will have a huge bearing on something like the Barrington Declaration or what the impact of lockdowns will be on peoples health (mental and physical - people missing operations, screenings etc) and kids in relation to missed schooling and their own mental health. I don’t want to even think of the potential financial and health implications of 100,000s or millions of redundancies which are could take place and will be further accentuated by additional lockdowns.
Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account, however, unfortunately insufficient time has past to prove or disprove the various theories, so in the meantime we’ll have to accept (hopefully calculated) trial and error.
Restricting doesn't automatically result in negative mental health. It can also have a negative affect on peoples' mental health when their opportunity to avoid situations they feel uncomfortable in is taken away from them. There can also be a negative the affect on older members of society when they can no longer receive visits from family because of the lack of restrictions elsewhere.This is what I don't get- how is it so hard to get it through to people that it is a highly contagious condition?
This is completely false- Science does not have mixed views on how to best deal with COVID. Its the various sets of people with their competing interests that are coming out with different interpretations of the science.
Such patience. The guy is a complete fruit loopThe mindset of the people who question what "the real truth" is and think its all a scam to control them is nuts
Replace immunity and mental health with human activity and natural fluctuations and your post could have been from a climate skeptic. It’s a well trodden tactic to invent or magnify a divide that doesn’t really exist and cast enough doubt to follow the policy wanted.
I think that you're right. It certainly makes no sense to moan about being offered information about getting a test.That must be a joke.
What percentage of the population do you think are over 65 and / or have underlying health conditions?The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.
This is completely false- Science does not have mixed views on how to best deal with COVID. Its the various sets of people with their competing interests that are coming out with different interpretations of the science.
Exactly. There's so many unknowns with this. There was a study I saw from the University of Texas last month that suggested some children who had been asymptomatic are now showing signs of MIS-C with damage to the heart so severe they will need lifelong treatment. Yet people will happily tell you kids don't get symptoms so no problem with schools being open.There's more to it than 'do you die or not?'. Long term implications are largely unknown but cases of young people being affected by fatigue etc after the infection are being known. They could have decades of poor health, inability to work and even premature death due to it. Is that not worthy of consideration?
I also find it a bit callous that over 65 and vulnerable/underlying conditions are almost seem as 'acceptable losses'. Some of those dying may have had decades of healthy life left. Why shouldn't they be thought of as meaningful people? They're not because they're the sectors least likely to be adding to the economy or taking more out in benefits/pensions etc and that is what matters to those in power - can we make money from you? If not you're an irrelevance.
Likewise. Everybody in my immediate family has an underlying condition, I think.The underlying conditions thing is really getting to me. I have two things that would be classed as underlying conditions however I've only had 2 days sick off work in the last 15 years so hardly at deaths door, and they are both things that with about 24 months left of treatment will be completely eliminated. Yet now I'm considered expendable.
firstly you’ve misquoted me ‘Although the article plays it down a little, Science does have mixed views on Covid and how best deal with it, taking all wider considerations into account’
The final part of the sentence being most relevant (Id detailed a couple of the wider considerations above ie schooling, redundancies, physical and mental health etc)
How is completely false ?! Yes, there are similar approaches but they are also some differing views....of the top of my head:
Germany - allowing limited fans to return to games
France - up to recently allowing outdoor gatherings up to 5k (I think)
Sweden - maintaining allowing gatherings up to 50 people throughout and schools open (from memory making over 12s or 14s wear masks as there is a higher risk of transmission/contagion)
Exactly. There's so many unknowns with this. There was a study I saw from the University of Texas last month that suggested some children who had been asymptomatic are now showing signs of MIS-C with damage to the heart so severe they will need lifelong treatment. Yet people will happily tell you kids don't get symptoms so no problem with schools being open.
The underlying conditions thing is really getting to me. I have two things that would be classed as underlying conditions however I've only had 2 days sick off work in the last 15 years so hardly at deaths door, and they are both things that with about 24 months left of treatment will be completely eliminated. Yet now I'm considered expendable.
Likewise. Everybody in my immediate family has an underlying condition, I think.
But the thing is, high risk shifts according to what's being driven at.there should be increased/focussed protection for those at higher risk
I think, tbf, it's lack of awareness. I'll safely say at the beginning of this I was all for carrying on as normal, and riding it out. More information emerges, however, that suggests that's not the right approach - no matter what the outliers and hope-seekers claim otherwise.You don't realise how truly selfish/ shortsighted some people really are until something like this happens.
So what if its only killing the majority of elderly, they have been the backbone of this country for years, unless your selfish as fuck have some respect.I still take the virus seriously, but I must say, something still doesn't add up about this.
Whenever I question the death numbers people seem to get very defensive.
Piers Morgan shared a graph today and it was meant to paint a picture of how deadly it was, but again it showed deaths and nearly all were in 65+ or with underlying health conditions.
You can understand the frustration and complacency from a lot of people. The death rates in under 65s and without underlying health conditions are so low they are almost insignificant. Something about this is well off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?