PH wrote:The argument that we're being lied to by the WHO and all the scientific evidence behind it, I am going to dismiss as <Whatever word the mods want to remove> Whilst I normally laugh at such conspiracy theories,
I just want to pick up on that quickly in case it applied to me: personally I don't believe that we are being lied to by anyone and I have no interest in conspiracy theories whatsoever. The experts do disagree with each other (and sometimes even experts get it wrong) but that doesn't mean that one side is lying. Frankly, I'm deeply impressed with both the government and human response to this pandemic. And as regards the medics, words are not enough. I disagree with the current official view of the virus but I think we are still allowed to do that.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
horizon wrote:The experts do disagree with each other (and sometimes even experts get it wrong)
I will keep pulling you up on this - the vast majority of experts broadly agree. Those experts that question it are in a small minority. That doesn't stop you thinking they're right, but you shouldn't present it as if the expert opinion is balanced, it is not.
It's one thing harbouring some doubts about both medical and scientific advice and the political response. It's quite something else to gleefully and publicly disregard that advice.
Apologies for the Daily Mail link, but for the first time I can remember, this sounds almost like like a non scaremongering / positive story from them.
horizon wrote:The experts do disagree with each other (and sometimes even experts get it wrong)
I will keep pulling you up on this - the vast majority of experts broadly agree. Those experts that question it are in a small minority. That doesn't stop you thinking they're right, but you shouldn't present it as if the expert opinion is balanced, it is not.
There are absolutely no experts who agree with horizon in any way whatever.
The forum continues to be used as a platform for misinformation and pseudoscience.
horizon wrote:The experts do disagree with each other (and sometimes even experts get it wrong)
I will keep pulling you up on this - the vast majority of experts broadly agree. Those experts that question it are in a small minority. That doesn't stop you thinking they're right, but you shouldn't present it as if the expert opinion is balanced, it is not.
There are absolutely no experts who agree with horizon in any way whatever.
The forum continues to be used as a platform for misinformation and pseudoscience.
At this time, that's appalling.
One fears that we're about to see the world's largest test of this if Trump is allowed to press on with his 'reopening'.
horizon wrote:The experts do disagree with each other (and sometimes even experts get it wrong)
I will keep pulling you up on this - the vast majority of experts broadly agree. Those experts that question it are in a small minority. That doesn't stop you thinking they're right, but you shouldn't present it as if the expert opinion is balanced, it is not.
There are absolutely no experts who agree with horizon in any way whatever.
The forum continues to be used as a platform for misinformation and pseudoscience.
At this time, that's appalling.
You aren't one of the 'no platform' brigade are you?
Don't be concerned on my account. Just like you I am able to read something without instantly believing it.
Never thought I'd DM link (from BBC news round up, not direct, honest), but I also have been wondering about this:
"Stephen Glover uses his column in the Mail to question the price the young will have to pay once the UK is through the pandemic.
He says the government's wage assurances will mean "years of austerity" that will make the last decade look like a "minor irritant".
He asks: "Is it right that in order to save the lives of mostly elderly people the future lives of millions should be devastated?""
Why "save" me at an immense cost over many years to my and all others' children and grandchildren?
For the more scientifically minded, why are some cases "mild", even in over 70s and others not? I have seen reference to "viral load". If one gets only a small "helping" at a time can the system cope better than if a mass exposure at say the football match in Italy being pin-pointed by some researchers as a major trigger? All pretty academic to me, I still expect to die even if I keep clean for next 3 - 12 weeks.
djnotts wrote:Never thought I'd DM link (from BBC news round up, not direct, honest), but I also have been wondering about this:
"Stephen Glover uses his column in the Mail to question the price the young will have to pay once the UK is through the pandemic.
He says the government's wage assurances will mean "years of austerity" that will make the last decade look like a "minor irritant".
He asks: "Is it right that in order to save the lives of mostly elderly people the future lives of millions should be devastated?""
Why "save" me at an immense cost over many years to my and all others' children and grandchildren?
For the more scientifically minded, why are some cases "mild", even in over 70s and others not? I have seen reference to "viral load". If one gets only a small "helping" at a time can the system cope better than if a mass exposure at say the football match in Italy being pin-pointed by some researchers as a major trigger? All pretty academic to me, I still expect to die even if I keep clean for next 3 - 12 weeks.
I got banned from a forum for saying pretty much what those people said. I still agree with them.
I was half listening to R4 yesterday evening. A doctor / expert / somebody was commenting on the experiences of the Italian & other health services and the potential to greatly inform appropriate treatment in the UK.
The above, non-intrusive, ventilator type were cited as giving much better result than the invasive ( intubation ) & induced coma ICU ventilator usage in Italy.
I hope that the powers-that-be are aware of this seemingly important piece of info ( and will evaluate accordingly ) . . . .. before ordering X-million of the other type.
djnotts wrote:URGENT. Anyone else just received a text msg saying "You must follow Govt advice and stay at home. You may receive more detailed advice re your health condition soon. Visit http://www.nhs.uk"
I assume that this is for the 12 weeks category, altho' previously said letter first. And been feeling pretty good - 150 miles in last 5 days best for years! Going to get damn hungry....
It's a message to everyone with a mobile number. I have received two to different phones. Am not in a high risk category.
djnotts wrote:Never thought I'd DM link (from BBC news round up, not direct, honest), but I also have been wondering about this:
"Stephen Glover uses his column in the Mail to question the price the young will have to pay once the UK is through the pandemic.
He says the government's wage assurances will mean "years of austerity" that will make the last decade look like a "minor irritant".
He asks: "Is it right that in order to save the lives of mostly elderly people the future lives of millions should be devastated?""
Why "save" me at an immense cost over many years to my and all others' children and grandchildren?
For the more scientifically minded, why are some cases "mild", even in over 70s and others not? I have seen reference to "viral load". If one gets only a small "helping" at a time can the system cope better than if a mass exposure at say the football match in Italy being pin-pointed by some researchers as a major trigger? All pretty academic to me, I still expect to die even if I keep clean for next 3 - 12 weeks.
I got banned from a forum for saying pretty much what those people said. I still agree with them.
I heard that. It's harsh, uncharitable at best, but in the final analysis, accurate.
My brother in law thankfully recovered. His mother in law was not so fortunate. Of course, some will say - perhaps on these pages even - that she would have died anyway.
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?
But she would not have died alone except surrounded by medical staff in spacemen outfits. Her family would have been there. Most of them will not be able to attend a funeral which will not include a church service and she was a dedicated church person.
djnotts wrote:Never thought I'd DM link (from BBC news round up, not direct, honest), but I also have been wondering about this:
"Stephen Glover uses his column in the Mail to question the price the young will have to pay once the UK is through the pandemic.
He says the government's wage assurances will mean "years of austerity" that will make the last decade look like a "minor irritant".
He asks: "Is it right that in order to save the lives of mostly elderly people the future lives of millions should be devastated?""
Why "save" me at an immense cost over many years to my and all others' children and grandchildren?
For the more scientifically minded, why are some cases "mild", even in over 70s and others not? I have seen reference to "viral load". If one gets only a small "helping" at a time can the system cope better than if a mass exposure at say the football match in Italy being pin-pointed by some researchers as a major trigger? All pretty academic to me, I still expect to die even if I keep clean for next 3 - 12 weeks.
I got banned from a forum for saying pretty much what those people said. I still agree with them.
I heard that. It's harsh, uncharitable at best, but in the final analysis, accurate.
All the more reason to moderate our behaviour and limit transmission wherever possible.
