|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 4, 2020 12:29:36 GMT
I was abducted by some aliens from Andromeda. It never stopped yesterday.  |
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Apr 4, 2020 13:58:04 GMT
Well, that explains quite a lot. Keep taking the medication, WC. Remember, you will get better eventually.  I'm afraid it might be too late. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Apr 5, 2020 9:56:59 GMT
This is totally different to normal flu. Normal flu does not kill previously fit and healthy people by making it impossible for them to breathe. An absolutely awful death where your relatives can't even be by your side. Does wicked cricket really think this is a snowflake over-reaction? We have been told- 'No intervention 100,000+ lives lost. Intervention hopefully keeps it below 20,000. Or maybe we should just carry on, and hope we aren't one of the extra 80,000. With regard to footballers- It has been suggested the reason some clubs won't cut their pay is because it might (stress might) count as a form of breach of contract, making them free to go elsewhere (presumably with no transfer fee) so clubs are keen to hang on to star players and not give them a get out clause. 80% of pay should be fine for most people. Just think of all the money saved not going to theatres and cinemas, pubs and restaurants, petrol saved not driving to and from work, money saved not travelling to and from football matches etc, etc. Normal flu does kill fit & healthy people, without a vaccine. This is a normal flu, without a vaccine - which makes it more deadly. The numbers out there don't relate to the healthy and are warnings to the vulnerable. We have 40,000 confirmed cases and 4000 deaths, that means one in ten vulnerable people are dying of Covid, because we only test the hospitalised. There is or will be millions of people who have/had or will have Covid but aren't tested because they're not hospitalised. Keep an eye on Sweden's numbers. I think they're locking up the vulnerable and telling everyone else to crack on, but sensibly. Pretty sure bars and stuff are still open and importantly, the economy is moving. Be interesting to see if they stick to that and how it goes. Regards Professor Fraudskin |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 11, 2020 13:35:55 GMT
This is totally different to normal flu. Normal flu does not kill previously fit and healthy people by making it impossible for them to breathe. An absolutely awful death where your relatives can't even be by your side. Does wicked cricket really think this is a snowflake over-reaction? We have been told- 'No intervention 100,000+ lives lost. Intervention hopefully keeps it below 20,000. Or maybe we should just carry on, and hope we aren't one of the extra 80,000. With regard to footballers- It has been suggested the reason some clubs won't cut their pay is because it might (stress might) count as a form of breach of contract, making them free to go elsewhere (presumably with no transfer fee) so clubs are keen to hang on to star players and not give them a get out clause. 80% of pay should be fine for most people. Just think of all the money saved not going to theatres and cinemas, pubs and restaurants, petrol saved not driving to and from work, money saved not travelling to and from football matches etc, etc. Normal flu does kill fit & healthy people, without a vaccine. This is a normal flu, without a vaccine - which makes it more deadly. The numbers out there don't relate to the healthy and are warnings to the vulnerable. We have 40,000 confirmed cases and 4000 deaths, that means one in ten vulnerable people are dying of Covid, because we only test the hospitalised. There is or will be millions of people who have/had or will have Covid but aren't tested because they're not hospitalised. Keep an eye on Sweden's numbers. I think they're locking up the vulnerable and telling everyone else to crack on, but sensibly. Pretty sure bars and stuff are still open and importantly, the economy is moving. Be interesting to see if they stick to that and how it goes.Regards Professor Fraudskin Sweden is now having second thoughts . . . www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52252981?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5e91b6887be36106694df4a2%26Sweden%20has%20not%20done%20enough%2C%20admits%20PM%262020-04-11T12%3A30%3A19.058Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:dd0063aa-a35e-4661-9180-c51989803d1f&pinned_post_asset_id=5e91b6887be36106694df4a2&pinned_post_type=share |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 12, 2020 11:59:22 GMT
What has really disappointed me is that nobody in the government is questioning the scientific information to check the validity of some of the claims being made. If we are heading for more deaths than Italy and Spain one has to question the quality of the advice being given. The latest scientific claim is that you can catch coronavirus through farting! How many of the deaths are due to pre-existing medical conditions? How many relate to people over the age of 70? Is this act of economic self-harm justified given the evidence available?
My conclusion from my own extensive research that I have undertaken is to lock up the vulnerable and at risk groups and let everyone else return to work. What is the alternative? Wait for a vaccination which might be eighteen months away. This is simply not an option where people need to work to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their heads. The government certainly cannot afford to subside businesses for the next eighteen months. A massive reality check is needed. Every year about 600,000 people die in the uk! It seems that due to the media fueled hysteria, the only person in the UK who hasn’t died of CV19 is Honor Blackman. This narrative has to change, it has to change by the end of this coming week. A&E numbers are actually down! GP visits are now able to be managed far more effectively it would seem with the public willing to accept, due to fear, a change in circumstances. The advisors to government are loving the limelight. We need perspective back, people petrified to leave their homes, it’s not healthy. The media is not providing balanced reporting, the questions posed in the daily briefing are dire. 99% of UK cases have co-existing diseases. (ONS) 79.2 is av age of death. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to work out keep vulnerable at home and let everyone else work. I've been looking at the ONS figures for deaths. In the week ending 27 March there were 282 deaths in the 15-44 age group. Of which 6 were linked to COVID-19 - but this is not what killed them, necessarily. But people fixate on the 6 deaths not the other 276. Its pathetic. Oh and total deaths for 2020 up to 27 March were running BELOW the 5 year average. Furloughing is costing the UK economy £16bn a month. Why are companies like McDonalds, Arcadia, Amazon, Google and Virgin being allowed to furlough? It should have been restricted to companies with fewer than 250 employees. A lot of the companies mentioned pay little or no tax and ships large sums of money offshore to avoid tax. The one benefit of leaving the EU is that we will be able to close these loopholes. We will have to pay this back in the forthcoming years! People need to return to work by 1st June at the latest. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 12, 2020 12:57:07 GMT
CP - you say: "My conclusion from my own extensive research that I have undertaken is to lock up the vulnerable and at risk groups and let everyone else return to work."
Just a few comments:
1. It might be difficult to define "at risk groups". The PM, in his 50s, nearly died without underlying health problems ("UHP"). BAME citizens appear to be more vulnerable. How do you define a relevant UHP? Diabetes? Hay Fever? We don't know enough about this virus to be able to judge who is really vulnerable. And there must be degrees of vulnerability, surely?
2. Even if we identify all those "at risk" we'll find that many, if not most, do not live alone, and their household would also have to be "locked up" under your strategy? Only those households where no member is defined as "at risk" could be free to go back to normal. Do we know what proportion that would be? As the non-risk people would presumably not be abiding by any distancing rules, it would not be safe for any of the at risk households to venture out at all!
3. Would those deemed by the government not to be at risk be obliged to return to normal, and stand a very high risk of contracting the virus. Under this regime, we don't know how many would succumb (bearing in mind no separation rules), how many they would further infect, how many would prove to be serious, and what effect all this would have on the NHS.
4. Would you be happy to see your loved ones risk going out and catching the virus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 12, 2020 13:13:57 GMT
Cv, Good post and one I mostly agree with. To find the true answers, I suggest you need to start researching on the fringes of intellectual thought, perhaps, where such questions are covered and discussed in a more expansive way. While the mainstream media refer to anyone who does not accept their narrow and controlling mainstream answers as "a conspiracist", more and more inquisitive minds are raising the two fingered salute and taking a far broader path. As an example, the leader of conspiracist thinkers, David Icke, released a two hour video this week where he was interviewed by a leading online TV company. He discussed everything from 'the sham of the coronavirus debate' to 5G and its effects and dangers of weakening the immune system, particularly amongst the elderly etc... and sounding out what many are thinking. That the virus was created for one main purpose... to destroy the world economy, especially America's. Within two days the video had been watched by over 2 million people and, not surprisingly, it was then censored and banned by both Youtube and Vimeo. Fortunately, other ways have been found of watching/listening to it, primarily as an audio file, so in the last 4 days, the interview has gone viral around the world and numbers of viewers/listeners are now closing in on 10 million where non-speaking English countries like Chile and others are having Icke's words translated into their own language. Keeping an open mind is essential in today's increasingly dangerous world. PS: Former Bank of England Chief, Mervyn King, appears to agree with you in part. order-order.com/2020/04/12/mervyn-king-sensible-try-lifting-lockdown-less-risk-groups/ |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Apr 12, 2020 15:12:13 GMT
CP - you say: "My conclusion from my own extensive research that I have undertaken is to lock up the vulnerable and at risk groups and let everyone else return to work."Just a few comments: 1. It might be difficult to define "at risk groups". The PM, in his 50s, nearly died without underlying health problems ("UHP"). BAME citizens appear to be more vulnerable. How do you define a relevant UHP? Diabetes? Hay Fever? We don't know enough about this virus to be able to judge who is really vulnerable. And there must be degrees of vulnerability, surely? 2. Even if we identify all those "at risk" we'll find that many, if not most, do not live alone, and their household would also have to be "locked up" under your strategy? Only those households where no member is defined as "at risk" could be free to go back to normal. Do we know what proportion that would be? As the non-risk people would presumably not be abiding by any distancing rules, it would not be safe for any of the at risk households to venture out at all! 3. Would those deemed by the government not to be at risk be obliged to return to normal, and stand a very high risk of contracting the virus. Under this regime, we don't know how many would succumb (bearing in mind no separation rules), how many they would further infect, how many would prove to be serious, and what effect all this would have on the NHS. 4. Would you be happy to see your loved ones risk going out and catching the virus?
There have only been six coronavirus deaths among the under 45s. Forcing everyone isolate is not the answer. We need a proper risk based approach. I don't think any of the at risk groups should be allowed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Apr 12, 2020 18:38:11 GMT
Which side should we take?
On the one side medical and scientific experts have persuaded almost every government to close normal life down.
On the other we have the expertise of cp and wc (now quoting David Icke - well Trump has now gone to the Dark Side).
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 12, 2020 18:45:38 GMT
CP - you say: "My conclusion from my own extensive research that I have undertaken is to lock up the vulnerable and at risk groups and let everyone else return to work."Just a few comments: 1. It might be difficult to define "at risk groups". The PM, in his 50s, nearly died without underlying health problems ("UHP"). BAME citizens appear to be more vulnerable. How do you define a relevant UHP? Diabetes? Hay Fever? We don't know enough about this virus to be able to judge who is really vulnerable. And there must be degrees of vulnerability, surely? 2. Even if we identify all those "at risk" we'll find that many, if not most, do not live alone, and their household would also have to be "locked up" under your strategy? Only those households where no member is defined as "at risk" could be free to go back to normal. Do we know what proportion that would be? As the non-risk people would presumably not be abiding by any distancing rules, it would not be safe for any of the at risk households to venture out at all! 3. Would those deemed by the government not to be at risk be obliged to return to normal, and stand a very high risk of contracting the virus. Under this regime, we don't know how many would succumb (bearing in mind no separation rules), how many they would further infect, how many would prove to be serious, and what effect all this would have on the NHS. 4. Would you be happy to see your loved ones risk going out and catching the virus?
There have only been six coronavirus deaths among the under 45s. Forcing everyone isolate is not the answer. We need a proper risk based approach. I don't think any of the at risk groups should be allowed out.
I agree we shall need a risk based approach to coming out of the lockdown. Measuring risk in such an unprecedented scenario will, however, be complicated and difficult - I instanced that in my thread above - BTW, how do you react to the points I raised above (1 - 4)? I accept that some folks have a greater appetite for risk than others, and someone has to be the arbiter of the risks to be taken? What if an individual doesn't accept the risk that the arbiter decides they should take? I want to see an end to the lockdown as much as the next person, but it is complicated. Perhaps ask yourself if you're now ready to go out and take the risk of catching the virus. Problem is, you might catch it and then transfer it to umpteen other people. And bear in mind that some carriers are asymptomatic. It's a real nightmare. Remembering that this is a cricket messageboard, leads me to the depressing conclusion that there will be little chance of watching live professional sport this summer. However the lockdown is eased, I can't see anyone authorising "mass gatherings" in a hurry. Hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 12, 2020 18:47:49 GMT
dfl,
It's about keeping an open mind and listening to all sides of the debate.
The bottom line is a very very difficult and challenging decision which
attracts the 'For the Greater Good' phrase.
Do you keep the lockdown for an indefinite time and in the process
save another 150,000+ lives (of which the vast majority would be
aged over 60+ years old) around the world, but in so doing wrecking
the world economy which could nosedive into a deep recession and
destroy many millions of jobs and people's livelihoods, especially the
young, whilst taking many years to recover from or...
If I was youngster (which I am not) I know which side of the argument
I would side with... The 'For the greater good' one.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 12, 2020 19:07:10 GMT
dfl, It's about keeping an open mind and listening to all sides of the debate. The bottom line is a very very difficult and challenging decision which attracts the 'For the Greater Good' phrase. Do you keep the lockdown for an indefinite time and in the process save another 150,000+ lives (of which the vast majority would be aged over 60+ years old) around the world, but in so doing wrecking the world economy which could nosedive into a deep recession and destroy many millions of jobs and people's livelihoods, especially the young, whilst taking many years to recover from or... If I was youngster (which I am not) I know which side of the argument
I would side with... The 'For the greater good' one.I'm with you on that one, WC! Seriously, though - what a socially dangerous policy it would be if the 'old' were seen to be sacrificed for the benefit of the 'young' . . . PS: And what if different countries took differing views on this?? What price globalisation, then? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Apr 12, 2020 22:41:22 GMT
Fb,
As I said some very challenging decisions to be made during the months ahead. Perhaps, each country should hold a snap referendum
on this subject? Although, I can see an agreed consensus forming by a majority of the world's countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmdf on Apr 13, 2020 7:07:42 GMT
Perhaps, each country should hold a snap referendum on this subject? Remind me, did the last referendum we held help matters (like social cohesion) much? |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Apr 13, 2020 8:31:59 GMT
Perhaps, each country should hold a snap referendum on this subject? Remind me, did the last referendum we held help matters (like social cohesion) much? gmdf For the sake of everyone's sanity, I think we should assume that WC had his tongue firmly in his cheek. |
|
