What's new

decades of covid

vapesmarter

Mod Maker
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
6,941
paul hunter is a professor I have seen come up a few times over the covid 19 thing

he has made a good few predictions all pretty accurate in fact he seems to be the person to go to if you're a newspaper editor

the latest is covid 19 will be here for decades it will be something we will live with, apart from the sensationalist headlines that the lovely newspapers print (you have got to remember apart from covid not much is in the news at the moment)

but your average joe reading the papers will see two things one the screaming death headlines from covid and then "covid will be here for decades" at the moment the papers have a focus on "whole families wiped out" interviews with strained NHS workers and alike now both these are worthy stories but the purpose I can see is a lot of 'death sells' papers and indeed it does

but and there is a but I do expect the virus to be here for years and I do believe it's been moving quietly amongst the population for a while before Wuhan when it finally got a foothold but what of the future

I know the whole strategy of the government is based on a vaccine and yes I applaud that but at the end of the day, we are putting our whole future life in the hands of what? a tier system and some crappy masks that may or may not work, I would have thought that by now someone somewhere would have come up with an alternative, I mean look at the technology we have phones that tell you where you're going in relation to work and how long it will get there, plus the biggest system for communication that in my childhood would of be seen as voodoo star wars stuff (aka the internet)

looking at this in 5 years time am I expected to be still doing the same old thing or will someone somewhere get a grip of the situation today we are 5000 from 100k deaths the pot of money the government are throwing at this is not self-replenishing
 
Any virus will be here for years because it’s able to evolve and survive. That’s a given, it won’t just go away. But it’s about learning to live with it and having the applicable measures in place to be able to deal with it.
 
Back to herd amunity?

I love that quote it's one of bojos favourite banded about like we are "following the science" let's face facts to stop the pandemic, not the virus (remember that's, not the virus infecting) 70% of the population need a vaccine so if look at figures as lots of people love 42 million, so if we are doing 2 million jabs a week that's 21 weeks or say a touch under 6 months of vaccines being given

the herd bit yes that's tricky only one virus has ever been eradicated and that's smallpox (there were another that effected cows) but the kick in nuts with smallpox is, it took 200 years the last case was in 1977 but technology has come on leaps and bounds

I get my jab tomorrow its been confirmed yesterday

how do I feel about it?

sad, I know there is someone more vulnerable that deserves the vaccine but what do you do
 
paul hunter is a professor I have seen come up a few times over the covid 19 thing

he has made a good few predictions all pretty accurate in fact he seems to be the person to go to if you're a newspaper editor

the latest is covid 19 will be here for decades it will be something we will live with, apart from the sensationalist headlines that the lovely newspapers print (you have got to remember apart from covid not much is in the news at the moment)

but your average joe reading the papers will see two things one the screaming death headlines from covid and then "covid will be here for decades" at the moment the papers have a focus on "whole families wiped out" interviews with strained NHS workers and alike now both these are worthy stories but the purpose I can see is a lot of 'death sells' papers and indeed it does

but and there is a but I do expect the virus to be here for years and I do believe it's been moving quietly amongst the population for a while before Wuhan when it finally got a foothold but what of the future

I know the whole strategy of the government is based on a vaccine and yes I applaud that but at the end of the day, we are putting our whole future life in the hands of what? a tier system and some crappy masks that may or may not work, I would have thought that by now someone somewhere would have come up with an alternative, I mean look at the technology we have phones that tell you where you're going in relation to work and how long it will get there, plus the biggest system for communication that in my childhood would of be seen as voodoo star wars stuff (aka the internet)

looking at this in 5 years time am I expected to be still doing the same old thing or will someone somewhere get a grip of the situation today we are 5000 from 100k deaths the pot of money the government are throwing at this is not self-replenishing

I am more concerned with the way the government is deliberately driving up fear in their press conferences at a time when asking the country to shut down for quite some time.

This new strain is up to 70% more infectious , the old one was infectious to everyone already? Now it's potentially 30% more deadly. Except the examples given isn't 30%? In fact Boris example pushes it from 1% to 1.3% , that's without even including context.

See here is the issue i see. I know why all this bollocks is being said right now and that would be fine if we hadn't had it over and over since march. Eventually the more you try to scare people, the more they will rebel when telling them to not leave their homes for the 12th month. Eventually people start seeing through the bollocks and that's when you lose control of everything.

Even this stuff about may and how we can't lift any restrictions until then because of reasons. Yet that even discounts the then millions of people , to the tune of potentially 35% of the population being vaccinated , accounting for the time taken for second doses.

It's all scare mongering that can have potentially dangerous effects. This will be here for a long time, we will need regular vaccinations and scaring people with bollocks statistics and threats of even greater chances of death just isn't doing any good.
 
@Mitz posted an interesting open letter from anthony costello and other scientist published in the telegraph (i think?) the other day (yesterday even?) that was saying the government have no plan, and that lifting any restrictions due to increasing pressure to do so while the case numbers are as high as they are and the vaccine is still being rolled out is a terrible idea. but the post seems to have sank.

devi sridhar was on channel four news last night saying much the same thing. having a chunk of folk vaccinated while the virus is still running amok creates a good chance of vaccine resistant mutations.

looks like we are fucked for some time yet.
 
I am more concerned with the way the government is deliberately driving up fear in their press conferences at a time when asking the country to shut down for quite some time.

This new strain is up to 70% more infectious , the old one was infectious to everyone already? Now it's potentially 30% more deadly. Except the examples given isn't 30%? In fact Boris example pushes it from 1% to 1.3% , that's without even including context.

See here is the issue i see. I know why all this bollocks is being said right now and that would be fine if we hadn't had it over and over since march. Eventually the more you try to scare people, the more they will rebel when telling them to not leave their homes for the 12th month. Eventually people start seeing through the bollocks and that's when you lose control of everything.

Even this stuff about may and how we can't lift any restrictions until then because of reasons. Yet that even discounts the then millions of people , to the tune of potentially 35% of the population being vaccinated , accounting for the time taken for second doses.

It's all scaremongering that can have potentially dangerous effects. This will be here for a long time, we will need regular vaccinations and scaring people with bollocks statistics and threats of even greater chances of death just isn't doing any good.


I'm not surprised about the scare tactics its purpose is to make people stay at home and follow the rules

100 thousand dead next week is a lot of people perhaps it's not enough for some people just ignoring the guidelines when it gets to 500 thousand dead or a million in a couple of years time maybe then we can look back and blame who? Boris the government, china, Wuhan in fact the blame lies with us.


edit

the perfect quote was the police chief who said about people breaking the rules I will paraphrase here but

imagine a terrorist with a gun killing a thousand people a day in your local town would you still go into town to see your mates
 
This new strain is up to 70% more infectious , the old one was infectious to everyone already? Now it's potentially 30% more deadly. Except the examples given isn't 30%? In fact Boris example pushes it from 1% to 1.3% , that's without even including context.

i think you are misunderstanding the maths. 0.3 is 30% of 1. so if the mortality rate increases from 1% to 1.3%, then yes, it would be a 30% increase.
 
i think you are misunderstanding the maths. 0.3 is 30% of 1. so if the mortality rate increases from 1% to 1.3%, then yes, it would be a 30% increase.
Per 1000?

Perhaps this is where I am getting lost in the math of it all. It is 10 in every 1000 according to Boris. So that's 1%. If you increase to 13 in every thousand , the thousand is still the amount of people right? So 13 out of 1000 is then 1.3%

If I am missing the math in this then is been a few years now since school! But you increase the percentage based on the total , not on the amount.

Increasing the mortality rate would be raising it by 30%=300 per 1000.

If we are 30% of the ratio then that is a nonsense statistic to be quoting no?
 
Per 1000?

Perhaps this is where I am getting lost in the math of it all. It is 10 in every 1000 according to Boris. So that's 1%. If you increase to 13 in every thousand , the thousand is still the amount of people right? So 13 out of 1000 is then 1.3%

If I am missing the math in this then is been a few years now since school! But you increase the percentage based on the total , not on the amount.

Increasing the mortality rate would be raising it by 30%=300 per 1000.

If we are 30% of the ratio then that is a nonsense statistic to be quoting no?

no. they are talking about an relative increase in it’s morbidity. it used to be 1, and is now 1.3, so has increased 30%.

imagine you had 1 cake, and your pal also had 1 cake. your pal cut his cake into ten pieces. he then gave you 3 of his 10 pieces.

you now have 1.3 cakes. that means your cake total has increased by 30%.

edited to add: no, it’s not a nonsense statistic. the mortality rate has indeed increased by 30%, if this 0.3 increase is correct.
 
Back
Top Bottom