COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boris Becker’s Backhand said:
Exactly - you wonder. We all wonder because we don’t know how likely it is to be transmitted from one person to the next. One study referenced in the Sunday times today suggests that 80% of people who have it don’t pass it on. Maybe the grandparents here are quite happy to help out, my old man has been so who are we to judge the actions of an individual family
Click to expand...
I think the point there is that this was weeks ago when we knew less, including not knowing how vulnerable children were (or how infectious).
 
Cons have a good majority and good general support so this will be gone in a week or so.
 
Vic said:
You mean, people with second homes to isolate in?
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong man I’m not defending Cummings et al, if you pontificate to the masses about what to do during “lockdown” or have a role in forming those guidelines then you should be held to a higher standard of behaviour so on balance yep he should fall on his sword but looking at it pragmatically none of them have behaved recklessly.
 
Boris Becker’s Backhand said:
I don’t think you understand the concept of statistical risk. Yes of course it can be passed as you describe but it doesn’t follow that it will be and the chance of doing so is relatively low. Social distancing 2m / 1m is just fucking guesswork. Sneezes and coughs can travel several metres as can normal breaths from bike riders or runners as can breaths from moronic shop workers shouting to each other down the aisle so if you want to have a go at random people why aren’t you calling them out. Or are they all heroes in your little world ?
Click to expand...
So if the chance of passing it on is low - why did they need to go anywhere rather than adhering to his own advice?

Shopkeepers are heroes. And not paid £100k by you and me.
 
karen7 said:
Relatively low risk passing from person to person ? Lol, What I gave you was from the WHO,you know the experts , key workers had to work
You can't be this stupid so I am going for wum,if you are this stupid then I am sorry for all the people you have potentially infected
I'm out
Click to expand...

Definitely a WUM. And judging by the join date, either a former banned member, or a dipper.
 
Peter Bone saying it's not up to Johnson to sack Cummings, he should have resigned and not put Johnson in that position.

So he thinks that if Johnson goes to Cummings and says "Don't put me in this position, I want you to resign", Cummings just says no...
 
Vic said:
So if the chance of passing it on is low - why did they need to go anywhere rather than adhering to his own advice?

Shopkeepers are heroes. And not paid £100k by you and me.
Click to expand...
No, shopkeepers are not heroes. His wage is irrelevant. I said in another answer to you that I’m not defending his actions per se.
 
Boris Becker’s Backhand said:
There you go again, a different opinion means someone is either stupid or disingenuous. How arrogant are you. And how bad are you at understanding data ? Yes it’s a relatively low risk. Did you do Maths at school ? Or anything ? Or was it just so fucking long ago that you can’t remember ....
Click to expand...
In terms of data and relative risk you have not said relative to what which is mathematically illiterate.
Lets look at risk in terms of actions during lockdown and the purpose of lockdown. The purpose of lockdown is to prevent the dissemination of coronavirus within society and it getting too many people and possibly crashing the NHS and killing hundreds of thousands.
In order to do that you have to tell lots of people to stop doing many very low risk things indeed because when you multiply a low risk activity by 60 odd million people it becomes a very high risk to many members of society. Many people have to behave highly altruistically for it to work most 20 and 30 year olds have virtually no risk from the virus individually but many are losing their jobs and unable to socialise.
In this context Cummings activity in moving someone who is meant to be self isolating at home in a car with himself to a residence with other people nearby some of whom are older with a child in tow who cannot understand distancing from an area of high prevalence covid to an area of low prevalence covid is not a low risk activity it is a very selfish high risk activity and the action of a self entitled cretin.
 
thismustbetheplace said:
Anyone who says they wouldn’t do the same as Dominic Cummings are liars or idiots.

He didn’t make the lockdown rules, the government did. All based on flawed scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I qualify for the "idiot" category but my firm belief is that the old and vulnerable were abandoned to CV after coming a poor second in the contest for limited PPE and test equipment (a fair decision by the way).

My logic is that hotels were closed therefore the hotels for the old and vulnerable a known target for the virus should have new risk assessment and method statements to overcome the new risk. Closure was not an option.
Government policy ignored the risk whilst leaving care homes open.
Sin of omission, deliberate decision or incompetence?
 
Cityfan said:
In terms of data and relative risk you have not said relative to what which is mathematically illiterate.
Lets look at risk in terms of actions during lockdown and the purpose of lockdown. The purpose of lockdown is to prevent the dissemination of coronavirus within society and it getting too many people and possibly crashing the NHS and killing hundreds of thousands.
In order to do that you have to tell lots of people to stop doing many very low risk things indeed because when you multiply a low risk activity by 60 odd million people it becomes a very high risk to many members of society. Many people have to behave highly altruistically for it to work most 20 and 30 year olds have virtually no risk from the virus individually but many are losing their jobs and unable to socialise.
In this context Cummings activity in moving someone who is meant to be self isolating at home in a car with himself to a residence with other people nearby some of whom are older with a child in tow who cannot understand distancing from an area of high prevalence covid to an area of low prevalence covid is not a low risk activity it is a very selfish high risk activity and the action of a self entitled cretin.
Click to expand...
It’s selfish, it’s self entitled but it isn’t high risk. It’s higher risk than thousands of people milling about on beaches and in parks but it’s not necessarily higher risk than elderly people going to the shops which I see a lot of. Just to play devil’s advocate maybe his parents don’t go out for shopping or maybe they’re at the lower end of the at risk age group - many variables can either raise or lower the risk. And at the crux of any discussion about high risk has to be the fact that only a small proportion of elderly folk who get the virus need hospital treatment
 
Boris Becker’s Backhand said:
It’s selfish, it’s self entitled but it isn’t high risk. It’s higher risk than thousands of people milling about on beaches and in parks but it’s not necessarily higher risk than elderly people going to the shops which I see a lot of. Just to play devil’s advocate maybe his parents don’t go out for shopping or maybe they’re at the lower end of the at risk age group - many variables can either raise or lower the risk. And at the crux of any discussion about high risk has to be the fact that only a small proportion of elderly folk who get the virus need hospital treatment
Click to expand...
No the crux of risk in the lockdown is when an action is multiplied by everyone . His wife was meant to be self isolating , it is difficult to do at home but frequently possible it is impossible to do it in a car. You then take her to a new residence with other people.
Virtually everyone has been shopping at least once and the transmission rate is falling. If everyone climbed into a car with someone infected with covid and drove them to a new area the rate would be rising not falling.
Covid severity if infected is thought to be at least 50% genetic Cummings was said to have had it quite badly in the end after his journey , he could have infected health workers and it's actually quite likely his parents could have got it very badly.
 
True_Blue69 said:
Slowly but surely they are starting to turn, this time a Nobel prize winning scientist. Within 4 weeks I suspect this may be the view of the majority of the 'experts'. Suppose it's easy to say in hindsight.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-lockdown-medieval-weapon-cost-22076922
Click to expand...
Hmmm a Nobel prize winner in er Chemistry who predicted by March 11 UK would have suffered 50,000 deaths. Other experts may well get things wrong but I'm not sure he's someone I will look to for answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top