Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:59:04 pm

Login with username, password and session length

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 861146 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11010 on May 15, 2021, 11:40:58 am by Bentley Bullet »
Syderney, I'm also talking about predictability and RD's use of his biased political agenda to judge one's ability in it. My last post was suggesting to him that the party in which his biased agenda supports has given no indication that it would have been any more effective if given the responsibility.



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11011 on May 15, 2021, 11:48:12 am by SydneyRover »
You're quite a funny guy bb, we spoke about the UK response being 16th worst out of 222, or rather I did you, tend to ignore inconvenient truths.

16/222 which means of course the 7th richest (maybe not any longer) country in the world was outdone in it's response by 206 other countries or protectorates or whatever.

Now remind me, you were saying about others not handling the covid crisis.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11012 on May 15, 2021, 12:13:06 pm by Bentley Bullet »
You are using that figure as a biased, one-sided, political agenda based point that is flawed in so many ways if intended as a league table that even someone as biased and one-sided with a political agenda as you would be kidding yourself to ignore.

That post just confirms my point!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 05:23:11 pm by Bentley Bullet »

SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 13585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11013 on May 15, 2021, 12:46:25 pm by SydneyRover »
I rather think it's you that's been floored by the argument Mr Bullet

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8190
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11014 on May 15, 2021, 01:05:54 pm by River Don »
Syderney, I'm also talking about predictability and RD's use of his biased political agenda to judge one's ability in it. My last post was suggesting to him that the party in which his biased agenda supports has given no indication that it would have been any more effective if given the responsibility.

I don't think it's even particularly political. Johnson is just a terrible judge of risk.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8190
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11015 on May 15, 2021, 01:09:55 pm by River Don »
It's easy to be an expert without responsibility. If you think Starmer would have been any more effective in handling the responsibility than he's shown in his piss poor performances in criticising those with it, you really need to give your head a wobble.

I don't know about Starmer but almost anyone would have done a better job. I'd prefer Michael Gove making these decisions right now.

Johnson takes huge risks for little reward. He gains a couple of weeks of semi normality at the risk of seeing an explosion of infections, more deaths and an another enforced extended lock down. We could just hold off and find out more.

It doesn't make sense.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 01:26:48 pm by River Don »

albie

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3611
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11016 on May 15, 2021, 02:41:01 pm by albie »
The most recent SAGE minutes are here, so you can see the science advice for yourself;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-89-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-13-may-2021/sage-89-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-13-may-2021

The issue is about how you manage probability.
Low risk but high consequence outcomes require a different approach to high risk with variable outcomes scenarios.

An upturn from the Indian variant implies increased infection among lower risk groups who remain unvaccinated.....the young!

That group will then act as a reservoir of infection passing on the virus to more vulnerable.
While the number of deaths in consequence may be lower than would have been the case 6 months ago (due to vaccination), there will still be a spike in hospitalisations for the NHS to handle.

There is also long covid to consider.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8190
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11017 on May 15, 2021, 02:45:07 pm by River Don »
 Dominic Cummings was among those calling for caution, sharing a post on social media which said 'the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the roadmap'.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11018 on May 15, 2021, 03:19:30 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Christ, I didn't know Cummings was Tweeting again. I assume that's going to be another maelstrom of "unfiltered interesting stuff that I've just read."

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29203
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11019 on May 15, 2021, 03:26:21 pm by drfchound »
Dominic Cummings was among those calling for caution, sharing a post on social media which said 'the cost of another big wave is much higher than the cost of delaying the next stage of the roadmap'.





Mmmmm. So, as I suggested a few weeks ago, Cummings will now be heralded as saying all the right stuff instead of being someone despised by so many posters on here.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11020 on May 15, 2021, 03:33:05 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Hound.
You don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between Cummings as someone who might have factual evidence on what happened in Government and Cummings as the dangerous, egotistical maniac when it comes to the "vision thing".

It's perfectly possible for him to be both or neither.

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29203
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11021 on May 15, 2021, 03:37:53 pm by drfchound »
Hound.
You don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between Cummings as someone who might have factual evidence on what happened in Government and Cummings as the dangerous, egotistical maniac when it comes to the "vision thing".

It's perfectly possible for him to be both or neither.





Absolutely I can see the difference BST.
However, as I said, in his previous role he was the devil reincarnated whilst now there will be so many people hanging on his every word and the words will be accepted as the truth as long as they incriminate the the government and in particular, Johnson.
Previously almost everything he said was deemed to be an untruth.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11022 on May 15, 2021, 03:49:41 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
It's really simple Hound.

1) Do I believe he is a borderline insane megalomaniac with a sketchy handle on real science? Yes I do because I've read his witterings for years.

2) Do I believe he said that COVID policy in Feb 2020 was "save the economy and if a few old folk die, too bad"? Yes I do because he has never denied it, whereas he goes off like the Tasmanian Devil when he thinks he's been unfairly maligned.

3) Do I think he lied about his Barnard Castle trip to check his eyesight? Yes because I have self respect...

4) Do I believe he is telling the truth that Johnson said that line about bodies piling high? Probably, because it's been independently backed up and I don't see what he has to gain by lying on that point. But I'd reserve judgement until I saw him provide evidence or repeat it under oath at the inquiry.

I really don't get which part of this you think is inconsistent.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11023 on May 15, 2021, 03:52:43 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Interesting read on why the Govt delayed putting India on the Red List.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1393271922595667971

bpoolrover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 5923
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11024 on May 15, 2021, 04:28:24 pm by bpoolrover »
I fail to see how it's hindsight when the results of his actions are predicted. I've lost count of how many times he's not acted quickly enough. At least 6 times probably more.

He got lucky with the decision to send kids back to school when he did. I admit I would have held off for a couple of weeks. What would have been lost? A couple of weeks lost education amongst the weeks and weeks of lost education. Many of the lost weeks due to Boris Johnson inaction that forced longer, more damaging lock downs than might otherwise have been.

His strike rate of getting it right is hopeless. He's a rubbish gambler.
it’s not true that it would have been a couple of weeks thou, most people wanted to hold off them stagger the schools back, meaning many would not go back till mid April after the Easter holidays, then one of the variants of concern would appear and people would then want the kids not to go back till they found out if the vaccine worked against it, so then the Indian variant comes along and the kids don’t end up going back at all, boris took a risk yes based on the data, the data that they put out at the time said they expected numbers to go up a little but not that much, in fact they didn’t really go up at all, is that lucky or is it what they said that would happen?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 04:32:57 pm by bpoolrover »

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29203
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11025 on May 15, 2021, 04:56:24 pm by drfchound »
It's really simple Hound.

1) Do I believe he is a borderline insane megalomaniac with a sketchy handle on real science? Yes I do because I've read his witterings for years.

2) Do I believe he said that COVID policy in Feb 2020 was "save the economy and if a few old folk die, too bad"? Yes I do because he has never denied it, whereas he goes off like the Tasmanian Devil when he thinks he's been unfairly maligned.

3) Do I think he lied about his Barnard Castle trip to check his eyesight? Yes because I have self respect...

4) Do I believe he is telling the truth that Johnson said that line about bodies piling high? Probably, because it's been independently backed up and I don't see what he has to gain by lying on that point. But I'd reserve judgement until I saw him provide evidence or repeat it under oath at the inquiry.

I really don't get which part of this you think is inconsistent.





Where have I said any of what you have just written is inconsistent?

Those things that you have listed are just a list of things that you believe to be true, or untrue, in your opinion.
To be honest, because of your very biased opinion on most political happenings, I am not surprised that you think as you do.


BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11026 on May 15, 2021, 05:34:01 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Hound.
It's hopeless. Utterly hopeless trying to engage with you. I set out evidence for every single opinion I have but you have zero interest in engaging with that. You assume I think as I do because it suits some supposed political agenda.

Where does it come from? This flat refusal to take on an argument on its merits instead of dismissing it because of the supposed agenda of the other person?

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11027 on May 15, 2021, 05:36:04 pm by Bentley Bullet »
It's really simple Hound.

1) Do I believe he is a borderline insane megalomaniac with a sketchy handle on real science? Yes I do because I've read his witterings for years.

2) Do I believe he said that COVID policy in Feb 2020 was "


"? Yes I do because he has never denied it, whereas he goes off like the Tasmanian Devil when he thinks he's been unfairly maligned.

3) Do I think he lied about his Barnard Castle trip to check his eyesight? Yes because I have self respect...

4) Do I believe he is telling the truth that Johnson said that line about bodies piling high? Probably, because it's been independently backed up and I don't see what he has to gain by lying on that point. But I'd reserve judgement until I saw him provide evidence or repeat it under oath at the inquiry.

I really don't get which part of this you think is inconsistent.

Cummings HAS denied he said, "save the economy and if a few old folk die, too bad."
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 06:12:11 pm by Bentley Bullet »

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29203
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11028 on May 15, 2021, 05:41:56 pm by drfchound »
It's really simple Hound.

1) Do I believe he is a borderline insane megalomaniac with a sketchy handle on real science? Yes I do because I've read his witterings for years.

2) Do I believe he said that COVID policy in Feb 2020 was "


"? Yes I do because he has never denied it, whereas he goes off like the Tasmanian Devil when he thinks he's been unfairly maligned.

3) Do I think he lied about his Barnard Castle trip to check his eyesight? Yes because I have self respect...

4) Do I believe he is telling the truth that Johnson said that line about bodies piling high? Probably, because it's been independently backed up and I don't see what he has to gain by lying on that point. But I'd reserve judgement until I saw him provide evidence or repeat it under oath at the inquiry.

I really don't get which part of this you think is inconsistent.

Johnson HAS denied he said, "save the economy and if a few old folk die, too bad."





As I said BB, the things that BST listed for my information are just his opinions.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11029 on May 15, 2021, 05:53:44 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
It's really simple Hound.

1) Do I believe he is a borderline insane megalomaniac with a sketchy handle on real science? Yes I do because I've read his witterings for years.

2) Do I believe he said that COVID policy in Feb 2020 was "


"? Yes I do because he has never denied it, whereas he goes off like the Tasmanian Devil when he thinks he's been unfairly maligned.

3) Do I think he lied about his Barnard Castle trip to check his eyesight? Yes because I have self respect...

4) Do I believe he is telling the truth that Johnson said that line about bodies piling high? Probably, because it's been independently backed up and I don't see what he has to gain by lying on that point. But I'd reserve judgement until I saw him provide evidence or repeat it under oath at the inquiry.

I really don't get which part of this you think is inconsistent.

Johnson HAS denied he said, "save the economy and if a few old folk die, too bad."
Johnson wasn't accused of saying that.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11030 on May 15, 2021, 06:12:46 pm by Bentley Bullet »
Apologies, I meant Cummings. Now amended.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11031 on May 15, 2021, 06:23:26 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Cummings DID deny saying that. I base my judgement on how Cummings usually acts when he thinks he's genuinely been wronged. He doesn't mumble a brief denial. He explodes and he goes viciously after the slanderer.

At the same time that accusation emerged, there were other accusations in the Press of the No10 Office (Cummings) botching the handling of the crisis. He went nuclear, firing off an unhinged 4000 word rant of a press briefing, saying the Press were incompetent and biased and didn't have a clue what the truth was.

That is typical of what he does. A mumbled denial is simply not his MO. Which is why my assessment is that he DID say what he was accused of, or something very similar.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11032 on May 15, 2021, 06:28:02 pm by Bentley Bullet »
Ah, so it IS just based on your opinion and not fact.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 36606
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11033 on May 15, 2021, 06:33:55 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Yes of course it is. I assume you read my original post before wading in?

It's an opinion informed by years of watching Cummings. We'll eventually find out the truth when he and others have to give testimony under oath. Although Johnson's made sure that can is kicked well down the road.

drfchound

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 29203
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11034 on May 15, 2021, 07:35:35 pm by drfchound »
Yes of course it is. I assume you read my original post before wading in?

It's an opinion informed by years of watching Cummings. We'll eventually find out the truth when he and others have to give testimony under oath. Although Johnson's made sure that can is kicked well down the road.





At least you have now admitted that it is your opinion, thanks for being honest.

albie

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 3611
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11035 on May 15, 2021, 08:47:47 pm by albie »
You will remember that easing the lockdown was only to be considered once all the tests had been met.

Test 4 is "Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern."
The SAGE minutes show clearly that this is not presently the case. Further work needed.

Bozo is departing from his own published procedure with no supporting evidence as yet.
If you are not worried about that, I reckon you should be!

bpoolrover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 5923
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11036 on May 15, 2021, 08:57:13 pm by bpoolrover »
Had it changed thou albie is there any proof that it will not work with vaccines?

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11037 on May 15, 2021, 09:01:20 pm by Bentley Bullet »
I think it has always been the case that we should all be worried enough to take personal responsibility and use common sense as much as possible to keep each other as safe as possible, whether we are in lockdown or not.

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8190
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11038 on May 15, 2021, 09:09:47 pm by River Don »
Had it changed thou albie is there any proof that it will not work with vaccines?

From the Guardian

On Saturday, Prof Anthony Harnden, deputy chair of the Joint Committee of Vaccines and Immunisation (JCVI), said coronavirus vaccines were “almost certainly less effective” at reducing transmission of the variant.

Harnden, who advises the government on vaccinations, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The vaccines may be less effective against mild disease but we don’t think they’re less effective against severe disease. But in combination with being less effective against mild disease, they’re almost certainly less effective against transmission.”

bpoolrover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 5923
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #11039 on May 15, 2021, 09:41:56 pm by bpoolrover »
 :yes but the main thing is we don’t think there less effective against severe disease? What he says makes me even more confident that the vaccine works, you have the flu vaccine and can still get the flu the idea is your not very ill or die

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012