mixed_biscuits

_________________________
idk but it contradicts the stated reason for lockdown at the time: to avoid overwhelming the NHS.

It reveals that the decision was a political one, as had already been indicated by the absence of any great enthusiasm for a general lockdown in the SAGE meeting minutes.

I think the idea of control is quite optimistic...Whitty and Vallance also said that they do not know to what extent it is transmitted by each route eg. aerosol/fecal-oral/fomites and added 'as with the flu' - we don't even know how regular flu works and how long has that been about!!!
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
Who, SAGE? Where is it in the minutes?
We've already discussed this... we know it's not in the minutes but we know Vallance said that SAGE demanded an earlier lockdown than is minuted.
This does come down to a matter of his word against theirs, but seeing as Johnson and Cummings and their government have been caught lying again and again, deliberately delaying documents, misrepresenting what they contain, redacting documents and so on and so forth... whereas Vallacne is just some guy, I definitely give anything he says more credence than their version. I think that this is more likely yet cos of the way that Hancock kept lying about the date lockdown started to make it look as though they acted on those demands.
Given that it boils down to Vallance and (inadvertently) Hancock's evidence, I tend to believe that they did demand that and Johnson is lying once again.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Perhaps that's a kind of "boy who cried wolf" analysis, but if someone with any credibility whatsoever says that what actually happened is different to Johnson's version I will always believe the someone.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I avoid reading this thread most of the time, but it's becoming weirdly comforting that the rare times that I do the exact same argument is still rumbling on.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
I avoid reading this thread most of the time, but it's becoming weirdly comforting that the rare times that I do the exact same argument is still rumbling on.
its just rich tea biscuits at this point
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
At a rough estimate I would put the figure at at least 90% of shits done at home
Quite a lot of people I know seem to make as much effort as they can to lower that number - especially to do it on work time, using other people's toilet paper etc
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
It kinda feels as though the numbers of cases are creeping back up everywhere... hints of a second wave basically, rules getting tighter everywhere. Everything a bit shit in short.
 

Leo

Well-known member
here, you've got parts of the country where people don't believe it's real/a big deal and refuse to wear a mask, social distance, etc., so they have seen a spike. and then other parts, like here in the northeast, that got hit early, "recovered" and now everyone's super antsy to get back to enjoying the summer after months of lockdown and you fear we could lose all the good ground we've achieved as a result. the bad getting worse, the good getting bad again.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
WHO have said no 2nd wave is imminent: one wave only; people aren't getting reinfected.

If your country's lockdown has interfered with the virus' natural progression, there may be unfinished business; if not, you might be out of the woods eg. Sweden, which has had fewer than 10 deaths in the last week and steadily decreasing case numbers.

I have heard that any contacts found through UK track-and-trace are totted up as cases, which would inflate the numbers unreasonably.

Laughed hard at the news yesterday claiming that 11 cases per 100,000 made a country a risky holiday destination.
 

Leo

Well-known member
yeah, it's not a second wave: it's the lingering initial wave that some people missed due to being locked down or other circumstances. I think people mean "second" not as in a followup virus, but as in a return to higher infection numbers.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
So the highest prevalence in London was 1 in 50, in March and they think 1/10 of Londoners have had it in total.

11/100,000 is roughly 200 times less...if the daily case and/or death rate is in decline, I would say the risk is pretty small...one is probably far more likely to use holiday insurance for some other unfortunate eventualilty.

What I found revealing is that the media's angle does not change, even if the risk is 200x less and the virus is on the wane!

That the tenor of the reporting remains the same shows that it must be financially motivated (at least, in that the doom and gloom attracts clicks) and/or something more sinister is going on *dons foil hat*
 
Last edited:

Leo

Well-known member
I'm not debating that the media can be a bunch of scaredy cats. but what's a realistic case number that would make a country a risky destination? at what point should I cross a country off my list of potential vacation spots?
 
Top