WHO Poll
Q: 2020/2021 Where will we finish up this season?
a. Top Four, Champions League here we come
7%
  
b. 5th-7th Europa League is well within our grasp
1%
  
c. 8th to 14th anywhere in mid table is about right
13%
  
d. We're in a dog fight before a ball has been kicked and we'll do well to finish 17th or just above
38%
  
e. GSB have derailed our season before a ball has been kicked, the Championship beckons
41%
  



goose 12:23 Wed Jan 22
This coronavirus in China
anyone else worried? 9 dead so far.

CNY soon so the virus will spread very quickly if they cannot control it. It'll be in Europe by the end of CNY if not earlier.

is this the end of humanity?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51202216

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Golden Oldie 12:00 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Authentic authoritative 77th brigade blue tick influencers all on the same page, seems pretty organic, must have had the same dream or summink.

"Antivaccine rhetoric is dangerous. Vaccine hesitance and refusal threaten public health, and assault on lawmakers and others is unacceptable. #StopAntivaxViolence /vaccineswork"

https://twitter.com/bilks/status/1305844435964637184

, 11:58 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Forget about discussing infection levels and rates it’s a distraction.

People know that covid 19 is highly infectious, know that every person infected can unknowingly spread infection before they themselves exhibit any symptoms, know that it’s possible to carry the infection with often mild almost unnoticeable signs. And lastly people know the means by which it is possible to minimise the chances of themselves and others from being infected.

What we have now is a societal issue.

BRANDED 11:26 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
The lockdown and isolation thing was typical before modern science. Modern science made us believe we are invincible, until we actually die and then there’s all kinds of howling and wailing. The greatest lie is the belief you will all live to a grand old age and die quietly in your sleep of old age. This lie is at the heart of the government communications. They know old people clutter up the health system for lots of reasons but mostly because it’s not a health system it’s mostly a place for sickly old people to be kept living a bit longer. New pathogens highlight this very well.

stewie griffin 11:23 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Agreed, ex. The only new normal is that we'll be taxed to fuck to pay for all this shit. The only question is when

WHU(Exeter) 11:22 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
"is the result of how we've chosen to live over the past 20 years or so"

Bang on the money.

for every action though, a reaction...instead of speeding and cementing this new 'normal', think the reaction coming will be absolutely against it in time.

WHU(Exeter) 11:19 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Mashed, I totally agree about the constant repetition about "the new normal".

Covid is no worse and a lot less worse than so many things that the world has faced before, but nothing, none of those things, has resulted in a 'new normal' afterwards where thousands of years of real normal human behaviour involving close interaction, face to face contacts etcetc have then been considered as something that is somehow gone forever.

Whether all of these measures are necessary is up for debate, but pushing these things as the new 'normal' and something that we'll all have to get used to forever?..

It is not normal at all and I genuinely think that in a few years time a lot will look back on all of this and wonder how it got to a point where it could be pushed as such.

stewie griffin 11:13 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Broadly agree, but I'm not of the opinion that there's some mass cover up or conspiracy. Most of it is pretty straightforward, and some of it - per the below - is the result of how we've chosen to live over the past 20 years or so

BRANDED 10:57 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
I understand that. What I don’t understand is why people don’t do their own research. Or, maybe you think that the Government line is the best truth we can have? I fully expect several people to now quote my brother in law’s best attempt to discover the truth but as I have said before it made me far more confident in my life than the government line ever would have. So, having your own beliefs that give you confidence might be better than following what is most likely a lie to keep you in line.

riosleftsock 10:57 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
gph 1:41 Sat Sep 19

Correct, the accuracy when using 2 tests rises up to almost 100%. When they are talking about shutting down whole parts of the economy and destroying more lives I think they should do this as a matter of course.

stewie griffin 10:50 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
They're not allowed to tell the truth, branded.


Competence- or lack thereof - is indeed a fair question, but having campaigned for 20 odd years for people not to be allowed to tell the truth anymore, we can't start demanding it now. And the reaction would be yet more campaigning.

BRANDED 10:45 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Mashed

You have to understand that there are plenty of people who just take their words to be true. Throughout this whole affair there have been plenty of scientists who have taken a completely different view. They are just views. There are no absolutes in anything like this. What government must do is take some kind of holistic long term view and accept the people will not always behave as they hope but good honest truthful communication might help.

mashed in maryland 10:30 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Mike Oxsaw 10:51 Fri Sep 18

Because as the geezer torturing Winston in 1984 said:

"The object of power is power".

Covid and the fear around it has given the pack of monkeys in Westminster more power than they've had in decades, possibly even ever.

You think they're gonna just give that away?

(This could be quite dangerous if they weren't all so inept)

Also the sunk cost fallacy: they've invested so much into this "new normal" that they'll never, ever wanna walk it back cos it's admitting they were wrong. Precisely what you'd expect from the mindset of petulant, privileged public schoolboys who've never lived in the real world.

And no, Labour wouldn't be handling it any better, but at least they'd be honest about their totalitarian vision.

stewie griffin 10:27 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Reading a website called lockdownsceptics.org is beyond Diane Abbott level.

Find an interest. Golf, fishing, whatever. Lots of things to do.

mashed in maryland 10:21 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/09/19/latest-news-139/

"One alarming thing about Matt’s reply to Julia’s question is that he appears to think the false positive rate, or FPR, is the percentage of people among those who’ve tested positive who are, in fact, negative. After telling Julia that the FPR was “less than one per cent”, he went on to say: “Under one percent means that for all the positive cases the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small.” No, Health Secretary. The FPR is the percentage of all the people you’ve tested who are found, falsely, to be positive. And when the prevalence of infection is low, that means that the likelihood of a positive test result being a false positive is very high.

To illustrate this, let’s suppose that 11 in 10,000 people in the UK have the virus, which is what the latest ONS infection survey estimates. So according to the Health Secretary’s understanding, if the PCR test has an FPR of 0.8% and you test 10,000 people and 91 test positive, that means that 0.8% x 91 are false positives, i.e. less than one person in the 10,000 is a false positive; one out of the 91 who tested positive. But in fact the numerator is all the people you’ve tested – that’s who the FPR applies to – not just those who’ve tested positive. So the number of false positives is 0.8% x 10,000, i.e. 80 people. To be clear, 80 of the 91, not one out of the 91, are recorded as positive WHEN THEY ARE NOT. Which leaves exactly 11 ‘true’ positives. Just one in 9 of those getting a positive result actually carry the virus! In other words, because the Health Secretary appears not to understand what an FPR is, he’s over-estimating the number of true positives by ~700%."


Hahahahahhaa

This is beyond Diane Abbott level.

Site Tories: explain why you're going to vote for this pack of spastics again instead of shitting on your ballot paper?

gph 1:59 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
*other*

*waits for the Dementure Kid to turn up*

zebthecat 1:52 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
BRANDED 1:50 Sat Sep 19

85%

BRANDED 1:50 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
The increase in infections recorded is directly related to the increase in testing. If we had the current infection rate to testing back in March we would have seen 100,000 positives a day or more. You’ll not hear this from any mainstream news outlet because they seem incapable of simple arithmetic.

BRANDED 1:44 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Testing stats and data

https://fullfact.org/health/question-time-testing-figures/?fbclid=IwAR2Xdr6qk9tdZcn2XTqsYpeZg-Sgy-UrCsNNa6CUIDe7saPPdwqZL2SWmwI


Not terribly clear

gph 1:41 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
Depends where the false positives come from. If from random factors, then if there were only false positives, they would be weeded out by retesting.

If from systematic failures, like registering antibodies to over coronaviruses as C-19, then the false positives wouldn't go away.

riosleftsock 1:37 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
GPH

Yes, its 0.8% to over 1%, I can't remember the upper end of the range.

One of the problems is the idea that Hancock is looking for zero covid cases, as long as you rely on testing that has any false positives this test can never be met.

gph 1:16 Sat Sep 19
Re: This coronavirus in China
The denominator in both the fractions I gave is necessarily greater than or equal to the numerator, which tells me that any source that says either is greater than 1 is talking shit.

You sure you haven't forgotten a percentage sign - i.e., 0.8% to way over 1%?

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: