FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Scaremongering?
Scaremongering?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sure. But consider the audience. The swinger community are, for the most part: articulate, informed, opinionated. A quick look around here tells anyone that. Couple that with it being a community that, again for the most part, are proactive in checking their own health, through regular testing and looking after themselves physically. What you have then, is a community that would naturally feel like they are being condescended and talked down to when many people come on here and tell them, usually quite firmly, that the dangers are real. A negative response is unfortunate but, honestly, expected in that situation. Not from me though. I like your pecs, they purdy. Stay safe, stay cool. "You've articulated that better than I! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sure. But consider the audience. The swinger community are, for the most part: articulate, informed, opinionated. A quick look around here tells anyone that. Couple that with it being a community that, again for the most part, are proactive in checking their own health, through regular testing and looking after themselves physically. What you have then, is a community that would naturally feel like they are being condescended and talked down to when many people come on here and tell them, usually quite firmly, that the dangers are real. A negative response is unfortunate but, honestly, expected in that situation. Not from me though. I like your pecs, they purdy. Stay safe, stay cool. "Thank you for the compliments 
I'm not telling anyone anything to do anything differently. I'm just raising issues for discussion.
As for being informed, well considering the number of people on here that I have debated with over safe sex I'll reserve opinion on whether they have their health as a priority...
This post is in reponse to people who say "it's only 2%" etc. They are saying it's no different to any other flu. But is it? People are pointing out that we don't usually isolate cruise ships, close factories, quarantine entire towns. The authorities are saying it's low risk to avoid panic, but their actions say otherwise.
As for catching flack. I'm used to it. Pile it on.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the threads about coronavirus are easy to identify and therefore easy to avoid just like all the other threads we don't like. I'm listening to what I'm being told by the various authorities and watching the actions being taken. The two don't necessarily add up but that's nothing new. I am concerned by the thought of a pandemic. It would mean the certain death of both my parents if they caught a virus that affected their respiratory organs. It would mean the likely death or very severe illness of quite a few of my other relatives and close family who have weakened immunity for various reasons. If my parents had to self isolate it would cause massive problems in their continuity of care. I could order their shopping but who would get my mum up and help her shower, who would clean their house properly, is there a system in place to ensure they get their medication delivered? Of course most of us are aware of what might happen and also that the worst case might not happen but I can't see any harm discussing concerns on a forum that regularly discusses super gonnorhea and has threads from people promoting regular sexual health and cancer screening." Sending positive thoughts to your family and everyone else that is at risk. All my fingers crossed that we can buy enough time through quarantine to develop an effective vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the threads about coronavirus are easy to identify and therefore easy to avoid just like all the other threads we don't like. I'm listening to what I'm being told by the various authorities and watching the actions being taken. The two don't necessarily add up but that's nothing new. I am concerned by the thought of a pandemic. It would mean the certain death of both my parents if they caught a virus that affected their respiratory organs. It would mean the likely death or very severe illness of quite a few of my other relatives and close family who have weakened immunity for various reasons. If my parents had to self isolate it would cause massive problems in their continuity of care. I could order their shopping but who would get my mum up and help her shower, who would clean their house properly, is there a system in place to ensure they get their medication delivered? Of course most of us are aware of what might happen and also that the worst case might not happen but I can't see any harm discussing concerns on a forum that regularly discusses super gonnorhea and has threads from people promoting regular sexual health and cancer screening." A very good point well made. It's the human interest that makes these threads more interesting. I have a reduced immune system caused by medication that I take. My concern however is not for myself particularly. I am interested in how the authorities will enforce quarantine areas. Yes they can cancel public transport. Austria refused entry to an Italian train yesterday. They can cancel sporting events and concerts but how will they prevent free movement of its citizens. Roadblocks? The Police? The Military? Will they be armed. Will they use force? ... That's what interests me and nobody is saying publically at least. Scarey times for me ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the threads about coronavirus are easy to identify and therefore easy to avoid just like all the other threads we don't like. I'm listening to what I'm being told by the various authorities and watching the actions being taken. The two don't necessarily add up but that's nothing new. I am concerned by the thought of a pandemic. It would mean the certain death of both my parents if they caught a virus that affected their respiratory organs. It would mean the likely death or very severe illness of quite a few of my other relatives and close family who have weakened immunity for various reasons. If my parents had to self isolate it would cause massive problems in their continuity of care. I could order their shopping but who would get my mum up and help her shower, who would clean their house properly, is there a system in place to ensure they get their medication delivered? Of course most of us are aware of what might happen and also that the worst case might not happen but I can't see any harm discussing concerns on a forum that regularly discusses super gonnorhea and has threads from people promoting regular sexual health and cancer screening. Sending positive thoughts to your family and everyone else that is at risk. All my fingers crossed that we can buy enough time through quarantine to develop an effective vaccine. "Thank you. I'm not worrying, just aware that isolation or quarantine will be difficult for many, not just us and making sketchy plans. In the meantime I'm continuing as normal  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think reporting is scaremongering per se and the canaries story I have just read. I am sure it will blow over at some point. I wonder why people so offended by certain threads continue to read them though. Surely there is a thread for everyone. " I don't understand it Tom. There seems to be a mentality on here where people decide what you may or may not talk about. If there is a factual documentary out there with people dedicated to fighting viruses and THEY are worried, why should we not be concerned? There is a certain arrogance that comes with forumites thinking they know more than experts in their field. There is also a feeling of "it won't happen to me" so why worry about the others? Right now I'm amazed by the apathy. Pretty soon I'll just be disgusted by it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Leave it to the professionals and informed websites to keep everyone updated....." Damn DC ... and spoil people's fun?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the threads about coronavirus are easy to identify and therefore easy to avoid just like all the other threads we don't like. I'm listening to what I'm being told by the various authorities and watching the actions being taken. The two don't necessarily add up but that's nothing new. I am concerned by the thought of a pandemic. It would mean the certain death of both my parents if they caught a virus that affected their respiratory organs. It would mean the likely death or very severe illness of quite a few of my other relatives and close family who have weakened immunity for various reasons. If my parents had to self isolate it would cause massive problems in their continuity of care. I could order their shopping but who would get my mum up and help her shower, who would clean their house properly, is there a system in place to ensure they get their medication delivered? Of course most of us are aware of what might happen and also that the worst case might not happen but I can't see any harm discussing concerns on a forum that regularly discusses super gonnorhea and has threads from people promoting regular sexual health and cancer screening. A very good point well made. It's the human interest that makes these threads more interesting. I have a reduced immune system caused by medication that I take. My concern however is not for myself particularly. I am interested in how the authorities will enforce quarantine areas. Yes they can cancel public transport. Austria refused entry to an Italian train yesterday. They can cancel sporting events and concerts but how will they prevent free movement of its citizens. Roadblocks? The Police? The Military? Will they be armed. Will they use force? ... That's what interests me and nobody is saying publically at least. Scarey times for me ..." I don't know the answers but it looks like Italy used police. As I said I'm not worried but I do need to have a bit of a plan just in case. Being unprepared would be silly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it." I That sounds about right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scaremongering - The spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours." Or... The process of saying or doing something in order to deliberately make people feel worried or frightened, especially so that you can gain an advantage. Your definition means that newspapers shouldn't have reported on 911 since it was the reporting of frightening news. I have posted an article which explains how using a "post epidemic" statistic to dismiss this virus is misleading. People ignored the article and continue to use the 2% statistic rather than a recovery/death ratio over time statistic. Spreading false optimism can be more damaging than scaremongering. Rather be overprepared than under prepared. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it." Great that they have been so quick to declare infodemic when they refuse to call this a pandemic. It's in 33 countries with just short of 80 000 cases. What will it take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scaremongering - The spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours. Or... The process of saying or doing something in order to deliberately make people feel worried or frightened, especially so that you can gain an advantage. Your definition means that newspapers shouldn't have reported on 911 since it was the reporting of frightening news. I have posted an article which explains how using a "post epidemic" statistic to dismiss this virus is misleading. People ignored the article and continue to use the 2% statistic rather than a recovery/death ratio over time statistic. Spreading false optimism can be more damaging than scaremongering. Rather be overprepared than under prepared. " It's not MY definition. It's the Cambridge Dictionaries | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the threads about coronavirus are easy to identify and therefore easy to avoid just like all the other threads we don't like. I'm listening to what I'm being told by the various authorities and watching the actions being taken. The two don't necessarily add up but that's nothing new. I am concerned by the thought of a pandemic. It would mean the certain death of both my parents if they caught a virus that affected their respiratory organs. It would mean the likely death or very severe illness of quite a few of my other relatives and close family who have weakened immunity for various reasons. If my parents had to self isolate it would cause massive problems in their continuity of care. I could order their shopping but who would get my mum up and help her shower, who would clean their house properly, is there a system in place to ensure they get their medication delivered? Of course most of us are aware of what might happen and also that the worst case might not happen but I can't see any harm discussing concerns on a forum that regularly discusses super gonnorhea and has threads from people promoting regular sexual health and cancer screening." Agree with you 100%. I also have respiratory problems and the virus could be fatal to me. The operative word is could, so you take advice (agreed often conflicting) from those tasked to keeping us safe. Discussion is good, but starting threads to just state "Henny Penny the sky is falling" every day is a bit pointless, but hey, it it makes people happy who am I to criticise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scaremongering - The spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours. Or... The process of saying or doing something in order to deliberately make people feel worried or frightened, especially so that you can gain an advantage. Your definition means that newspapers shouldn't have reported on 911 since it was the reporting of frightening news. I have posted an article which explains how using a "post epidemic" statistic to dismiss this virus is misleading. People ignored the article and continue to use the 2% statistic rather than a recovery/death ratio over time statistic. Spreading false optimism can be more damaging than scaremongering. Rather be overprepared than under prepared. It's not MY definition. It's the Cambridge Dictionaries "I wasn't suggesting you invented it. It's the definition you used. Are you saying then, that scientists shouldn't be reporting on the ecological damage being sustained since it is both reporting and frightening? Is that scaremongering? What is the difference then between a warning and scaremongering since they are both the reporting of frightening news? Should we stop warning people too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Infodemic sounds better than "fake news" "Yes it does lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside?" It's always been the case that government has contingency plans albeit recent experience would take that with a pinch of salt, the state has to ensure that post such events there is some sort of structure to start again.. You seem genuinely surprised that such things are thus, what misinformation are you talking about specifically? And just what sort of changes would you suggest to contingency planning, is it the structure the lack of forward planning or lack of resources etc..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside?" So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it..." I  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think reporting what's on the news is scaremongering at all. If it was we should not be bombarded with nonsense on climate change every day " So news re climate change is nonsense but the corona virus panic isn't? Okaaaaaaaaay............  
A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think reporting what's on the news is scaremongering at all. If it was we should not be bombarded with nonsense on climate change every day So news re climate change is nonsense but the corona virus panic isn't? Okaaaaaaaaay............
A"No. The point I was trying to make, and badly made, my apologies, is that climate change news items could be classed as scaremongering to some. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think reporting what's on the news is scaremongering at all. If it was we should not be bombarded with nonsense on climate change every day So news re climate change is nonsense but the corona virus panic isn't? Okaaaaaaaaay............
A
No. The point I was trying to make, and badly made, my apologies, is that climate change news items could be classed as scaremongering to some. "Yes let's just hear good news. Lottery winners etc. Speaking of which Boris Johnson miraculously fixed the NHS and it's gone from the brink of disaster to a well oiled machine and our negative press forgot to inform us!!! Talk about focusing on the negative! That's right folks, there is no climate change (just ask Clem), no terrorism, no disease, no plane crashes, no air pollution. The world is a utopia. And we are the best off because we have Brexit Anyone who says any different is reporting frightening things and therefore just scaremongering | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it. Great that they have been so quick to declare infodemic when they refuse to call this a pandemic. It's in 33 countries with just short of 80 000 cases. What will it take? " The World Health Organization has explained why it’s not classed as a pandemic quite clearly and how / why that status could change | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being alive is a health risk. Statistically you're often more likely to get hit by a bus, have an object fall on you, suffer a fatal accident at work or just drop dead of an unknown heart condition as you are of dying from the latest new bug to hit the world. If we spent time worrying about every possible misfortune or illness then we'd go mad. I'm 99.9% certain I'm unlikely to encounter anyone carrying the virus and if I do so be it. I'm more worried about arsehole drivers on roads and motorways killing me tbh - a far more likely occurrence. A" My view too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think reporting what's on the news is scaremongering at all. If it was we should not be bombarded with nonsense on climate change every day So news re climate change is nonsense but the corona virus panic isn't? Okaaaaaaaaay............
A
No. The point I was trying to make, and badly made, my apologies, is that climate change news items could be classed as scaremongering to some. "I'm curious as to which ones? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being alive is a health risk. Statistically you're often more likely to get hit by a bus, have an object fall on you, suffer a fatal accident at work or just drop dead of an unknown heart condition as you are of dying from the latest new bug to hit the world. If we spent time worrying about every possible misfortune or illness then we'd go mad. I'm 99.9% certain I'm unlikely to encounter anyone carrying the virus and if I do so be it. I'm more worried about arsehole drivers on roads and motorways killing me tbh - a far more likely occurrence. A My view too! "It's not an exclusive or. The traffic will still be dangerous. You just have one more thing that can kill you. Where did you get this 99.9% certainty from? You can see into the future and know how widely it will spread? Impressive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is an interesting restaurant review in the Guardian that gives a good account of a London Chinese restaurant and asks that people show solidary and do not display racism by boycotting Chinese restaurants. Takings are reported in other papers as being well down because of Corona. I am uncomfortable with the assumption that this is out and out racism. If the Italian outbreak gets worse then presumably Italian restaurants may suffer a drop in profits. Surely it is people taking precautions based on their interpretation of the news reports. Take a city like London. If you have a cultural centre like Chinatown then there will be a higher probability of international travel to China from people living in that area. And it's spread by human contact. Not Chinese contact but human contact. Yes there have been shameful racist incidents against out Chinese citizens and visitors and school children but not to visit China Town based on people's interpretation of data is not racist in my opinion. The margins of probability may be so low to be almost negligible but people will vote with their feet. Only natural. They will be back soon I am sure." By that logic going to an American an burger bar should put you at a higher risk of getting shot. My old local Indian restaurant was owned and run by a third generation family that had never left the UK. 99% of their customer base were local white, British people. Just because a food may originate in a certain country doesn't mean its sourced there or that the staff preparing it have visited there either. Boycotting it to me is a perfect example of scaremongering. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is an interesting restaurant review in the Guardian that gives a good account of a London Chinese restaurant and asks that people show solidary and do not display racism by boycotting Chinese restaurants. Takings are reported in other papers as being well down because of Corona. I am uncomfortable with the assumption that this is out and out racism. If the Italian outbreak gets worse then presumably Italian restaurants may suffer a drop in profits. Surely it is people taking precautions based on their interpretation of the news reports. Take a city like London. If you have a cultural centre like Chinatown then there will be a higher probability of international travel to China from people living in that area. And it's spread by human contact. Not Chinese contact but human contact. Yes there have been shameful racist incidents against out Chinese citizens and visitors and school children but not to visit China Town based on people's interpretation of data is not racist in my opinion. The margins of probability may be so low to be almost negligible but people will vote with their feet. Only natural. They will be back soon I am sure." I for one haven’t boycotted any Chinese restaurant since this started and will be in China Town next week. Racism no, just people not listening to facts and assuming because it’s China town they’ve all been back to China in the last couple of months and therefore must have the virus | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is an interesting restaurant review in the Guardian that gives a good account of a London Chinese restaurant and asks that people show solidary and do not display racism by boycotting Chinese restaurants. Takings are reported in other papers as being well down because of Corona. I am uncomfortable with the assumption that this is out and out racism. If the Italian outbreak gets worse then presumably Italian restaurants may suffer a drop in profits. Surely it is people taking precautions based on their interpretation of the news reports. Take a city like London. If you have a cultural centre like Chinatown then there will be a higher probability of international travel to China from people living in that area. And it's spread by human contact. Not Chinese contact but human contact. Yes there have been shameful racist incidents against out Chinese citizens and visitors and school children but not to visit China Town based on people's interpretation of data is not racist in my opinion. The margins of probability may be so low to be almost negligible but people will vote with their feet. Only natural. They will be back soon I am sure. I for one haven’t boycotted any Chinese restaurant since this started and will be in China Town next week. Racism no, just people not listening to facts and assuming because it’s China town they’ve all been back to China in the last couple of months and therefore must have the virus "Well if you are eating in Chinatown then the Guardian have given a very good review. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not saying in the slightest that there is no cause for concern, or that I don't feel for those directly impacted by it and from the various threads I don't think anyone has suggested either. I'm also not saying discussion of such things don't have a place on these forums - part of the joy of them is that they aren't limited to just swinging/sex as a topic - and by definition a forum *is* a place for open debate. I do however think there have been numerous instances of scaremongering and mis-information on some of those threads too, by *both* sides of the argument (I've seen links given to pages with statistics that also contain adverts for Lego for instance - hardly a credible source in my eyes!!) and use of statistics to prove a point - which as we all know statistics can be manipulated many ways. Just as there have been experts reeled out on a documentary warning of this latest virus, there have been many documentaries and discussions with experts that say it is not as big a concern as some are making it out to be. The key here is for each of us as individuals to inform ourselves, assess the risk and act accordingly - that doesn't mean we don't care about the plight of others, doesn't mean we aren't concerned - but for me, having done so, the risk is minimal and not as huge a cause for concern as some would make it out to be. I'm not necessarily saying *you* have scaremongered OP, you've made your own assessments and drawn your own conclusions and at least try and provide reasoning to your personal take (even if some of it I find less than credible personally, but I acknowledge that's a matter of opinion) - there *are* some though who do take the Chicken Little approach and see the sky as falling in, not only about this but repeatedly across a wide range of topics based on very little credible information or reasoning and that's when people tend to take the approach that many have done towards those threads." Yes there are people who will over react to rationally presented facts. Human nature. It's no reason not to discuss things. Here is an example of simple rational logic: You cannot use (infected people/deaths) as an indication of how serious a virus is. Because some of those infected people making the number small will die, by which time there will be more people infected. It's a useless measurement until the end of an epidemic. Yet it's being bandied about on the forum to put it down as just a sniffle or "just like any other flu". Let us imagine that a care worker on Fab is feeling under the weather right now and undecided on whether to get tested or go into work. What if that care worker decides to go into work based on these statistics? You will find that I often quote my source when I post something like this. Then a person can decide for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is an interesting restaurant review in the Guardian that gives a good account of a London Chinese restaurant and asks that people show solidary and do not display racism by boycotting Chinese restaurants. Takings are reported in other papers as being well down because of Corona. I am uncomfortable with the assumption that this is out and out racism. If the Italian outbreak gets worse then presumably Italian restaurants may suffer a drop in profits. Surely it is people taking precautions based on their interpretation of the news reports. Take a city like London. If you have a cultural centre like Chinatown then there will be a higher probability of international travel to China from people living in that area. And it's spread by human contact. Not Chinese contact but human contact. Yes there have been shameful racist incidents against out Chinese citizens and visitors and school children but not to visit China Town based on people's interpretation of data is not racist in my opinion. The margins of probability may be so low to be almost negligible but people will vote with their feet. Only natural. They will be back soon I am sure. I for one haven’t boycotted any Chinese restaurant since this started and will be in China Town next week. Racism no, just people not listening to facts and assuming because it’s China town they’ve all been back to China in the last couple of months and therefore must have the virus
Well if you are eating in Chinatown then the Guardian have given a very good review. "Thanks but I go to a small place in china town. It looks nothing from the outside, it’s not flash, but full of Chinese people eating and it’s the best - in my opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes there are people who will over react to rationally presented facts. Human nature. It's no reason not to discuss things. Here is an example of simple rational logic: You cannot use (infected people/deaths) as an indication of how serious a virus is. Because some of those infected people making the number small will die, by which time there will be more people infected. It's a useless measurement until the end of an epidemic. Yet it's being bandied about on the forum to put it down as just a sniffle or "just like any other flu". Let us imagine that a care worker on Fab is feeling under the weather right now and undecided on whether to get tested or go into work. What if that care worker decides to go into work based on these statistics? You will find that I often quote my source when I post something like this. Then a person can decide for themselves. " Of course it's not a reason not to discuss things but when those over reacting do so continually and without listening to the perfectly rational and reasoned responses they are given and show that they react to "soundbite" information that they read or heard - you can also understand why they get the reaction they do. As for your second point - whilst it has some bearing - it's also not an absolute. And the statistics being put forward by qualified experts are *all* we currently have to work from and what people will base their own personal assessments on - similar to what you are saying could be said for SARS, bird flu and any number of other viruses that have done the rounds in recent times - and yet none of them reached the epic pandemic proportions that the doom and gloom brigade suggested - so again people base their assessments on those experiences also. The *fact* is that for the majority of people that do come into contact with this latest virus the impact will be relatively minor and a full recovery will be made - and the *fact* is that "currently" the chances of the overwhelming majority of us coming into contact with it are minimal - therefore people quite rationally assess that it's not an immediate concern - that's not to belittle it in any way, or say there's no cause for concern at all, or that we don't feel compassion for those that are affected somehow - but it's also saying there's no need to panic and head for the bunkers!! As for your care worker - you could say the same thing about any number of viruses and diseases which aren't currently de rigueur that they may or may not have picked up - but ultimately it comes back to what I've said about being sufficiently informed by "credible" sources to know what risks we are each taking as individuals - and those "credible sources" aren't necessarily those you post links to to back up your reasoning either - they are places like the NHS, Gov.uk, WHO etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it. Great that they have been so quick to declare infodemic when they refuse to call this a pandemic. It's in 33 countries with just short of 80 000 cases. What will it take? The World Health Organization has explained why it’s not classed as a pandemic quite clearly and how / why that status could change " That is right they have done that too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes there are people who will over react to rationally presented facts. Human nature. It's no reason not to discuss things. Here is an example of simple rational logic: You cannot use (infected people/deaths) as an indication of how serious a virus is. Because some of those infected people making the number small will die, by which time there will be more people infected. It's a useless measurement until the end of an epidemic. Yet it's being bandied about on the forum to put it down as just a sniffle or "just like any other flu". Let us imagine that a care worker on Fab is feeling under the weather right now and undecided on whether to get tested or go into work. What if that care worker decides to go into work based on these statistics? You will find that I often quote my source when I post something like this. Then a person can decide for themselves. Of course it's not a reason not to discuss things but when those over reacting do so continually and without listening to the perfectly rational and reasoned responses they are given and show that they react to "soundbite" information that they read or heard - you can also understand why they get the reaction they do. As for your second point - whilst it has some bearing - it's also not an absolute. And the statistics being put forward by qualified experts are *all* we currently have to work from and what people will base their own personal assessments on - similar to what you are saying could be said for SARS, bird flu and any number of other viruses that have done the rounds in recent times - and yet none of them reached the epic pandemic proportions that the doom and gloom brigade suggested - so again people base their assessments on those experiences also. The *fact* is that for the majority of people that do come into contact with this latest virus the impact will be relatively minor and a full recovery will be made - and the *fact* is that "currently" the chances of the overwhelming majority of us coming into contact with it are minimal - therefore people quite rationally assess that it's not an immediate concern - that's not to belittle it in any way, or say there's no cause for concern at all, or that we don't feel compassion for those that are affected somehow - but it's also saying there's no need to panic and head for the bunkers!! As for your care worker - you could say the same thing about any number of viruses and diseases which aren't currently de rigueur that they may or may not have picked up - but ultimately it comes back to what I've said about being sufficiently informed by "credible" sources to know what risks we are each taking as individuals - and those "credible sources" aren't necessarily those you post links to to back up your reasoning either - they are places like the NHS, Gov.uk, WHO etc" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? If you look at the trends they yoyo all over the place because the Chinese changed their criteria 3 times in 24 hours. As for Gov.uk I still remember that "credible" website advising us about Brexit on 31 October when our PM had already sent a letter asking to extend it. If a website owes it's entire existence to data collection and representation then they would be poorly advised to publish false data. So here is my main source: Worldometer collects its statistics and data from the most reputable national and international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, OECD and others. Each Worldometer counter has its specific set of sources, which are listed on its dedicated page (accessible by clicking on the counter text link, when available). Data, estimates, and projections displayed on Worldometer's counters are for the most part provided by organizations included in the following list of United Nations Statistics Division's partners. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? " The simple answer is we don't know whether it is or not - but what I've seen of that site it's a data mining site that uses statistics and nothing more and manipulates them via statistical analysis to present "facts" If those "facts" had any substantive grounding then I am sure that accredited sites such as WHO would be presenting themselves. As I've said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistics to show whatever you want to show - personally I would rather take the information provided by credible organisations that combine facts, expertise and statistics to present their findings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"79,744 cases of COVID-19, 2,629 deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ "During the period of infection, there were 8,098 reported cases of SARS and 774 deaths" https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars/ I fail to see the comparison. SARS was contained but killed one in every 10 people. So far COVID-19 has 25,287 (91%) recoveries and 2,629 (9%) deaths but is uncontained. How do we get from 9% down to 2%? We need to count 11,567 (22%) as recovered. How can you do that??? Yes when the epidemic is over you can do that because there are no unknowns. But you can't do it now. It's not just me saying that, there are clever people saying it too "Can you provide a breakdown of deaths vs age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, diet, residential status.....or any of the other variables that may influence survival rates? A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it.I That sounds about right. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"79,744 cases of COVID-19, 2,629 deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ "During the period of infection, there were 8,098 reported cases of SARS and 774 deaths" https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars/ I fail to see the comparison. SARS was contained but killed one in every 10 people. So far COVID-19 has 25,287 (91%) recoveries and 2,629 (9%) deaths but is uncontained. How do we get from 9% down to 2%? We need to count 11,567 (22%) as recovered. How can you do that??? Yes when the epidemic is over you can do that because there are no unknowns. But you can't do it now. It's not just me saying that, there are clever people saying it too
Can you provide a breakdown of deaths vs age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, diet, residential status.....or any of the other variables that may influence survival rates?
A"80+ years old 14.8% 70-79 years old 8.0% 60-69 years old 3.6% 50-59 years old 1.3% 40-49 years old 0.4% 30-39 years old 0.2% 20-29 years old 0.2% 10-19 years old 0.2% The other criteria are on frivolousdata.com where you can also get useful links to Lego stores. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? The simple answer is we don't know whether it is or not - but what I've seen of that site it's a data mining site that uses statistics and nothing more and manipulates them via statistical analysis to present "facts" If those "facts" had any substantive grounding then I am sure that accredited sites such as WHO would be presenting themselves. As I've said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistics to show whatever you want to show - personally I would rather take the information provided by credible organisations that combine facts, expertise and statistics to present their findings." This site claims to be getting data directly from Chinese health authorities etc. But if it's wrong I'd love to know. Of course I would be using WHO if they had a clue about how to succinctly represent their data. I haven't found any inconsistencies with WHO... You see if you tell me I'm wrong and prove why, that's a debate. If you tell me I'm wrong then just walk away, all you've done is call me a fool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"79,744 cases of COVID-19, 2,629 deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ "During the period of infection, there were 8,098 reported cases of SARS and 774 deaths" https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars/ I fail to see the comparison. SARS was contained but killed one in every 10 people. So far COVID-19 has 25,287 (91%) recoveries and 2,629 (9%) deaths but is uncontained. How do we get from 9% down to 2%? We need to count 11,567 (22%) as recovered. How can you do that??? Yes when the epidemic is over you can do that because there are no unknowns. But you can't do it now. It's not just me saying that, there are clever people saying it too
Can you provide a breakdown of deaths vs age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, diet, residential status.....or any of the other variables that may influence survival rates?
A
80+ years old 14.8%
70-79 years old 8.0%
60-69 years old 3.6%
50-59 years old 1.3%
40-49 years old 0.4%
30-39 years old 0.2%
20-29 years old 0.2%
10-19 years old 0.2%
The other criteria are on frivolousdata.com where you can also get useful links to Lego stores.
"Age isn't always the primary factor though. Theres a huge difference between an 87 yr old chinese villager who chain smokes and has a poor diet and an 87 year old living in an affluent western city who's had private healthcare all their life, a good diet, regular exercise and who is waited on hand and foot by a butler. Statistics can be used to prove almost anything. Chaos theory shows how minor differences can provide hugely differing outcomes. Hence there is no guarantee that contagion rates, survival rates and mortality rates will be similar in differing environments. So people panicking less in certain parts of the world is to be expected whilst those in others, with less access to healthcare, technology and many other factors will react differently. It's why I dont worry about getting shot whilst out shopping here, but would be slightly more concerned if in an American mall. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? The simple answer is we don't know whether it is or not - but what I've seen of that site it's a data mining site that uses statistics and nothing more and manipulates them via statistical analysis to present "facts" If those "facts" had any substantive grounding then I am sure that accredited sites such as WHO would be presenting themselves. As I've said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistics to show whatever you want to show - personally I would rather take the information provided by credible organisations that combine facts, expertise and statistics to present their findings. This site claims to be getting data directly from Chinese health authorities etc. But if it's wrong I'd love to know. Of course I would be using WHO if they had a clue about how to succinctly represent their data. I haven't found any inconsistencies with WHO... You see if you tell me I'm wrong and prove why, that's a debate. If you tell me I'm wrong then just walk away, all you've done is call me a fool." That site also just advised me how I could save 30% on my gas and electric bills which kind of sums it all up really - a site that relies on click bait for revenues hardly fills me with confidence about the information it is providing. I'm actually neither saying you are right nor wrong, just that you're presenting "data" as fact that doesn't to me, come from a credible source and therefore cannot be taken as gospel any more than that provided elsewhere. As I said further up what we *do* know is that currently the chances of you or I coming into contact with, let alone contracting, the virus are incredibly minimal and that should I do so (I don't know your health status so can't comment for you) my chances of recovering from it are overwhelmingly positive. As I have also said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistical data to read however you want. In summary though, if you want to carry on believing whatever you choose to believe then that is your prerogative - I just remember a week ago it being said here "give it a week and you'll see" well that week is up and not a great deal has changed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? The simple answer is we don't know whether it is or not - but what I've seen of that site it's a data mining site that uses statistics and nothing more and manipulates them via statistical analysis to present "facts" If those "facts" had any substantive grounding then I am sure that accredited sites such as WHO would be presenting themselves. As I've said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistics to show whatever you want to show - personally I would rather take the information provided by credible organisations that combine facts, expertise and statistics to present their findings. This site claims to be getting data directly from Chinese health authorities etc. But if it's wrong I'd love to know. Of course I would be using WHO if they had a clue about how to succinctly represent their data. I haven't found any inconsistencies with WHO... You see if you tell me I'm wrong and prove why, that's a debate. If you tell me I'm wrong then just walk away, all you've done is call me a fool. That site also just advised me how I could save 30% on my gas and electric bills which kind of sums it all up really - a site that relies on click bait for revenues hardly fills me with confidence about the information it is providing. I'm actually neither saying you are right nor wrong, just that you're presenting "data" as fact that doesn't to me, come from a credible source and therefore cannot be taken as gospel any more than that provided elsewhere. As I said further up what we *do* know is that currently the chances of you or I coming into contact with, let alone contracting, the virus are incredibly minimal and that should I do so (I don't know your health status so can't comment for you) my chances of recovering from it are overwhelmingly positive. As I have also said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistical data to read however you want. In summary though, if you want to carry on believing whatever you choose to believe then that is your prerogative - I just remember a week ago it being said here "give it a week and you'll see" well that week is up and not a great deal has changed." The fact that they need to advertise to pay their bills doesn't mean they aren't credible. It just means they aren't government funded. I've just checked with WHO dashboard and they haven't updated today's figures but the data correlates. The WHO dashboard however, doesn't render on a smartphone. I don't know who said wait till next week but it wasn't me. I do, however, remember one of the "it's nothing to fuss over" crowd saying at some stage that no one had died outside of China as if it were more to do with Chinese health care. Well the 7th person has just died in Italy so there goes that theory.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not to mention it's like getting uppetty about the flu, unfortunately that also kills a whole bunch of people in a year but ultimately that's a fact of life. There is very little you or I can do about the fact this virus is spreading, its worrying as a world event? Yes, but freaking out over something you cant control seems a bit folly " Who said we should be freaking out? Why must it always be one extreme or the other? You can make any point of view sound redicilous by taking it to the extreme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"79,744 cases of COVID-19, 2,629 deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ "During the period of infection, there were 8,098 reported cases of SARS and 774 deaths" https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars/ I fail to see the comparison. SARS was contained but killed one in every 10 people. So far COVID-19 has 25,287 (91%) recoveries and 2,629 (9%) deaths but is uncontained. How do we get from 9% down to 2%? We need to count 11,567 (22%) as recovered. How can you do that??? Yes when the epidemic is over you can do that because there are no unknowns. But you can't do it now. It's not just me saying that, there are clever people saying it too
Can you provide a breakdown of deaths vs age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, diet, residential status.....or any of the other variables that may influence survival rates?
A
80+ years old 14.8%
70-79 years old 8.0%
60-69 years old 3.6%
50-59 years old 1.3%
40-49 years old 0.4%
30-39 years old 0.2%
20-29 years old 0.2%
10-19 years old 0.2%
The other criteria are on frivolousdata.com where you can also get useful links to Lego stores.
Age isn't always the primary factor though.
Theres a huge difference between an 87 yr old chinese villager who chain smokes and has a poor diet and an 87 year old living in an affluent western city who's had private healthcare all their life, a good diet, regular exercise and who is waited on hand and foot by a butler.
Statistics can be used to prove almost anything. Chaos theory shows how minor differences can provide hugely differing outcomes. Hence there is no guarantee that contagion rates, survival rates and mortality rates will be similar in differing environments.
So people panicking less in certain parts of the world is to be expected whilst those in others, with less access to healthcare, technology and many other factors will react differently.
It's why I dont worry about getting shot whilst out shopping here, but would be slightly more concerned if in an American mall.
A""Baby Boomers are the post-war generation defined more formally as those born between 1946 and 1964. In 2019, they will be aged between 55 and 73 and account for nearly 14.3 million (21.3%) of the UK's population." 1.3% x 14.3 million = 185 000 That's best case. And none of them smoke? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? The simple answer is we don't know whether it is or not - but what I've seen of that site it's a data mining site that uses statistics and nothing more and manipulates them via statistical analysis to present "facts" If those "facts" had any substantive grounding then I am sure that accredited sites such as WHO would be presenting themselves. As I've said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistics to show whatever you want to show - personally I would rather take the information provided by credible organisations that combine facts, expertise and statistics to present their findings. This site claims to be getting data directly from Chinese health authorities etc. But if it's wrong I'd love to know. Of course I would be using WHO if they had a clue about how to succinctly represent their data. I haven't found any inconsistencies with WHO... You see if you tell me I'm wrong and prove why, that's a debate. If you tell me I'm wrong then just walk away, all you've done is call me a fool. That site also just advised me how I could save 30% on my gas and electric bills which kind of sums it all up really - a site that relies on click bait for revenues hardly fills me with confidence about the information it is providing. I'm actually neither saying you are right nor wrong, just that you're presenting "data" as fact that doesn't to me, come from a credible source and therefore cannot be taken as gospel any more than that provided elsewhere. As I said further up what we *do* know is that currently the chances of you or I coming into contact with, let alone contracting, the virus are incredibly minimal and that should I do so (I don't know your health status so can't comment for you) my chances of recovering from it are overwhelmingly positive. As I have also said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistical data to read however you want. In summary though, if you want to carry on believing whatever you choose to believe then that is your prerogative - I just remember a week ago it being said here "give it a week and you'll see" well that week is up and not a great deal has changed. The fact that they need to advertise to pay their bills doesn't mean they aren't credible. It just means they aren't government funded. I've just checked with WHO dashboard and they haven't updated today's figures but the data correlates. The WHO dashboard however, doesn't render on a smartphone. I don't know who said wait till next week but it wasn't me. I do, however, remember one of the "it's nothing to fuss over" crowd saying at some stage that no one had died outside of China as if it were more to do with Chinese health care. Well the 7th person has just died in Italy so there goes that theory...." It’s sad people are dying of course, but the deaths need to be put in perspective, take them last two deaths in Italy... they were both in their mid to late 80s and already suffering from other issues that would likely have killed them, unfortunately the virus speed that process up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
How does this virus potentially effect swinging? Does it make sense to wear a face mask on the bus home from work and then attend an orgy on the weekend?
Considering we, as swingers, are a high risk for any virus, and not exactly known for being 20-somethings... how would it affect swinging if it continues to spread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So is my data accurate or is it not? If not where have my figures been inaccurate? The simple answer is we don't know whether it is or not - but what I've seen of that site it's a data mining site that uses statistics and nothing more and manipulates them via statistical analysis to present "facts" If those "facts" had any substantive grounding then I am sure that accredited sites such as WHO would be presenting themselves. As I've said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistics to show whatever you want to show - personally I would rather take the information provided by credible organisations that combine facts, expertise and statistics to present their findings. This site claims to be getting data directly from Chinese health authorities etc. But if it's wrong I'd love to know. Of course I would be using WHO if they had a clue about how to succinctly represent their data. I haven't found any inconsistencies with WHO... You see if you tell me I'm wrong and prove why, that's a debate. If you tell me I'm wrong then just walk away, all you've done is call me a fool. That site also just advised me how I could save 30% on my gas and electric bills which kind of sums it all up really - a site that relies on click bait for revenues hardly fills me with confidence about the information it is providing. I'm actually neither saying you are right nor wrong, just that you're presenting "data" as fact that doesn't to me, come from a credible source and therefore cannot be taken as gospel any more than that provided elsewhere. As I said further up what we *do* know is that currently the chances of you or I coming into contact with, let alone contracting, the virus are incredibly minimal and that should I do so (I don't know your health status so can't comment for you) my chances of recovering from it are overwhelmingly positive. As I have also said several times, it is very easy to manipulate statistical data to read however you want. In summary though, if you want to carry on believing whatever you choose to believe then that is your prerogative - I just remember a week ago it being said here "give it a week and you'll see" well that week is up and not a great deal has changed. The fact that they need to advertise to pay their bills doesn't mean they aren't credible. It just means they aren't government funded. I've just checked with WHO dashboard and they haven't updated today's figures but the data correlates. The WHO dashboard however, doesn't render on a smartphone. I don't know who said wait till next week but it wasn't me. I do, however, remember one of the "it's nothing to fuss over" crowd saying at some stage that no one had died outside of China as if it were more to do with Chinese health care. Well the 7th person has just died in Italy so there goes that theory.... It’s sad people are dying of course, but the deaths need to be put in perspective, take them last two deaths in Italy... they were both in their mid to late 80s and already suffering from other issues that would likely have killed them, unfortunately the virus speed that process up. " 2.4% of the UK population are 85 and over. So only 1,584,400 then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it..." My issue with you in particular is that you have spread false stories and then become aggressive when pulled up about it. The above quote shows a complete turn around from what you said the other day, you claimed that the NHS wouldn't treat anyone but the first 100 cases, that was completely false and when I confronted you about it you became enraged. I believe you were scaremongering, spreading nonsense in order to cause stress and panic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it... My issue with you in particular is that you have spread false stories and then become aggressive when pulled up about it. The above quote shows a complete turn around from what you said the other day, you claimed that the NHS wouldn't treat anyone but the first 100 cases, that was completely false and when I confronted you about it you became enraged. I believe you were scaremongering, spreading nonsense in order to cause stress and panic. " Calm down dear... Keeley it's only a chat forum.. We all get annoyed from time to time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to Cancer Research one in two will develop cancer at some point in their life. Infinitely more worrying than corona. I'm out. I have bills that worry me more. A" Have a nice day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know who said wait till next week but it wasn't me. I do, however, remember one of the "it's nothing to fuss over" crowd saying at some stage that no one had died outside of China as if it were more to do with Chinese health care. Well the 7th person has just died in Italy so there goes that theory.... It’s sad people are dying of course, but the deaths need to be put in perspective, take them last two deaths in Italy... they were both in their mid to late 80s and already suffering from other issues that would likely have killed them, unfortunately the virus speed that process up. 2.4% of the UK population are 85 and over. So only 1,584,400 then?" Are you trying to say 1.5 million people will die in U.K. then because they are over 85 ? I’m sorry but that’s ludicrous just because you are 85 and over doesn’t mean you will catch the virus - that is what I call basic scaremongering | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe people come on Fab for a little fun, an escape from the dreary, or to connect positively with people. Then have to endure multiple threads weekly on how they are living their lives wrong and are all going to die. Probably makes them a bit tetchy, like. Dunno. Very cool that you are informed and are living your life in accordance to that information, though. "I see you live Caerphilly.... Get it ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it... My issue with you in particular is that you have spread false stories and then become aggressive when pulled up about it. The above quote shows a complete turn around from what you said the other day, you claimed that the NHS wouldn't treat anyone but the first 100 cases, that was completely false and when I confronted you about it you became enraged. I believe you were scaremongering, spreading nonsense in order to cause stress and panic. Calm down dear... Keeley it's only a chat forum.. We all get annoyed from time to time " What are you even talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it... My issue with you in particular is that you have spread false stories and then become aggressive when pulled up about it. The above quote shows a complete turn around from what you said the other day, you claimed that the NHS wouldn't treat anyone but the first 100 cases, that was completely false and when I confronted you about it you became enraged. I believe you were scaremongering, spreading nonsense in order to cause stress and panic. " Enraged eh? Do you want to talk about falsehood? You said you weren't going to converse with me... and yet... here we are! Well someone is certainly agressive and enraged... 
Going back to that point, your argument is that NHS would stop testing for COVID-19 after 100 cases. The site I quoted from said that people would sent home to self quarantine.
So this poses two logical questions. How do you treat someone when you don't know what's wrong with them? How do you treat someone when you've sent them home?
Sorry if asking questions seems agressive to you.
Lastly I advise you to read the site rules with regards to taking up personal issues in the forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it... My issue with you in particular is that you have spread false stories and then become aggressive when pulled up about it. The above quote shows a complete turn around from what you said the other day, you claimed that the NHS wouldn't treat anyone but the first 100 cases, that was completely false and when I confronted you about it you became enraged. I believe you were scaremongering, spreading nonsense in order to cause stress and panic. Enraged eh? Do you want to talk about falsehood? You said you weren't going to converse with me... and yet... here we are! Well someone is certainly agressive and enraged...
Going back to that point, your argument is that NHS would stop testing for COVID-19 after 100 cases. The site I quoted from said that people would sent home to self quarantine.
So this poses two logical questions. How do you treat someone when you don't know what's wrong with them? How do you treat someone when you've sent them home?
Sorry if asking questions seems agressive to you.
Lastly I advise you to read the site rules with regards to taking up personal issues in the forum."I don't have a personal issue with you, I have an issue with you spreading falsehoods. I've already explained the answers to your questions on previous threads, I won't keep repeating myself. Before spreading false stories, check your sources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is no scaremongreller He relies on stats to back up his points but some seem to prefer not to be informed by him. The guy is sound but sometimes people gang up on him in my opinion although to be fair he usually wins his debates " Stats that are inaccurate and sometimes completely made up. I'm not saying everything he says is false but some of it is, that's what I don't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP - who said you were an ignorant scaremonger? A previous thread or real world? " "If you are really worried, read the information available for all and get everything into perspective, rather than the scaremongering that’s is going on" Was posted to me in a previous thread just before it closed. Awesome that someone who doesn't know me, knows nothing about me can just sum up what I know and don't know. All the data I present is apparently false. All the articles I post links to are false. I just have the worst luck. And then I am proven wrong with a formula that uses unknown outcomes as "recovered" as mortality rate... I am told this only has a 1% mortality rate. Which is true. So many unknowns. But Case Recovered vs Case Death currently stands at 91/9%. Hardly 1% I am told this only affects the aged and pre-existing conditions and on this very thread I have mentioned how many UK citizens that pertains to. I am told that I am needlessly worrying people with high anxiety and I have responded that this pales in significance to the apathy displayed for those with pre existing conditions or old age. So there you have it. I have made nothing up, only repeated what has been posted in online sites and news articles. Whether those reports are accurate or not is why this is being discussed in a forum not carved into stone. I am open to debate but vitriol because someone can't handle someone else having an opinion.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP - who said you were an ignorant scaremonger? A previous thread or real world? So there you have it. I have made nothing up, only repeated what has been posted in online sites and news articles. Whether those reports are accurate or not is why this is being discussed in a forum not carved into stone. I am open to debate but vitriol because someone can't handle someone else having an opinion...." You are presenting those articles as facts though when they aren't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are civil contingencies for large scale disasters such as pandemic and nuclear strikes etc. Key personnel are identified and given priority over others. Government, Royalty, etc etc. That's what I believe. Governments will not tell you that. They spread misinformation to manage the masses. If there is a quarantine of Central London then which side of the cordon do you think Boris will be on. Inside or outside? So far as I know the official line is that risk is low. After the first 100 cases NHS plans to stop testing for COVID-19 and then self isolation. Unless they've changed their approach (and I hope the have) there is no plan to close schools either. I have the greatest confidence in our government handling this. It's not like they were taken by surprise by Brexit and were totally unprepared for it... My issue with you in particular is that you have spread false stories and then become aggressive when pulled up about it. The above quote shows a complete turn around from what you said the other day, you claimed that the NHS wouldn't treat anyone but the first 100 cases, that was completely false and when I confronted you about it you became enraged. I believe you were scaremongering, spreading nonsense in order to cause stress and panic. Enraged eh? Do you want to talk about falsehood? You said you weren't going to converse with me... and yet... here we are! Well someone is certainly agressive and enraged...
Going back to that point, your argument is that NHS would stop testing for COVID-19 after 100 cases. The site I quoted from said that people would sent home to self quarantine.
So this poses two logical questions. How do you treat someone when you don't know what's wrong with them? How do you treat someone when you've sent them home?
Sorry if asking questions seems agressive to you.
Lastly I advise you to read the site rules with regards to taking up personal issues in the forum.
I don't have a personal issue with you, I have an issue with you spreading falsehoods.
I've already explained the answers to your questions on previous threads, I won't keep repeating myself. Before spreading false stories, check your sources. "Falsehoods in your opinion. For someone who refuses to converse with me you sure have a lot to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway, I'm out, it's getting tedious. " Have a nice day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP - who said you were an ignorant scaremonger? A previous thread or real world? So there you have it. I have made nothing up, only repeated what has been posted in online sites and news articles. Whether those reports are accurate or not is why this is being discussed in a forum not carved into stone. I am open to debate but vitriol because someone can't handle someone else having an opinion.... You are presenting those articles as facts though when they aren't. " https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/15/exclusive-millions-told-stay-home-coronavirus-continues-spread/ "But The Telegraph understands that after a series of high-level meetings health officials are expected to change tack - and simply order anyone with possible symptoms of flu to stay at home - if the virus is not contained. That means millions of Britons with coughs and colds could end up quarantined at home, as part of attempts to dampen down spread of the virus" Why are newspapers allowed to spread these "falsehoods" but I'm not? Seems terribly unfair  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP - who said you were an ignorant scaremonger? A previous thread or real world? So there you have it. I have made nothing up, only repeated what has been posted in online sites and news articles. Whether those reports are accurate or not is why this is being discussed in a forum not carved into stone. I am open to debate but vitriol because someone can't handle someone else having an opinion.... You are presenting those articles as facts though when they aren't. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/15/exclusive-millions-told-stay-home-coronavirus-continues-spread/ "But The Telegraph understands that after a series of high-level meetings health officials are expected to change tack - and simply order anyone with possible symptoms of flu to stay at home - if the virus is not contained. That means millions of Britons with coughs and colds could end up quarantined at home, as part of attempts to dampen down spread of the virus" Why are newspapers allowed to spread these "falsehoods" but I'm not? Seems terribly unfair "But they do that every time there's an outbreak of something. Personally I think it's this reporting of normal responses as a terrible development or something 'worrying' that farmers the responses you've been getting. During norovirus season those displaying symptoms of vomitting and diarrhea are told to stay at home until 48 hours of the symptoms clearing up. Australian flu caught us off guard one year and do those with flu like symptoms were told bit to go to their DRS and self isolate. This protocol is not new! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ultimately, as I keep saying, it comes down to informing yourself and assessing the risk and making your own informed decision based on that assessment. It's not about "debate" or "winning" or "who can find the best statistics" - but about understanding the situation, weighing up the gravity of it based on rational and reasonable perspective and to present anything other than that in an unbalanced way *can* be construed as scaremongering. While it's possible to argue that whatever the current death figure is against the recovery rate - it's also possible and undeniable to argue that the recovery rate is significantly higher and see that there is a lesser concern than some present as a result. I've made it clear that I don't think you are necessarily scaremongering OP but I do think you're presenting statistics as pretty much the sole source of your argument and doing so in a negatively skewed way, and that in itself could and has been construed as scaremongering - but at least you have done so in a reasoned manner for the most part. There are others however that *have* clearly reached for the tinfoil helmet and made like Chicken Little without actually any real basis." You're right. I am biased. I don't believe people who are dead today should have been counted as "recovered" yesterday, which is what's happening here. I don't believe I've ever stated that a majority of people are severely affected by this virus. I have simply debated the point that this is not the seasonal flu doing the rounds. It might be noted that a vast majority of those infected by the Spanish Flu survived. 2.5% mortality rate (supposedly - there are only estimates). Meaning 97.5% were fine and it was nothing to worry about except for the 50 million people who died. As I did in my original post (5 weeks ago) I recommend "Pandemic" as an educational documentary. But it should be noted that people in the series are only leading academics in their field and fighting contagion on the coal face and not the experts we have on fab. So they are probably wrong. I shall try to put a more positive spin on people suffering and dying from here on in  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ultimately, as I keep saying, it comes down to informing yourself and assessing the risk and making your own informed decision based on that assessment. It's not about "debate" or "winning" or "who can find the best statistics" - but about understanding the situation, weighing up the gravity of it based on rational and reasonable perspective and to present anything other than that in an unbalanced way *can* be construed as scaremongering. While it's possible to argue that whatever the current death figure is against the recovery rate - it's also possible and undeniable to argue that the recovery rate is significantly higher and see that there is a lesser concern than some present as a result. I've made it clear that I don't think you are necessarily scaremongering OP but I do think you're presenting statistics as pretty much the sole source of your argument and doing so in a negatively skewed way, and that in itself could and has been construed as scaremongering - but at least you have done so in a reasoned manner for the most part. There are others however that *have* clearly reached for the tinfoil helmet and made like Chicken Little without actually any real basis. You're right. I am biased. I don't believe people who are dead today should have been counted as "recovered" yesterday, which is what's happening here. I don't believe I've ever stated that a majority of people are severely affected by this virus. I have simply debated the point that this is not the seasonal flu doing the rounds. It might be noted that a vast majority of those infected by the Spanish Flu survived. 2.5% mortality rate (supposedly - there are only estimates). Meaning 97.5% were fine and it was nothing to worry about except for the 50 million people who died. As I did in my original post (5 weeks ago) I recommend "Pandemic" as an educational documentary. But it should be noted that people in the series are only leading academics in their field and fighting contagion on the coal face and not the experts we have on fab. So they are probably wrong. I shall try to put a more positive spin on people suffering and dying from here on in "It strikes me that all you are looking for here is people to blindly accept your statistics, agree with you and say "You know what? You're right" while you continue to ignore and skew rational and reasoned counterpoints - which you'll deny of course but it is *exactly* how you are coming across. And before you say I've done no different, as I am sure you will try to do, I've conceded several times that some of what you have said *could* be correct, rather than just being simply dismissive and throwing blind statistics out there. I had vowed not to get drawn into threads like this again, but gave this one a chance as I thought it was perhaps an opportunity to have a reasoned and rational discussion around the subject matter the title suggests but seems not. To that end, I'm going Dragon's Den and declaring myself "out" - enjoy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ultimately, as I keep saying, it comes down to informing yourself and assessing the risk and making your own informed decision based on that assessment. It's not about "debate" or "winning" or "who can find the best statistics" - but about understanding the situation, weighing up the gravity of it based on rational and reasonable perspective and to present anything other than that in an unbalanced way *can* be construed as scaremongering. While it's possible to argue that whatever the current death figure is against the recovery rate - it's also possible and undeniable to argue that the recovery rate is significantly higher and see that there is a lesser concern than some present as a result. I've made it clear that I don't think you are necessarily scaremongering OP but I do think you're presenting statistics as pretty much the sole source of your argument and doing so in a negatively skewed way, and that in itself could and has been construed as scaremongering - but at least you have done so in a reasoned manner for the most part. There are others however that *have* clearly reached for the tinfoil helmet and made like Chicken Little without actually any real basis. You're right. I am biased. I don't believe people who are dead today should have been counted as "recovered" yesterday, which is what's happening here. I don't believe I've ever stated that a majority of people are severely affected by this virus. I have simply debated the point that this is not the seasonal flu doing the rounds. It might be noted that a vast majority of those infected by the Spanish Flu survived. 2.5% mortality rate (supposedly - there are only estimates). Meaning 97.5% were fine and it was nothing to worry about except for the 50 million people who died. As I did in my original post (5 weeks ago) I recommend "Pandemic" as an educational documentary. But it should be noted that people in the series are only leading academics in their field and fighting contagion on the coal face and not the experts we have on fab. So they are probably wrong. I shall try to put a more positive spin on people suffering and dying from here on in "Perhaps insinuating that people don't care that people are dying is what pissed people off? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ultimately, as I keep saying, it comes down to informing yourself and assessing the risk and making your own informed decision based on that assessment. It's not about "debate" or "winning" or "who can find the best statistics" - but about understanding the situation, weighing up the gravity of it based on rational and reasonable perspective and to present anything other than that in an unbalanced way *can* be construed as scaremongering. While it's possible to argue that whatever the current death figure is against the recovery rate - it's also possible and undeniable to argue that the recovery rate is significantly higher and see that there is a lesser concern than some present as a result. I've made it clear that I don't think you are necessarily scaremongering OP but I do think you're presenting statistics as pretty much the sole source of your argument and doing so in a negatively skewed way, and that in itself could and has been construed as scaremongering - but at least you have done so in a reasoned manner for the most part. There are others however that *have* clearly reached for the tinfoil helmet and made like Chicken Little without actually any real basis. You're right. I am biased. I don't believe people who are dead today should have been counted as "recovered" yesterday, which is what's happening here. I don't believe I've ever stated that a majority of people are severely affected by this virus. I have simply debated the point that this is not the seasonal flu doing the rounds. It might be noted that a vast majority of those infected by the Spanish Flu survived. 2.5% mortality rate (supposedly - there are only estimates). Meaning 97.5% were fine and it was nothing to worry about except for the 50 million people who died. As I did in my original post (5 weeks ago) I recommend "Pandemic" as an educational documentary. But it should be noted that people in the series are only leading academics in their field and fighting contagion on the coal face and not the experts we have on fab. So they are probably wrong. I shall try to put a more positive spin on people suffering and dying from here on in
It strikes me that all you are looking for here is people to blindly accept your statistics, agree with you and say "You know what? You're right" while you continue to ignore and skew rational and reasoned counterpoints - which you'll deny of course but it is *exactly* how you are coming across.
And before you say I've done no different, as I am sure you will try to do, I've conceded several times that some of what you have said *could* be correct, rather than just being simply dismissive and throwing blind statistics out there.
I had vowed not to get drawn into threads like this again, but gave this one a chance as I thought it was perhaps an opportunity to have a reasoned and rational discussion around the subject matter the title suggests but seems not.
To that end, I'm going Dragon's Den and declaring myself "out" - enjoy "Do you know what I'd like is someone to say 2628 is NOT 1% of 79737. But if you don't say that it is you're negative. Well sorry mate I'm never going to be THAT bad at maths. And THAT'S an equation that sees everyone infected but not yet dead as recovered, which makes no sense at this stage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP - who said you were an ignorant scaremonger? A previous thread or real world? "If you are really worried, read the information available for all and get everything into perspective, rather than the scaremongering that’s is going on" Was posted to me in a previous thread just before it closed. Awesome that someone who doesn't know me, knows nothing about me can just sum up what I know and don't know. All the data I present is apparently false. All the articles I post links to are false. I just have the worst luck. And then I am proven wrong with a formula that uses unknown outcomes as "recovered" as mortality rate... I am told this only has a 1% mortality rate. Which is true. So many unknowns. But Case Recovered vs Case Death currently stands at 91/9%. Hardly 1% I am told this only affects the aged and pre-existing conditions and on this very thread I have mentioned how many UK citizens that pertains to. I am told that I am needlessly worrying people with high anxiety and I have responded that this pales in significance to the apathy displayed for those with pre existing conditions or old age. So there you have it. I have made nothing up, only repeated what has been posted in online sites and news articles. Whether those reports are accurate or not is why this is being discussed in a forum not carved into stone. I am open to debate but vitriol because someone can't handle someone else having an opinion...." Does it really matter what an anonymous person on here thinks about you? And statistics are never 100% correct, there are going to be variables. In Italy they haven’t found patient zero yet even. I don’t care much for stats, I just hope that if this virus spreads we can cope with nursing all those affected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP - who said you were an ignorant scaremonger? A previous thread or real world? "If you are really worried, read the information available for all and get everything into perspective, rather than the scaremongering that’s is going on" Was posted to me in a previous thread just before it closed. Awesome that someone who doesn't know me, knows nothing about me can just sum up what I know and don't know. All the data I present is apparently false. All the articles I post links to are false. I just have the worst luck. And then I am proven wrong with a formula that uses unknown outcomes as "recovered" as mortality rate... I am told this only has a 1% mortality rate. Which is true. So many unknowns. But Case Recovered vs Case Death currently stands at 91/9%. Hardly 1% I am told this only affects the aged and pre-existing conditions and on this very thread I have mentioned how many UK citizens that pertains to. I am told that I am needlessly worrying people with high anxiety and I have responded that this pales in significance to the apathy displayed for those with pre existing conditions or old age. So there you have it. I have made nothing up, only repeated what has been posted in online sites and news articles. Whether those reports are accurate or not is why this is being discussed in a forum not carved into stone. I am open to debate but vitriol because someone can't handle someone else having an opinion.... Does it really matter what an anonymous person on here thinks about you? And statistics are never 100% correct, there are going to be variables. In Italy they haven’t found patient zero yet even. I don’t care much for stats, I just hope that if this virus spreads we can cope with nursing all those affected. " I hope so too. I just hope it doesn't reach our shores before they have developed a vaccine. I don't mind the flack. I've invited it on myself by starting this thread. The facts are on my side. Since the time we've been told it's just the seasonal flu, a cruise ship has been quarantined, cities have been isolated and the stock exchange and gold price has been affected. That doesn't happen with seasonal flu. As for stats, I've been told my stats are wrong, then told to look at WHO which has identical stats just a day old. The people who believe... 3.29583506% = 1% ...can tell me I'm skewing data. Well someone is certainly skewing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether I think you are right or wrong, whether I fear its spread or couldn't careless, whether worry about it or dont, will any of that alter the likelihood of me catching it?" What if the difference between this being a contained epidemic and a worldwide pandemic is the attitude of people who know or suspect they are infected staying at home? Do we really expect people to self isolate while we are saying this is nothing to worry about? I think our attitudes will determine how this thing goes... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know who said wait till next week but it wasn't me. I do, however, remember one of the "it's nothing to fuss over" crowd saying at some stage that no one had died outside of China as if it were more to do with Chinese health care. Well the 7th person has just died in Italy so there goes that theory.... It’s sad people are dying of course, but the deaths need to be put in perspective, take them last two deaths in Italy... they were both in their mid to late 80s and already suffering from other issues that would likely have killed them, unfortunately the virus speed that process up. 2.4% of the UK population are 85 and over. So only 1,584,400 then? Are you trying to say 1.5 million people will die in U.K. then because they are over 85 ? I’m sorry but that’s ludicrous just because you are 85 and over doesn’t mean you will catch the virus - that is what I call basic scaremongering " No I didn't say that. People are saying there is nothing to worry about because it's mainly old people at risk. It is said as if we don't have any old people in the UK. I am simply pointing out that this is far from the case. And I get accused of twisting what people say! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it. Great that they have been so quick to declare infodemic when they refuse to call this a pandemic. It's in 33 countries with just short of 80 000 cases. What will it take? The World Health Organization has explained why it’s not classed as a pandemic quite clearly and how / why that status could change " https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/coronavirus-outbreak-a-pandemic-in-all-but-name-says-expert Other experts said it was hard to believe that Covid-19 would not now spread worldwide. “We now consider this to be a pandemic in all but name, and it’s only a matter of time before the World Health Organization starts to use the term in its communications,” said Dr Bharat Pankhania, from the University of Exeter Medical School Bloody scaremongerer! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it. Great that they have been so quick to declare infodemic when they refuse to call this a pandemic. It's in 33 countries with just short of 80 000 cases. What will it take? The World Health Organization has explained why it’s not classed as a pandemic quite clearly and how / why that status could change https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/coronavirus-outbreak-a-pandemic-in-all-but-name-says-expert Other experts said it was hard to believe that Covid-19 would not now spread worldwide. “We now consider this to be a pandemic in all but name, and it’s only a matter of time before the World Health Organization starts to use the term in its communications,” said Dr Bharat Pankhania, from the University of Exeter Medical School Bloody scaremongerer! " Clearly you have a hard on about this. Have you considered breathing into a paper bag? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going? "Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified. "I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too "Thousands will die! But cars will kill more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more. "You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch. "I think we're beyond that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There have been reports on that alot of fake news about the corona virus is spreading, what the world health organization is calling an "infodemic" an overwhelming amount of inaccuracy information about it. Great that they have been so quick to declare infodemic when they refuse to call this a pandemic. It's in 33 countries with just short of 80 000 cases. What will it take? The World Health Organization has explained why it’s not classed as a pandemic quite clearly and how / why that status could change https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/coronavirus-outbreak-a-pandemic-in-all-but-name-says-expert Other experts said it was hard to believe that Covid-19 would not now spread worldwide. “We now consider this to be a pandemic in all but name, and it’s only a matter of time before the World Health Organization starts to use the term in its communications,” said Dr Bharat Pankhania, from the University of Exeter Medical School Bloody scaremongerer! Clearly you have a hard on about this. Have you considered breathing into a paper bag?" Still fighting facts with innuendo? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that. "Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing. "Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing.
Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet?"Disproved Newton's laws of motion yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing.
Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet?
Disproved Newton's laws of motion yet?"Here's one for you Clem. Roughly 80000 people infected. 2600 dead. 11000 in critical condition... what's the mortality rate? Go! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing.
Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet?
Disproved Newton's laws of motion yet?
Here's one for you Clem. Roughly 80000 people infected. 2600 dead. 11000 in critical condition... what's the mortality rate? Go!"Why the fuck would i care? Mate, take a break. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing.
Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet?
Disproved Newton's laws of motion yet?
Here's one for you Clem. Roughly 80000 people infected. 2600 dead. 11000 in critical condition... what's the mortality rate? Go!
Why the fuck would i care? Mate, take a break. "Clem whilst I'm very flattered of you thinking of me with a hardon there really is nothing between us. Just thought I would break it to you gently. Sorry bud
So how is your climate change denial going? Found any more oil company funded scientists to bolster the 3% you already found?
Found that link to the volcano under the Thwaites Glacier yet? Did you see the camera shots of the volcano!? Niether did I. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing.
Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet?
Disproved Newton's laws of motion yet?
Here's one for you Clem. Roughly 80000 people infected. 2600 dead. 11000 in critical condition... what's the mortality rate? Go!
Why the fuck would i care? Mate, take a break.
Clem whilst I'm very flattered of you thinking of me with a hardon there really is nothing between us. Just thought I would break it to you gently. Sorry bud
So how is your climate change denial going? Found any more oil company funded scientists to bolster the 3% you already found?
Found that link to the volcano under the Thwaites Glacier yet? Did you see the camera shots of the volcano!? Niether did I."As always, you have my deepest sympathies. I hope you get better soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still going?
Check out his green arrow. Poor love is petrified.
I know, it seems to be contagious, there's another guy going round like it too
Thousands will die! But cars will kill more.
You haven't used the tin foil hat expression yet. Losing your touch.
I think we're beyond that.
Oooh upping the ante! Exciting! What deep dark neurosis are you going to pronounce upon me today Should be amusing.
Did you find out the name of the super secret weapon the Americans used on the world trade centre towers yet?
Disproved Newton's laws of motion yet?
Here's one for you Clem. Roughly 80000 people infected. 2600 dead. 11000 in critical condition... what's the mortality rate? Go!
Why the fuck would i care? Mate, take a break.
Clem whilst I'm very flattered of you thinking of me with a hardon there really is nothing between us. Just thought I would break it to you gently. Sorry bud
So how is your climate change denial going? Found any more oil company funded scientists to bolster the 3% you already found?
Found that link to the volcano under the Thwaites Glacier yet? Did you see the camera shots of the volcano!? Niether did I.
As always, you have my deepest sympathies. I hope you get better soon. "Aw that's so sweet. Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the discussion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could be worse. Where my sister lives outside Milan, every public and commercial business is closed for the foreseeable future. She was only seen in hospital today as she's a private patient undergoing a course of treatment. All non private non emergency appointments cancelled. All events, no carnival this weekend and her husband advised to work from home. There's no information given apart from stay home. Day one and my niece is already stir crazy. Frightening people by blocking down a city with no information or advice is irresponsible in my view. The shops are empty and they've been given no information. " If this is true then it frightens me . .. yet I am often told I worry too much.. Wake up Peoples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are some despicable people around. My sister said there are gangs phoning those on lock down saying they're coming to check on them and swab their throats. When they arrive they knock the homeowner out before ransacking their homes. I'm surprised I'm still amazed how nasty people can be." That's despicable. How low can we go? I really hope your sister gets through everything OK and it blows over soon. There should be a severe penalty for people doing this. It's not just theft, it's undermining relief efforts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could be worse. Where my sister lives outside Milan, every public and commercial business is closed for the foreseeable future. She was only seen in hospital today as she's a private patient undergoing a course of treatment. All non private non emergency appointments cancelled. All events, no carnival this weekend and her husband advised to work from home. There's no information given apart from stay home. Day one and my niece is already stir crazy. Frightening people by blocking down a city with no information or advice is irresponsible in my view. The shops are empty and they've been given no information. If this is true then it frightens me . .. yet I am often told I worry too much.. Wake up Peoples. " On the positive side it seems that our authorities have recognised that just keeping calm and carrying on won't cut it. They are now considering closing schools if it becomes necessary. The silver lining of what happened in Italy is that it seems to have woken number 10 up. At last we are hearing about a preparation plan. Positive stuff | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could be worse. Where my sister lives outside Milan, every public and commercial business is closed for the foreseeable future. She was only seen in hospital today as she's a private patient undergoing a course of treatment. All non private non emergency appointments cancelled. All events, no carnival this weekend and her husband advised to work from home. There's no information given apart from stay home. Day one and my niece is already stir crazy. Frightening people by blocking down a city with no information or advice is irresponsible in my view. The shops are empty and they've been given no information. If this is true then it frightens me . .. yet I am often told I worry too much.. Wake up Peoples. On the positive side it seems that our authorities have recognised that just keeping calm and carrying on won't cut it. They are now considering closing schools if it becomes necessary. The silver lining of what happened in Italy is that it seems to have woken number 10 up. At last we are hearing about a preparation plan. Positive stuff "You trust the health minister haha, the bloke is a Buffoon. And whist the NHS is very pressured, and can handle individual cases with fantastic outcomes it wouldn’t take much for it to become overwhelmed. My issue is the reported mortality rate of 2% if you look at the recovered vs deaths, mortality is around 10%. Best thing to do is be vigilant and prepared, be proactive not reactive like number 10 is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to restaurants.. I do not think there are Italian areas in London in the same way that we have China town. I wonder if Italian restaurants will suffer in the same way as those in Chinatown" The chinatown restaurants haven't suffered though. Even the daily mail's own readers called that story out as bulkshit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to restaurants.. I do not think there are Italian areas in London in the same way that we have China town. I wonder if Italian restaurants will suffer in the same way as those in Chinatown The chinatown restaurants haven't suffered though. Even the daily mail's own readers called that story out as bulkshit" Read Jay Rayner Guardian review of Chinatown.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could be worse. Where my sister lives outside Milan, every public and commercial business is closed for the foreseeable future. She was only seen in hospital today as she's a private patient undergoing a course of treatment. All non private non emergency appointments cancelled. All events, no carnival this weekend and her husband advised to work from home. There's no information given apart from stay home. Day one and my niece is already stir crazy. Frightening people by blocking down a city with no information or advice is irresponsible in my view. The shops are empty and they've been given no information. If this is true then it frightens me . .. yet I am often told I worry too much.. Wake up Peoples. On the positive side it seems that our authorities have recognised that just keeping calm and carrying on won't cut it. They are now considering closing schools if it becomes necessary. The silver lining of what happened in Italy is that it seems to have woken number 10 up. At last we are hearing about a preparation plan. Positive stuff
You trust the health minister haha, the bloke is a Buffoon.
And whist the NHS is very pressured, and can handle individual cases with fantastic outcomes it wouldn’t take much for it to become overwhelmed.
My issue is the reported mortality rate of 2% if you look at the recovered vs deaths, mortality is around 10%.
Best thing to do is be vigilant and prepared, be proactive not reactive like number 10 is "Thank you. Some reason at last!
Do you know how the Spanish Flu got it's name? It did not originate in Spain.
War correspondents on either side did not want to demoralise, so they "minimalised" the figures but were allowed to report freely on Spain. In short the governments lied to their people. So here we are again and we are told to look to "official government sources".
The definition of a pandemic is an uncontrolled disease spreading over a wide area with large numbers. Well we have over 30 countries around the world, 80 000 infected, and if it's so under control why does it keep popping up somewhere new?
What we have here is misinformation and the truth being labelled as scaremongering. I challenge those to show me the equation and figures used to get a 1% mortality rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My issue is the reported mortality rate of 2% if you look at the recovered vs deaths, mortality is around 10%. " The rate is still being taken as 2%.. this is because the way they work it out they accept that in more isolated cases the numbers upset the actual figures The 2% have been taken from the epicentre of the outbreak.. where there are more statistics to work from. If you go on the who website I think it was there I read a breakdown of the rates x including that if over a certain age the rate increased x I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x" What do you mean by that? Many of the issues such as the effect on travel, stock exchange etc would still be there, false reports or no. When it comes to people drinking bleach I certainly agree with you. I would think that if you spoke to the families of the deceased you might find they are more affected by the virus itself than false reports. Again, yes you can get a different answer if you look at certain areas, pick data selectively. Considering the Spanish flu took place from January 1918 to December 1920 don't you think it's a bit early to decide a mortality rate or whether it's a pandemic or not. WHO seem to think they have a lid on this because the number of new cases is falling and the CFR has dropped. Other experts say differently. Early on they were saying it hasn't reached Africa. They just neglected to mention that at that stage there were only two centers in the whole of Africa capable of testing for COVID-19. One in Senegal and one in South Africa. Not having the ability to test for a virus doesn't mean it hasn't spread somewhere. There are lots of unknowns... " like the people attacking people just because they have been near an affected area.. in malta yesterday they refused to unload containers due to fear of the virus... there have been people not eating foods.. and yes those impacted directly by the virus will be but when food panics start etc... there will be many more affected and the panic is simply not necessary. False reports are rife | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x" What do you mean by that? Many of the issues such as the effect on travel, stock exchange etc would still be there, false reports or no. When it comes to people drinking bleach I certainly agree with you. I would think that if you spoke to the families of the deceased you might find they are more affected by the virus itself than false reports. Again, yes you can get a different answer if you look at certain areas, pick data selectively. Considering the Spanish flu took place from January 1918 to December 1920 don't you think it's a bit early to decide a mortality rate or whether it's a pandemic or not. WHO seem to think they have a lid on this because the number of new cases is falling and the CFR has dropped. Other experts say differently. Early on they were saying it hasn't reached Africa. They just neglected to mention that at that stage there were only two centers in the whole of Africa capable of testing for COVID-19. One in Senegal and one in South Africa. Not having the ability to test for a virus doesn't mean it hasn't spread somewhere. There are lots of unknowns... like the people attacking people just because they have been near an affected area.. in malta yesterday they refused to unload containers due to fear of the virus... there have been people not eating foods.. and yes those impacted directly by the virus will be but when food panics start etc... there will be many more affected and the panic is simply not necessary. False reports are rife " while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%. So I don’t buy your don’t panic bullshit. This is going to be a lot worse than they are predicting of the 2% fatality rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x" What do you mean by that? Many of the issues such as the effect on travel, stock exchange etc would still be there, false reports or no. When it comes to people drinking bleach I certainly agree with you. I would think that if you spoke to the families of the deceased you might find they are more affected by the virus itself than false reports. Again, yes you can get a different answer if you look at certain areas, pick data selectively. Considering the Spanish flu took place from January 1918 to December 1920 don't you think it's a bit early to decide a mortality rate or whether it's a pandemic or not. WHO seem to think they have a lid on this because the number of new cases is falling and the CFR has dropped. Other experts say differently. Early on they were saying it hasn't reached Africa. They just neglected to mention that at that stage there were only two centers in the whole of Africa capable of testing for COVID-19. One in Senegal and one in South Africa. Not having the ability to test for a virus doesn't mean it hasn't spread somewhere. There are lots of unknowns... like the people attacking people just because they have been near an affected area.. in malta yesterday they refused to unload containers due to fear of the virus... there have been people not eating foods.. and yes those impacted directly by the virus will be but when food panics start etc... there will be many more affected and the panic is simply not necessary. False reports are rife " Oh agreed. There is a lot of Corona Stupidy going around. Not that I know this for a fact but there are rumours about this in the papers and on the news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x" What do you mean by that? Many of the issues such as the effect on travel, stock exchange etc would still be there, false reports or no. When it comes to people drinking bleach I certainly agree with you. I would think that if you spoke to the families of the deceased you might find they are more affected by the virus itself than false reports. Again, yes you can get a different answer if you look at certain areas, pick data selectively. Considering the Spanish flu took place from January 1918 to December 1920 don't you think it's a bit early to decide a mortality rate or whether it's a pandemic or not. WHO seem to think they have a lid on this because the number of new cases is falling and the CFR has dropped. Other experts say differently. Early on they were saying it hasn't reached Africa. They just neglected to mention that at that stage there were only two centers in the whole of Africa capable of testing for COVID-19. One in Senegal and one in South Africa. Not having the ability to test for a virus doesn't mean it hasn't spread somewhere. There are lots of unknowns... like the people attacking people just because they have been near an affected area.. in malta yesterday they refused to unload containers due to fear of the virus... there have been people not eating foods.. and yes those impacted directly by the virus will be but when food panics start etc... there will be many more affected and the panic is simply not necessary. False reports are rife while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%. So I don’t buy your don’t panic bullshit. This is going to be a lot worse than they are predicting of the 2% fatality rate." Not panicking is not bullshit. Its sensible.. even if it were 50% what's the point in panicking.... it gets me no where.. where as being informed and sensible will be much more efficient.. there are lots of things happening that simply dont help.... I live with someone that should she get the virus already has a compromised immune system and is prone to respiratory infections... so I'm well aware of the risks... but as yet I'm just taking the sensible precautions rather than listening to every scaremounger that comes along. Due to having been in Italy last week.. this morning I was straight on the phone to ask about if I need to self quarantine when I'm returned.. apparently not... but rather than panic.. I rang and asked questions.. apparently in many places the biggest question being asked of the help lines are about Chinese food and safety of eating it.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x" What do you mean by that? Many of the issues such as the effect on travel, stock exchange etc would still be there, false reports or no. When it comes to people drinking bleach I certainly agree with you. I would think that if you spoke to the families of the deceased you might find they are more affected by the virus itself than false reports. Again, yes you can get a different answer if you look at certain areas, pick data selectively. Considering the Spanish flu took place from January 1918 to December 1920 don't you think it's a bit early to decide a mortality rate or whether it's a pandemic or not. WHO seem to think they have a lid on this because the number of new cases is falling and the CFR has dropped. Other experts say differently. Early on they were saying it hasn't reached Africa. They just neglected to mention that at that stage there were only two centers in the whole of Africa capable of testing for COVID-19. One in Senegal and one in South Africa. Not having the ability to test for a virus doesn't mean it hasn't spread somewhere. There are lots of unknowns... like the people attacking people just because they have been near an affected area.. in malta yesterday they refused to unload containers due to fear of the virus... there have been people not eating foods.. and yes those impacted directly by the virus will be but when food panics start etc... there will be many more affected and the panic is simply not necessary. False reports are rife while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%. So I don’t buy your don’t panic bullshit. This is going to be a lot worse than they are predicting of the 2% fatality rate. Not panicking is not bullshit. Its sensible.. even if it were 50% what's the point in panicking.... it gets me no where.. where as being informed and sensible will be much more efficient.. there are lots of things happening that simply dont help.... I live with someone that should she get the virus already has a compromised immune system and is prone to respiratory infections... so I'm well aware of the risks... but as yet I'm just taking the sensible precautions rather than listening to every scaremounger that comes along. Due to having been in Italy last week.. this morning I was straight on the phone to ask about if I need to self quarantine when I'm returned.. apparently not... but rather than panic.. I rang and asked questions.. apparently in many places the biggest question being asked of the help lines are about Chinese food and safety of eating it.... "You've made my point. There IS middle ground between panicking and doing nothing. Well done!
But what is panicking? Is quoting official statistics and newspaper reports panicking?
Here's an example. They refer to people panic buying. Then they show shelves empty in the shops. Then they tell us people haven't left the house for 3 days.
Ok so how crazy do the shops get on the holidays when the shops are closed for one day? Do they call that panic buying? If you think you are going to be quarantined in your house for 3 days does it not make good sense to have 3 days worth of provisions?
Disclaimer: This is just an opinion. Not a fact.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Seen it said a few times now, and falls in to what I often say, extremism is far more dangerous than anything else currently.
Mindless worry and panic causes recklessness. Presents danger in its own right. Some tinfoil hat stuff going on.
At the other hand you have those that are brushing this off as nothing. Which is just as dangerous because it potentially raises the rate of the spread because people don't care.
The ultimate issue with COVID-19 is not the number of deaths but how contagious it is. Regardless of the chance of recovery, things will shut down if enough people have it because they will just be unable to work etc. It is just as much of an economic impact as it is health. At all ends of the economic ladder.
The sensible thing is to not panic, not worry and stress as you can't do a damn thing if you do glcatch it. You can just reduce your expose to it and if you do get it reduce the chance of you spreading it in a sensible manner.
And yes I say this as somebody that has an immune system that is weaker than most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Are you d*unk!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one." Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it me or is this thread just pure irony. "It's ironic irony is that's ironic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""I still maintain the panic and false reports over this are causing more issues than the actual virus x" What do you mean by that? Many of the issues such as the effect on travel, stock exchange etc would still be there, false reports or no. When it comes to people drinking bleach I certainly agree with you. I would think that if you spoke to the families of the deceased you might find they are more affected by the virus itself than false reports. Again, yes you can get a different answer if you look at certain areas, pick data selectively. Considering the Spanish flu took place from January 1918 to December 1920 don't you think it's a bit early to decide a mortality rate or whether it's a pandemic or not. WHO seem to think they have a lid on this because the number of new cases is falling and the CFR has dropped. Other experts say differently. Early on they were saying it hasn't reached Africa. They just neglected to mention that at that stage there were only two centers in the whole of Africa capable of testing for COVID-19. One in Senegal and one in South Africa. Not having the ability to test for a virus doesn't mean it hasn't spread somewhere. There are lots of unknowns... like the people attacking people just because they have been near an affected area.. in malta yesterday they refused to unload containers due to fear of the virus... there have been people not eating foods.. and yes those impacted directly by the virus will be but when food panics start etc... there will be many more affected and the panic is simply not necessary. False reports are rife while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%. So I don’t buy your don’t panic bullshit. This is going to be a lot worse than they are predicting of the 2% fatality rate. Not panicking is not bullshit. Its sensible.. even if it were 50% what's the point in panicking.... it gets me no where.. where as being informed and sensible will be much more efficient.. there are lots of things happening that simply dont help.... I live with someone that should she get the virus already has a compromised immune system and is prone to respiratory infections... so I'm well aware of the risks... but as yet I'm just taking the sensible precautions rather than listening to every scaremounger that comes along. Due to having been in Italy last week.. this morning I was straight on the phone to ask about if I need to self quarantine when I'm returned.. apparently not... but rather than panic.. I rang and asked questions.. apparently in many places the biggest question being asked of the help lines are about Chinese food and safety of eating it.... "Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one. Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve." Well why did you post this? Your opinion matters, but mine doesn't? And I'm the one with an ego? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one. Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve. Well why did you post this? Your opinion matters, but mine doesn't? And I'm the one with an ego?" He gets paid more than most of us pay in tax apparently... read into that what you will... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one. Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve. Well why did you post this? Your opinion matters, but mine doesn't? And I'm the one with an ego? He gets paid more than most of us pay in tax apparently... read into that what you will..." That my good sir, is a fact! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one. Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve. Well why did you post this? Your opinion matters, but mine doesn't? And I'm the one with an ego? He gets paid more than most of us pay in tax apparently... read into that what you will..." Well I suppose if you don't have the capacity to win the argument you can always resort to snide comments. Still picturing me with a hardon Clem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one. Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve. Well why did you post this? Your opinion matters, but mine doesn't? And I'm the one with an ego? He gets paid more than most of us pay in tax apparently... read into that what you will... Well I suppose if you don't have the capacity to win the argument you can always resort to snide comments. Still picturing me with a hardon Clem? "Is that what your ego wants you to think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject: "A couple of basic facts :- The virus appears to kill around 1% of people infected. This is far less than Sars (10%) Mers (34%) or Ebola (50%)" So first of all this is an unrefferenced piece of data not just presented as a fact but stated that it is a fact. When I do that I get my head bitten off. Next this 1% does not reflect any of the calculations or data provided WHO who are supposedly the be all and end all. Then we also have people quoting 2% and then we have 3%. All facts. How does 1=2=3??? Then we have a number of people who seem to know what they are talking about saying you can't use an unknown outcome in an equation. i.e mortality rate can only be calculated after an epidemic. This is just an opinion, but people who have died have not recovered. I don't want to start a panic or scare people but dead people are not alive. Sounds crazy to say but the mortality rate calculation has you as either dead or recovered. So you can't use it at this stage! How many times must I say this? The best indicator we have right now is closed case statistics and they are nowhere near 1%. So forgive me for questioning that one. Why do you keep bothering? Honestly, is it that important to your ego that you must prove you are right? That everyone bows down before you and is in awe of your stats? Some people will believe in what you say, others you will never convert so just give up because I can tell you the more you bang on about something in the way that you are, the more people will tune you out and very likely be pushed to ignore everything you say. Odds are by providing information in such a format and attitude, you are causing the complete opposite in what you are trying to achieve. Well why did you post this? Your opinion matters, but mine doesn't? And I'm the one with an ego? He gets paid more than most of us pay in tax apparently... read into that what you will... Well I suppose if you don't have the capacity to win the argument you can always resort to snide comments. Still picturing me with a hardon Clem?
Is that what your ego wants you to think?"You said it. Not me.
I'm sorry Clem, you're a really nice guy but I don't have romantic interests in men. So you're wasting your time trying to get my attention by teasing me. It's very sweet but you're just going to get your heart broken... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think MCN is possibly being bullied here." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think MCN is possibly being bullied here." Bullied? How about confused? Someone says "My issue with you in particular" And then says "I don't have a personal issue with you" Says they refuse to converse with me. Then converse with me. Tell me I present my opinions as facts.... and present this opinion as a fact...... Says I am "spreading bullshit" but then says I am rude and agressive. Tells me to check my sources when I quote the Telegraph, but provides no contradictory sources. Apparently just saying what I say is bullshit is enough. Again presented as fact not opinion. It's a bit difficult to take someone seriously when they self contradict. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad " where did you pluck that figure from.. as according to WHO and other medical agencies..they currently have no clue as to how long this virus can last outside the body and on surfaces.... SARS and other similar viruses of which this is similar.. they know can live on surfaces up to 9 days..the flu by comparison is 48hours... but they do not know with this. China are deep cleaning or destroying money to try and stop the spread... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad where did you pluck that figure from.. as according to WHO and other medical agencies..they currently have no clue as to how long this virus can last outside the body and on surfaces.... SARS and other similar viruses of which this is similar.. they know can live on surfaces up to 9 days..the flu by comparison is 48hours... but they do not know with this. China are deep cleaning or destroying money to try and stop the spread... " It’s already beyond China, it’s got a high transmission rate and even if the mortality rate is 2% that’s way higher than that of influenza, which may I say we have a vaccine for and a understanding. Not a lot is known about the Coronavirus, and there is yet the possibility of a Mutation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad where did you pluck that figure from.. as according to WHO and other medical agencies..they currently have no clue as to how long this virus can last outside the body and on surfaces.... SARS and other similar viruses of which this is similar.. they know can live on surfaces up to 9 days..the flu by comparison is 48hours... but they do not know with this. China are deep cleaning or destroying money to try and stop the spread... It’s already beyond China, it’s got a high transmission rate and even if the mortality rate is 2% that’s way higher than that of influenza, which may I say we have a vaccine for and a understanding. Not a lot is known about the Coronavirus, and there is yet the possibility of a Mutation." yes I'm aware its beyond China... but I was answering a figure seemingly plucked out of thin air. And China is in fact using that method to help stop the spread. Which actually in China now there has been a decrease in the number of new infections | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad where did you pluck that figure from.. as according to WHO and other medical agencies..they currently have no clue as to how long this virus can last outside the body and on surfaces.... SARS and other similar viruses of which this is similar.. they know can live on surfaces up to 9 days..the flu by comparison is 48hours... but they do not know with this. China are deep cleaning or destroying money to try and stop the spread... It’s already beyond China, it’s got a high transmission rate and even if the mortality rate is 2% that’s way higher than that of influenza, which may I say we have a vaccine for and a understanding. Not a lot is known about the Coronavirus, and there is yet the possibility of a Mutation. yes I'm aware its beyond China... but I was answering a figure seemingly plucked out of thin air. And China is in fact using that method to help stop the spread. Which actually in China now there has been a decrease in the number of new infections " There has been a decrease in the cases of *reported new infections in China (communist countries with internet regulation are not exactly the most reliable nations for reporting facts). Infection rate has increased in Japan, South Korea and Italy just showing how easily that can happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad where did you pluck that figure from.. as according to WHO and other medical agencies..they currently have no clue as to how long this virus can last outside the body and on surfaces.... SARS and other similar viruses of which this is similar.. they know can live on surfaces up to 9 days..the flu by comparison is 48hours... but they do not know with this. China are deep cleaning or destroying money to try and stop the spread... It’s already beyond China, it’s got a high transmission rate and even if the mortality rate is 2% that’s way higher than that of influenza, which may I say we have a vaccine for and a understanding. Not a lot is known about the Coronavirus, and there is yet the possibility of a Mutation." It's the mutation that is worrying. It has jumped from animals to men. Could it jump back again? Are our pets safe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current fatality rate is less than 0.5% for people under the age of 50. But it rises to 8% for people in their 70s and 15% for people over 80. Meanwhile, nearly 11% of people with diseases of the heart died when infected. As did 7% of people with diabetes and 6% of people with long-term lung problems. The average for healthy people is 0.9%. No idea how that compares to seasonal flu. At the end of the day, it is what it is. I’m still sure malaria is a bigger killer but the stats aren’t reported daily. We’ve just got to get on with it and follow the guidelines given by the NHS. " I think that what is worrying most people about this virus is we don't know where it ends. If we had a crystal ball and could say 3000 people die from this and then it's contained people would be less anxious. If you could provide a list of who gets hit the hardest we would be less anxious. But right now we don't know where this ends, how many will die and who will die. That makes people anxious. We have just had an election where our medical care system was put under the spotlight and found wanting. Rather than increasing hospitals and care staff have been cut, not just here but worldwide. According to the "Pandemic" documentary on Netflix the USA closed over 700 medical facilities that year. We have seen closures of walk clinics etc here too. That is at the back of our minds and that makes people anxious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Apparently the virus can last for ten hours outside the body so presumably it could thrive on a Chinese salad where did you pluck that figure from.. as according to WHO and other medical agencies..they currently have no clue as to how long this virus can last outside the body and on surfaces.... SARS and other similar viruses of which this is similar.. they know can live on surfaces up to 9 days..the flu by comparison is 48hours... but they do not know with this. China are deep cleaning or destroying money to try and stop the spread... It’s already beyond China, it’s got a high transmission rate and even if the mortality rate is 2% that’s way higher than that of influenza, which may I say we have a vaccine for and a understanding. Not a lot is known about the Coronavirus, and there is yet the possibility of a Mutation. It's the mutation that is worrying. It has jumped from animals to men. Could it jump back again? Are our pets safe? " Keep your pets from going to work, school and public gatherings such as rugby matches and concerts. Goldfish are prone to respiratory problems when they have been out the bowl too long and are high risk to COVID-19. Yes that's just an opinion. No I don't have WHO data to back it up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The current fatality rate is less than 0.5% for people under the age of 50. But it rises to 8% for people in their 70s and 15% for people over 80. Meanwhile, nearly 11% of people with diseases of the heart died when infected. As did 7% of people with diabetes and 6% of people with long-term lung problems. The average for healthy people is 0.9%. No idea how that compares to seasonal flu. At the end of the day, it is what it is. I’m still sure malaria is a bigger killer but the stats aren’t reported daily. We’ve just got to get on with it and follow the guidelines given by the NHS. I think that what is worrying most people about this virus is we don't know where it ends. If we had a crystal ball and could say 3000 people die from this and then it's contained people would be less anxious. If you could provide a list of who gets hit the hardest we would be less anxious. But right now we don't know where this ends, how many will die and who will die. That makes people anxious. We have just had an election where our medical care system was put under the spotlight and found wanting. Rather than increasing hospitals and care staff have been cut, not just here but worldwide. According to the "Pandemic" documentary on Netflix the USA closed over 700 medical facilities that year. We have seen closures of walk clinics etc here too. That is at the back of our minds and that makes people anxious. " Just like previous corona viruses like SARS, it won’t be eradicated but a vaccine / cure will be developed in time that will treat those that get infected quicker. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
