However, to keep you amused while waiting for evidence, here's a multiple choice question:
On 15th March Boris Johnson suggested people should work from home becaues the number of cases of Covid-19 was about 1500. Currently, we are being urged to return to work, despite the number of cases being significantly higher and increasing. Why is this?
Returning to the work place now is obviously not a good idea as the number of cases are increasing, but by 15th March I suspect the real number of cases was in the hundreds of thousands, we are catching a much larger proportion - see ONS infection survey (although it has pretty wide error bars)
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:27 am
by lpm
The doubling time is now 1 month.
1 August: 4,000 cases per week
31 August: 8,825 cases per week
Compared to our doubling every 3 or 4 days back in March.
There's growing exponentially, and then there's growing exponentially. We've got a bit of leeway to open schools and see how we do, and then do the mass mingling of 18-21 year olds at Freshers week. But any rational government would compensate by imposing compensating restrictions elsewhere - e.g. closing pubs, return to limits on household bubble intermingling. It's pretty insane to see grown-ups suggesting now's the time to cram into urban offices.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:55 am
by jimbob
Thsnks JDC,
Over on Twitter, a lot of KBF accounts* have started following me and seem to be trying for polite discourse, which is... odd.
So that's useful.
*Not sure I'll sway them about the existence of COVID-19 when several are 9/11 truthers, but maybe others.
There's growing exponentially, and then there's growing exponentially.
Indeed - as with my savings account with its interest rate set so low that the Sun will have become a Red Giant and swallowed the earth before the value doubles.
On 15th March Boris Johnson suggested people should work from home becaues the number of cases of Covid-19 was about 1500. Currently, we are being urged to return to work, despite the number of cases being significantly higher and increasing. Why is this?
There are no statistics for UK case numbers in March. The UK government failed to organise proper testing.
In March, about 30% of tests returned a positive, it's now 0.6%. There were about 20 tests per 100,000 population, now it's 250.
The actual March case figure was in the region of 50,000 to 100,000 per day, compared to the official 1,500. Currently the actual figure will be about 3,000 to 4,000 per day, compared to the official 1,100.
Ending working from home is obviously absurd, but we are currently in a very low patch for Covid cases. Rising steadily, but a pretty small rise from a very low base. In mid October we will know the impact of the return to schools, plus the mass internal migration that is the return to universities.
You can clearly see that the March figures were hopeless as the peak cases allegedly occurred at the same time as the peak deaths
Over on Twitter, a lot of KBF accounts* have started following me and seem to be trying for polite discourse, which is... odd.
So that's useful.
*Not sure I'll sway them about the existence of COVID-19 when several are 9/11 truthers, but maybe others.
And here is the main one's arguments against masks
mask idiocy.png (31.83 KiB) Viewed 3433 times
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:34 pm
by jdc
Not sure 1 is fair given the limited evidence we have supports mask-wearing. I think for 2 they must be complaining about the use of a Statutory Instrument?
3 they actually have a point; how important you feel that point is though...
Re 4, obviously there are exemptions; their reasonable excuses include mental illness or impairment and Mind have some advice, which I've spoilered for length: Spoiler:
If you feel able to wear a mask or face covering, then you must.
But there are some exceptions. The Government says you do not have to wear a mask if you have a 'reasonable excuse' not to.
The exact guidance on how this applies to mental health conditions is written differently for England and Wales. And it’s being updated quite often. But in practice the meaning is similar.
In both nations, reasonable excuses to do with mental health include:
If you're not able to put on, wear or remove a face covering, because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability.
If it's essential to eat, drink or take medication.
In England, the guidance also specifies that a reasonable excuse would be:
If putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:59 pm
by jdc
5 is bollocks. I wear a mask to go shopping and people are clearly less scared now that they can't see my face.
6 is kind of true, but anyone who wanted to evade CCTV was easily able to do so while committing their pre-meditated crime in the before time. I can't imagine it's made a huge difference. Most CCTV footage is sh.t quality anyway (and in my limited experience the old bill / CPS don't even seem to like relying on the better quality scenes).
7 do they? how's that then?
8 yes, but the behaviour in question is "stuff that'll help you avoid getting ill and infecting others"; I'm not sure that this sort of behaviour should be discouraged.
9 not round here it isn't; you're as likely to get funny looks for wearing a mask as for not
10 getting a bit f.cking tenuous now, isn't it? Does someone wearing a mask in between contact with others indicate anything of importance? Maybe they just can't be arsed fishing it out and putting it on every time they're near someone?
11 this isn't a problem of people wearing masks; it's a problem of them not doing it properly and that can be solved by them starting to wear them properly.
12 wut?
13 f.cking hell, this one looks important; should really be at the top where someone might see it. I'll leave this one to you jimbob.
14 you know earlier when I said this was getting tenuous?
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:07 am
by jimbob
Yup, those were along the lines of my answers. I think my "wut" was moved to 7 though...
I was impressed with 10 though. She really does seem to think that is important. Which is... odd.
There are definite " wake up sheeple" vibes to it.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:43 am
by bob sterman
On the overlap between anti-maskers and 9/11 truthers. I was glancing at a social media site for a long standing "truther" that is full of the stuff you'd expect - lots of conspiracy stuff, anti-vax, colloidal silver. All the usual stuff.
But in recent postings she was wearing a mask - which seemed incongruous. And according to her postings, unlike the moon landings and 9/11 etc COVID-19 was real, deadly, and caused by a virus not Bill Gates or 5g.
Turns out a relative was hospitalised with it. Which seems to have brought the truth about this disease home to a "truther".
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:24 pm
by jimbob
The Sturgis Rally (250,000 bikers in South Dakota) has claimed its first fatality.
And is linked to spikes in several states in the US
When people say “water is wet” do you ask them for citations? Up your game troll boy.
I would certainly expect them to be able to explain why.
Even if mask wearing is effective (and it's not clear that it makes much of a difference), that does not mean that it should be made compulsory. If you think it's so obvious that you call something stupid, I expect you to be able to justify your position. I expect that even when the issue is very obvious - such as the effectiveness of homeopathy - let alone one where the UK Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jenny Harries said the evidence is not strong either way.
Jenny Harries is f.cking awful, though, and either dishonest, or f.cking thick. See, for example, her attitude to the WHO's advice on testing.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:19 pm
by Beaker
A week after the spectacular success of “Eat Out to Help Out” and infections are now so high that we have gone back to “Take out to help out” here. Who could have guessed packing restaurants and pubs would lead to an increase in cases?
A week after the spectacular success of “Eat Out to Help Out” and infections are now so high that we have gone back to “Take out to help out” here. Who could have guessed packing restaurants and pubs would lead to an increase in cases?
Aye, and in quite a few of the pubs and restaurants I walked past there was no distancing (packed tables within 1m in some cases) and none of the staff were wearing masks or face shields whilst standing over tables talking to patrons and taking orders. Bonkers.
Mods, please rename the thread Covid-19 the relockdown.
New England rule: 6 people only. Except for all the exceptions such as, well, practically anything.
I wonder how many people will say they're only breaking the rule in a very limited and specific way...?
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:47 pm
by Fionab
to the reasons not to wear a mask.
I’m not really bothered about the bulk of the reasons and and in face of an infectious disease I’m partial to the precautionary ‘throw the kitchen sink at it’ principle. I see no reason for it to increase fear, it makes just as many feel less fearful if they see others taking precautions.
I look at virologists opinions & medics opinions & apart from those with particular political leanings they all seem to believe masks are an important weapon against spread. Common sense tells me they should prevent transmission and also offer some (limited) protection.
The amount of time one has to wear a mask for is usually tiny & I honestly don’t understand the fuss.
I don’t like wearing one anymore than the next person but if it helps I’ll do it.
Mods, please rename the thread Covid-19 the relockdown.
New England rule: 6 people only. Except for all the exceptions such as, well, practically anything.
The mods are imposing enhanced coronavirus theatre security measures on this thread.
Unless you are posting next to a member of the same household, a colleague, family member, friend or Dominic Cummings, in accordance with the Science you must remain at least 1.15M and less than at least 1.45M away from the subsequent poster, during the hours of the days of the days that end with -y (or, in Scotland only, yogh), unless helping out by eating out, drinking out, purchasing out, just-browsing out, walking out, helping out, looking out, putting out, or other reasonable ^outings, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:27 am
by jimbob
Is it OK to violate those rules in a limited and specific way?
No meeting up with groups of more than 6 people, unless it's for:
Education (schools and universities)
Weddings & Funerals
Exercise Grouse shooting
One of those things is not, I contend, like the others.
Slightly ironically some hunt saboteurs think they may be covered by the same loophole as their "licensing body" may be the Hunt Saboteurs Association. I would love it if it were true, although remain not entirely convinced.
to the reasons not to wear a mask.