Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Details to follow.

onewheeldave

Members
  • Content Count

    5,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About onewheeldave

  • Rank
    Autistic User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Deaths in the UK have now dropped from 27 to 11 https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
  2. Evolution does pretty well IMO. I suspect that, when all relevant factors are taken into account, the positions of our mouth and nose are pretty much optimal. Where would you place them?
  3. Again, that's not saying that 25% of the population are especially vulnerable to covid- it's saying that "We estimated that 1·7 billion (UI 1·0–2·4) people, comprising 22% (UI 15–28) of the global population, have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of severe COVID-19 if infected (ranging from <5% of those younger than 20 years to >66% of those aged 70 years or older). " When it says "We estimated that 349 million (186–787) people (4% [3–9] of the global population) are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and would require hospital admission if infected (ranging from <1% of those younger than 20 years to approximately 20% of those aged 70 years or older)." that is referring to the vulnerable- note they make up 4%, not 25%. You wanted names of scientists/experts who disagree/d with some aspects of lockdown- there are many, he is one of them.
  4. There's loads, I'm just not good at remembering contingent facts like names. However someone's just posted a link about Sweden- Anders Tegnell was basically the person behind Sweden's strategy, he clearly disagreed with aspects of the lockdown- he's a chief epidemiologist.
  5. Yes, I think that those who are especially vulnerable to covid should, if they choose to shield, be supported. And everyone who is not especially vulnerable, should get back to their working lives. I think if that had been done the first time round it would have made a lot more sense, and, the cost of supporting the self isolating vulnerable would have been minor compared to the economic devastation caused by locking down everyone.
  6. Yes. Most, if not all, conditions which leave the sufferer especially vulnerable to covid are also long term. The converse isn't true- many long term conditions do not mean the person is especially vulnerable to covid [eg autism] 'Vulnerable to covid' is a sub-set of 'long term conditions' and therefore smaller. Originally, in direct response to my- you said i.e. that the vulnerable make up "about 25% of the population of England" I asked for a link- you instead provided one saying that 25% of the population have long term conditions, of which the vulnerable are a smaller subset. If you are going to maintain that 25% of the population are vulnerable, you need to provide a link to that- do you have one?
  7. That's about long term conditions. People with long term conditions are not necessarily especially vulnerable to covid. Being autistic as I am, is a life long condition- I'm not especially vulnerable to covid. Obesity, diabetes, heart conditions, elderly etc- they're vulnerable. Obviously, I'm talking about the vulnerable who do know they have an underlying condition that makes them susceptible- it makes sense for them to self isolate, rather than quaranteen everyone [thus causing economic devastation and the ensuing mortality]
  8. Clearly not, as I said they should have the right to not self-isolate- it's their choice. I expect most would, as it makes sense. They would then be as safe as it's possible to be, while everyone else gets on with keeping the economy going.
  9. I've no problem with vulnerable people shielding [if they choose to, equally, if they choose not to, that's their decision]. It makes far more sense for the vulnerable to be in quaranteen, rather that everyone.
  10. 20% of those infected get kidney and heart and even brain damage?!?
  11. Coronavirus mainly kills the vulnerable, who made up the majority of fatalities during the first wave, so there are now less people who are vulnerable, therefore less deaths. Maybe also the virus is mutating to something less serious, that does happen with viruses.
  12. Just infections going up, deaths are low. Possibly one reason more people are congregating is that they are aware that deaths are very low?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.