COVID THREAD

[Chekhov 488]

There are rumours that all restrictions except face masks will be abolished on the 26th Jan, other say all restrictions incl masks.

I have to say if masks remain it will be an absolute triumph of form over function, there is not a country in the world where they have provably made a significant difference.

Thus if masks are not abolished it can only be as a confidence building measure" (just like vaccine passports", but I would strongly dispute how well they will work in that capacity. Even if they do give the most frightened amongst us  a bit of extra confidence, that can only be a short term effect. How can masks, constantly reminding everyone about viruses, lead to a long term increase in confidence ?

No, best forget about Covid ASAP, that's how to increase confidence.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Chekhov

[RJRB 688]

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

There are rumours that all restrictions except face masks will be abolished on the 26th Jan, other say all restrictions incl masks.

I have to say if masks remain it will be an absolute triumph of form over function, there is not a country in the world where they have provably made a significant difference.

Thus if masks are not abolished it can only be as a confidence building measure" (just like vaccine passports", but I would strongly dispute how well they will work in that capacity. Even if they do give the most frightened amongst us  a bit of extra confidence, that can only be a short term effect. How can masks, constantly reminding everyone about viruses, lead to a long term increase in confidence ?

No, best forget about Covid ASAP, that's how to increase confidence.

That’s down to individual choice unless you want to pass a law that says no one shall wear  a mask.

Settle for the progress so far and look for a gradual change.

[Chekhov 488]

On 15/12/2021 at 20:55, Chekhov said:
I get the impression you're almost hoping it'll be a big disaster [the fact the Govt are not locking down in response to Omicron]......

On 15/12/2021 at 21:07, L00b said:

Absolutely not. But it will be.

If there is another lockdown, the Conservatives are flubbed.

If there is no lockdown, the country is flubbed.

Ergo, there won’t be another lockdown.

Ergo, the NHS will get as overwhelmed as last year.

Ergo, it will likely be as much of a disaster as last year.

Sorry L00b, I just could not resist putting this on.

Your post has not aged well has it ?

[hackey lad 3,976]

13 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

 

I suppose this is acceptable to some? 

 

 

What are your thoughts on this ?

[Chekhov 488]

Chekhov said:
I would love to know how many people are dying OF Covid at the moment.

19 hours ago, Axel said:

The number's 9,400 (with no pre existing conditions) last year according to Calvin Robinson on GB News, was listening to Nana Akua show about hour ago.  Its about 40 mins in....

How does that answer my question ?

1 - I said at the moment

2 - Does that mean 9,400 people died in 2020 (the great majority before vaccines) FROM Covid, or WITH Covid.

 

TBH even if 9,400 people (with no existing condition) died with Covid is the whole of 2020 that's really not that many, more than that die in an average Flu year (and that's without testing every person for Flu....). Plus, in an average year, over 600,000 people die .....

I will be keeping a very close eye on the Covid Inquiry.

Personally I would prefer it to be held later rather than sooner, because :

 1 -It has to be objective, not overly influenced by personal experience of deaths (sad though they may individually be). I do not want to see anyone taking the stand crying about their loss. It may indeed be sad, but an inquiry into how Covid was handled is not about that, it's about the numbers.

2 - The damage all this suppression has done may take years to come out, and I want that accounted for.

It is interesting that Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice want the inquiry as soon as possible, you can draw your own conclusions from that...

"Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said he also pledged to involve them in the decision, during a meeting with them in Downing Street."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58704625

Sorry but I do NOT think they should be involved at all. I do not need someone crying on an inquiry stand to know it's sad when one of your relatives dies. It'd just be virtue signalling and theatre.

20 hours ago, butlers said:

What a reprehensible post

Why so ?

 I'll say it again :

I do not need someone crying on an inquiry stand to know it's sad when one of your relatives dies. It'd just be virtue signalling and theatre.

 

[Jack Grey 1,602]

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

On 15/12/2021 at 20:55, Chekhov said:
I get the impression you're almost hoping it'll be a big disaster [the fact the Govt are not locking down in response to Omicron]......

Sorry L00b, I just could not resist putting this on.

Your post has not aged well has it ?

The same people who said that all the shelves would be empty this Christmas 🙄

[RJRB 688]

The shape of things to come as the Oughtibridge Oracle has had it sussed all the way down the line.

 

[Chekhov 488]

21 hours ago, steve68 said:

I had recommended you for an local aerial  enquiry yesterday , despite your covid stance, however I've just had to say to them you don't sound safe around women from that comment.

If it'd been a man mistreating a child and I said I'd have stepped in would that have been more acceptable to you ?

So you are being sexist there.

Such are the the inconsistencies and contradictions of modern politically correct cultural mores.......

 

And, BTW, we only sell aerials.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Sorry L00b, I just could not resist putting this on.

Your post has not aged well has it ?

I'll never understand this need to gloat.  I mean in general, yes, of course I understand it: it's just sad blokeish arseholery; but at the same time it's just such a very strange thing to do in this context (multi-scanario models; behaviour change; evolving understanding; etc etc). It just isn't a thing.  It's all rather odd.

 

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

... I'll say it again :

I do not need someone crying on an inquiry stand to know it's sad when one of your relatives dies. It'd just be virtue signalling and theatre.

 

But it is becoming clearer.

 

Anyway.

 

This thread took a turn then, eh?

 

[Chekhov 488]

21 hours ago, RJRB said:

I have read this article. In no way is it scaremongering.

After 2 years including many stringent restrictions to many peoples lives ,then another month of marginal restrictions  to confirm the reality rather than the self confessed uncertain modelling seems proportionate to me .

Much preferable to another round of lockdowns etc.

No way :

1 - It was obvious to me Omicron was no problem, even I said so at the time, and, as you are so fond of repeating I do not (apparently) know much about it - despite the fact I've been right more than the "experts".

2 - "another month of marginal restrictions", well it's already been closer to 2 months than 1 and they're still going (for no reason whatsoever).

3 - I do not consider mandatory masks and vaccine passports "mild restrictions". You might, I do not. 

4 - That attitude ( "just" another month of marginal restrictions) is why we're still in this nearly 10 months after it should ALL have been over (i.e. once all those 70+ had had two jabs and all 50+ one jab) 

 

It is quiet plainly scaremongering  (and what has happened proves it was), the fact you cannot see that is very worrying, and explains a lot as to why we are still where we are.....

 Chekhov said:
There are rumours that all restrictions except face masks will be abolished on the 26th Jan, other say all restrictions incl masks.

I have to say if masks remain it will be an absolute triumph of form over function, there is not a country in the world where they have provably made a significant difference.

Thus if masks are not abolished it can only be as a confidence building measure" (just like vaccine passports", but I would strongly dispute how well they will work in that capacity. Even if they do give the most frightened amongst us  a bit of extra confidence, that can only be a short term effect. How can masks, constantly reminding everyone about viruses, lead to a long term increase in confidence ?

No, best forget about Covid ASAP, that's how to increase confidence.

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

That’s down to individual choice unless you want to pass a law that says no one shall wear  a mask.

Settle for the progress so far and look for a gradual change.

Who said anything about banning masks ?

I hate the bleedin' things, I very much dislike even seeing other people wearing them, it's bad for my mental health.

But, I'm for freedom, so, just like I don't think anyone has the right to tell me to wear one, I do not have the right to tell people not to do so (much as I'd like them to grow up, rationally I mean).

[Chekhov 488]

Chekhov said:
... I'll say it again :

I do not need someone crying on an inquiry stand to know it's sad when one of your relatives dies. It'd just be virtue signalling and theatre.

7 minutes ago, Hecate said:

I'll never understand this need to gloat.  I mean in general, yes, of course I understand it: it's just sad blokeish arseholery; but at the same time it's just such a very strange thing to do in this context (multi-scanario models; behaviour change; evolving understanding; etc etc). It just isn't a thing.  It's all rather odd.

But it is becoming clearer.

Anyway.

This thread took a turn then, eh?

Don't know what you're talking about.

But, to clarify, my attitude to being shown people crying about their loss is consistent. Then I watch the news I do not wish to see it. I know what to is like to lose someone close, why do the media feel they have to show all that kind of stuff ? It's patronising and it has no place in an inquiry seeking the truth of what, with the benefit of hindsight, we should have done.

Last point, if they insist on giving the bereaved a platform to show their upset they should, for every one them they have on, they should have someone on who has been very badly affected by all their suppression (e.g. people whose marriages failed because of it, or whose child topped themselves, or whose relative didn't get an operation, or someone whose business went bust etc etc) and allow them to show how upset they were, and possibly still will be.

 

[Chekhov 488]

36 minutes ago, Hecate said:

I'll never understand this need to gloat.  I mean in general, yes, of course I understand it: it's just sad blokeish arseholery; but at the same time it's just such a very strange thing to do in this context (multi-scanario models; behaviour change; evolving understanding; etc etc). It just isn't a thing.  It's all rather odd.

On the contrary, if we are to ensure we NEVER EVER go though this disproportionate madness again we have to constantly remind people how the "experts" (and then everyday souls) have constantly been overly pessimistic and, yes, scaremongering. And how often they have been proved to be wrong. The fact it's also highly amusing to those of us who have had to put up with being told we don't know what we are talking about for years is great, but not the main most important thing, by far.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Chekhov