IOM Covid removing restrictions

[thesultanofsheight]

3 minutes ago, pongo said:

 

Giggle and squeak all you want @thesultanofsheight. Probably about 50% of my posts here ever have been about dismissing people who babble on about conspiracies and imaginary elites.

Have you thought of emoji aversion therapy? There’s only one other poster on here I can think of who seems to go equally mental at a misplaced emoji. Are you related? 😂

[pongo]

2 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

There’s only one other poster on here I can think of who seems to go equally mental at a misplaced emoji. Are you related? 😂

Yep. Actually everyone who agrees or disagrees with you, @Bankerand Trump is just me and my millions of angry incarnations.

Actually, it's only you and me posting here.

Edited October 6, 2020 by pongo

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But how can you keep abreast of how good or bad things are if you don't have the data or information and critically consider it? 

You are an intelligent person, why wouldn't you critically review information?  If you don't and all you are hearing is that Armageddon is bring visited upon the UK    then, of course, your mental health will suffer. 

Because the case numbers and fatality numbers aren't really relevant to me right now. The rules in the UK and IOM are. I know (roughly) what the case fatality rate for each age group is. I know (roughly) how many cases per day the UK is finding. That's about as in-depth as I need to care about for now.

[Gladys]

Just now, pongo said:

Bottom line. Those not taking it seriously basically think it's all an elite conspiracy.

Me: Pleased to be living and working here at the moment. Grateful for all the good work which has been done.

I don't think it is a conspiracy.  I think that in the early days so little was known that an understandably cautious approach was taken.  What that did was whip up fear and paranoia, but in a way that was necessary to gain compliance. 

As information or data has been gathered, the true threat has become apparent, but governments have got themselves on the paranoia hook that is extremely difficult to get off without screams of murdering the population etc., not to mention questions as to why they reacted the way they did in the early days (20/20 hindidight being a wonderful thing). 

[trmpton]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I don't think it is a conspiracy.  I think that in the early days so little was known that an understandably cautious approach was taken.  What that did was whip up fear and paranoia, but in a way that was necessary to gain compliance. 

As information or data has been gathered, the true threat has become apparent, but governments have got themselves on the paranoia hook that is extremely difficult to get off without screams of murdering the population etc., not to mention questions as to why they reacted the way they did in the early days (20/20 hindidight being a wonderful thing). 

This!

A million percent this.

Who is going to be brave enough to be the first government to actually balance the now very small risks against the impacts of restrictions and make an actual informed decision rather than one based on predictions?

Months ago all they could do was predict.  Now we have real data that shows the death rates are tiny.  Who will show their hand first?

It should be us because we can manage our borders in response to changing circumstances in a way not many other places can, but it won’t be.

[thesultanofsheight]

16 minutes ago, pongo said:

Yep. Actually everyone who agrees or disagrees with you, @Bankerand Trump is just me and my millions of angry incarnations.

That not what I said. But crack on. Emoji aversion is real serious thing. You should perhaps seek help for an irrational fear of emotions conveyed via graphic emoticons. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

11 minutes ago, trmpton said:

This!

A million percent this.

Who is going to be brave enough to be the first government to actually balance the now very small risks against the impacts of restrictions and make an actual informed decision rather than one based on predictions?

Months ago all they could do was predict.  Now we have real data that shows the death rates are tiny.  Who will show their hand first?

It should be us because we can manage our borders in response to changing circumstances in a way not many other places can, but it won’t be.

It'll be the USA.  Although they've been a little more open since the get go.

The UK government are utterly shambolic.  I see a few more big businesses have basically wound up this week.  The more the better.  Until the clueless government actually have to do something about it.

[Kopek]

A person with co-morbitity factors has an expectation for the Govt to protect them to the end of their predictable longevity?

If that is complicated by Covid, anew complication, they still have the right to expect the Govt to protect them from the new complication! They cannot be written off as expendable for the sake of 'getting everyone' back to work?

In turn this will come to all following generations when those who would  'right off' the current older generation will find their selves being  written off by their own kids for the selfish reasons that they now employ against their older relatives?

[Cambon]

37 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I don't think it is a conspiracy.  I think that in the early days so little was known that an understandably cautious approach was taken.  What that did was whip up fear and paranoia, but in a way that was necessary to gain compliance. 

As information or data has been gathered, the true threat has become apparent, but governments have got themselves on the paranoia hook that is extremely difficult to get off without screams of murdering the population etc., not to mention questions as to why they reacted the way they did in the early days (20/20 hindidight being a wonderful thing). 

Yes, but Governments' positions are being made worse by big businesses like Facebook, Zoom etc. whose share prices have been going through the roof and want to perpetuate the situation for their own benefits. 

[trmpton]

7 minutes ago, Kopek said:

A person with co-morbitity factors has an expectation for the Govt to protect them to the end of their predictable longevity?

If that is complicated by Covid, anew complication, they still have the right to expect the Govt to protect them from the new complication! They cannot be written off as expendable for the sake of 'getting everyone' back to work?

In turn this will come to all following generations when those who would  'right off' the current older generation will find their selves being  written off by their own kids for the selfish reasons that they now employ against their older relatives?

So where do you draw the line?

A blind person has a chance of being run over crossing the road.  Do we ban cars lorries and buses and just deal with the fallout to protect them?

Three year old might die if they ride their scooters down a motorway.  She the UK government ban all traffic from motorways to make them safer?

[Gladys]

Just now, Kopek said:

A person with co-morbitity factors has an expectation for the Govt to protect them to the end of their predictable longevity?

If that is complicated by Covid, anew complication, they still have the right to expect the Govt to protect them from the new complication! They cannot be written off as expendable for the sake of 'getting everyone' back to work?

In turn this will come to all following generations when those who would  'right off' the current older generation will find their selves being  written off by their own kids for the selfish reasons that they now employ against their older relatives?

Funnily enough, I was pondering how to look after the vulnerable in all of this, because I don't think anyone thinks they are expendable.  The argument that they would have died anyway, however,  is useful to understand that in most cases it is possibly the straw that broke the camel's back and so rather than view the risk to the population as a whole, it may be better to focus on the vulnerable.  

My own view is that the vulnerable, and I am really thinking about the elderly,  should be protected,  not necessarily to lengthen their life expectancy, but to give an opportunity to have a dignified, dare I say 'nice', death. Part of that is not to be isolated from their loved ones, who need not necessarily be family, and to protect them from the need for invasive medical intervention because the symptoms of covid are a cruel end. I am not a medico,  but there must be a way of reaching a compromise between those two aims. 

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Yes, but Governments' positions are being made worse by big businesses like Facebook, Zoom etc. whose share prices have been going through the roof and want to perpetuate the situation for their own benefits. 

At first  I thought WTF, but you could be right.  It is those platforms which perpetuate fear and paranoia, as well as stories ranging from downright lies, to uninformed misinterpretation. 

[Neil Down]

5 hours ago, Banker said:

There’s even some locals who won’t go to large shops in case they catch virus as they’re scared after reading all scare stories. They send children to get shopping!

You’ve just made that up

[P.K.]

Sometimes I struggle with just how stupid some people are. This is a classic example.

Since the outbreak our wonderful but underfunded NHS have learned a lot about how to treat Covid-19 patients. So Bozo et al saw an opportunity and brought in the "28 days since a test" bollox because the NHS were managing to keep Covid patients alive for longer than that before they expired. So their edict would feed through to the stats. Which would then make it look like fewer people were dying due to their totally incompetent management of the virus.

Just how thick are some people? You really think they would bring in a change to the measurement criteria that made their performance look worse than it is? If such a thing were possible with the most fatalities in Europe!

Unfuckingbelievable....

[wrighty]

38 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Sometimes I struggle with just how stupid some people are. This is a classic example.

Since the outbreak our wonderful but underfunded NHS have learned a lot about how to treat Covid-19 patients. So Bozo et al saw an opportunity and brought in the "28 days since a test" bollox because the NHS were managing to keep Covid patients alive for longer than that before they expired. So their edict would feed through to the stats. Which would then make it look like fewer people were dying due to their totally incompetent management of the virus.

Just how thick are some people? You really think they would bring in a change to the measurement criteria that made their performance look worse than it is? If such a thing were possible with the most fatalities in Europe!

Unfuckingbelievable....

I’m not thick PK. I don’t think that any sane person thinks I am. 
 

The change was brought in to standardise mortality reporting. It was nothing to do with the NHS managing to keep people alive for 29 days such that Boris saw an opportunity to make the figures look slightly less bad. 
 

What’s stupid is people that thought/think it a good idea to report as a covid death someone being run over 3 months after being asymptomatic but testing positive.