thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, NoTail said: I genuinely don't understand your post here. Right now there is no virus in the community so random testing would be pointless. Those returning who have symptoms are reporting it and getting tested. The system is working well. The system is working well in that idiots don’t have to think about it now as no inconvenient positive test results get reported and everyone can falsely feel “safe” until such time as it gets out. Edited October 13, 2020 by thesultanofsheight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: "Asymptomatic spread is good". This is bollocks. Your qualifications in virology being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 About the same as yours. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 21 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: "Asymptomatic spread is good". This is bollocks. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 18 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: Setting aside his nutty ranting - his post isn't difficult to understand at all. The point being made is that we, by removal of the 7 day test, are simply doing so to reduce testing thereby reducing positive test results. How does that increase safety? Surely all that means is more people milling about in a house with others whilst being positive for covid 19 but not knowing? (Virtually no one REALLY isolates away from people in the same house). If the main concern had been safety and people mingling with the general population (on a limited basis) post day 7, then they could have kept the 7 day test, made it mandatory and left it so as you had to remain isolated for 14 days. Instead, they simply stopped testing. Government couldn't offer a logical reason for it either. It was hardly like they published the number of people coming in pre and post the introduction of the 7 day test and said "look, by doing this we anticipate halving the traffic into the island ". You keep blathering on about these two alleged "issues" when a recently infected person was self isolating in their household and developed symptoms. The rest of the household were tested and all were negative. So it can be successfully done and has been. The Day 7 test was not scrapped for some totally ridiculous propaganda reason but simply it was the ONLY response they had left to make. Reducing the risk of infection from 6% to 1%. Unfortunately as this post shows very clearly you don't do probability and risk. On 10/10/2020 at 4:18 PM, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: How does it increase the level of protection? Not testing on day 7 wont stop people having it and mixing with other members of their household. Also, it doesn't double the chance. Unless you know the demographic and can demonstrate the consistency of that demographic coming here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I shouldn't need to explain. You've been alive during this pandemic yeah? If you don't know where something is you can't track it. It's just common sense. Why did everything go so nuts earlier in the year? Oh, because of wild uncontrolled and largely asymptomatic spread. At that point not that much was known about the virus, you could say the amount of people who ended up in hospital was a surprise, but now, 6 months on allowing it to happen again would be insane. It's like you've learnt nothing during that time and starting again. The argument being 'protect the vulnerable, let everyone else get on with their lives', how can you protect them if you just let it go? It is impossible, unethical, and probably criminal. 4 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: The argument being 'protect the vulnerable, let everyone else get on with their lives', how can you protect them if you just let it go? It is impossible, unethical, and probably criminal. FFS your totally unqualified opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Protect the vulnerable by doing what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: FFS your totally unqualified opinion. Well, it's not just mine... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-54518286 Edit - also Sultan, by dismissing my opinions as unqualified you do realise you are dismissing your own? Explains why you are ignorant. Edited October 13, 2020 by TheTeapot 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Well, it's not just mine... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-54518286 It’s still your completely unqualified opinion. Just like everyone else’s unqualified opinions on here. Edited October 13, 2020 by thesultanofsheight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 55 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: Interesting article. Hard to disagree with. i'm sure you'll find a way. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: Interesting article. Hard to disagree with. Monasqueen posted it up yesterday. It's a piece from behind The Telegraphs firewall. That very feeble excuse for a "newspaper" that is the mouthpiece of the Barclay brothers.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, P.K. said: Monasqueen posted it up yesterday. It's a piece from behind The Telegraphs firewall. That very feeble excuse for a "newspaper" that is the mouthpiece of the Barclay brothers.... It's important to get information from a variety of sources, especially when everyone has an agenda. You can't just dismiss things because of where they're published. Thanks to the posters for putting it up. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 12 hours ago, TheTeapot said: I note that Jersey, with its more risky much much lauded on here border strategy are beginning to have problems. 30 cases over the weekend, 5 community ones. That's 61 active cases, which would be very close to putting us back into lockdown if it was here, according to our governments 'plan'. Reading States of Jersey Facebook comments it seems they are similarly split like MF with many saying close borders and others saying the testing is great and keep economy going. They have slightly changed policy in that now you must isolate until negative test with most areas now needing 2 negatives over 5 days. No testing is no cases so in 2 weeks we will have none & Howie & Ashie will be basking in adoration again 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the blue Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 44 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Protect the vulnerable by doing what? Good grief, what an awful situation. This to me encapsulates all that is wrong with the general approach to this pandemic. I personally feel that we should have gone down the shield the old and vulnerable the best we can, and let the rest get on with it, but as an instinctive libertarian I also believe that all people have right to their liberty and freedom of choice. In the case of this poor resident, as long as they are aware of the risks, they should be free to go out if they wish. Being treated like a prisoner ‘for their own good’ is an anathema and plain wrong. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.