Jump to content

Coronavirus

whelk

By whelk,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But that's an absurd standard. How on earth will you police everyone on the Internet to such a degree that you can say with confidence that every person will not ever be influenced by misinformation? It's like tackling coronavirus by welding everyone in individual rooms. 

And you also have the issue of who's rules and regulations are enforced, the Internet by definition operates outside normal national boundaries. That is unless you introduce a local version of the Great Firewall of China, or a similarly restrictive route of access to the Web, as countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran have done, and as Russia is attempting to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Jesus wept. For someone who's supposed to be quite bright, you can be very dim sometimes.

Again, and for the last time, social media is a choice. No one is FORCED to look at social media, ergo no one is FORCED to read unsolicited views and opinions. 

It's a very simple concept and to argue that people are forced to read something is plainly wrong.

The irony of you calling me dim. Jeez. 

You may be right or wrong, ditto me, but my view is that impressionable need saving from themselves when information is laid before them. Let's just agree to differ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Again, that ignores the risks for those people who are unable to have a vaccine. I don't want censorship but what I do want is wider awareness that if enough people refuse the vaccine it will undoubtedly cost lives. 

I don’t think that many people would be thick enough to refuse a vaccine, you don’t need 100% of the population to be vaccinated to stop it spreading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But that's an absurd standard. How on earth will you police everyone on the Internet to such a degree that you can say with confidence that every person will not ever be influenced by misinformation? It's like tackling coronavirus by welding everyone in individual rooms. 

Our approach is different on this. Mine, very simply, is that the factual information should be available to us, but unfounded opinions should not be easily accessible to the gullible masses. Over and above the (very Valid) freedom of speech argument, how does it benefit the reader/society to have false information laid it on multiple forums? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kyle04

kyle04

Posted
Posted

From the BBC website :

"......Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans.  "

.........A White House correspondent for a pro-Trump website, Newsmax, told her 264,000 followers on Twitter to "beware" the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Emerald Robinson claimed in the Tweet: "It tampers with your DNA."

Now people are entitled to their opinion, hence the activity on forums such as this, the question is should this sort of shite be allowed to circulate. Free speech is one thing, but without the responsibility the world just decends into a fake news free-for-all and an awful lot of people will "believe" in the unsubstantiated drivel posted online. Most of the time it's relatively harmless (grassy knoll, Diana murdered by MI5 etc), but this is a deadly serious issue with tens of thousands of lives at stake. Allow this content and many people will die after refusing a vaccine, ban it and it will only fuel the cover up conspiracy camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, John B said:

Do you not think that if people do not take the Vaccine that it will be impossible to stop the spread of the virus .

Something has to be done I would have thought to stop the spread of false information regarding the vaccine but banning it is not a good idea

I have a couple of friends who are antivaxers an some of their concerns are quite unbelievable Mass vaccination and the availability of clean water has helped in making the world a healthier place in the last 100 years.

Absolutely. I speak from experience also having a rational and intelligent friend who is an anti vaxer. They will just not listen to reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, egg said:

Our approach is different on this. Mine, very simply, is that the factual information should be available to us, but unfounded opinions should not be easily accessible to the gullible masses. Over and above the (very Valid) freedom of speech argument, how does it benefit the reader/society to have false information laid it on multiple forums? 

One person's unfounded opinion is another person's reasonable view. My point is that it's unrealistic to expect opinions to be policed on the Internet. The sheer volume of moderating that would require virtually in real time inevitably means that you'd have to employ machine learning which would err on the side of caution and end up with the mass stifling of opinion that strays from a mainstream narrative. 

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think a higher number than you think will. 

Maybe, but I think they estimate that for this virus we will need between 60-70% of the population to be immune to achieve herd immunity, can’t see anti-Vaxers being as high as 30-40% but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Maybe, but I think they estimate that for this virus we will need between 60-70% of the population to be immune to achieve herd immunity, can’t see anti-Vaxers being as high as 30-40% but who knows.

Quite a significant number aren't necessarily anti vaxxers but are anti this particular vaccine due to the short amount of time it has had to be developed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

The people who think Bill Gates is driving this or it’s some sort of 1984 implant are clearly nuts. However, people who have concerns about the vaccine are voicing legitimate concerns.
The timescales do seem unbelievable, is it 100% that no corners have been cut.  Have the trials been conducted on elderly and infirm folk, or just the healthy. How long are you immune for after the virus. What are the side effects. Questions like that are perfectly legitimate. It’s not beyond the establishment to see this as a way out of their self imposed cock ups. Big up the vaccine even if it’s not particularly effective, we have a flu vaccine and people still die of flu. I know many many people who are entitled to a free flu jab, who don’t have one. Their not abused & looked down upon, or called a nutter. IF and it’s a very big if, this vaccine takes us back to 2018 & wipes out the virus, great. But I don’t believe that for one minute. The Government will go hard on this, because they’ve backed themselves into a corner.  
 

 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

And it is easy to completely ignore the reality of how people are influenced, and potentially manipulated, by their Social Media interactions, and how much Social Media has become an integral, almost organically intertwined, part of human existence. The clue is in the term 'Influencer'. If it wasn't effective, the Politicos wouldn't expend so much time and money on it.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that people are influenced by social media, exactly the same as people have always been influenced by some type of media - specifically tobacco advertising in the 60s and 70s.

Being gullible is still not the same as being forced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ecuk268

ecuk268

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The people who think Bill Gates is driving this or it’s some sort of 1984 implant are clearly nuts. However, people who have concerns about the vaccine are voicing legitimate concerns.
The timescales do seem unbelievable, is it 100% that no corners have been cut.  Have the trials been conducted on elderly and infirm folk, or just the healthy. How long are you immune for after the virus. What are the side effects. Questions like that are perfectly legitimate. It’s not beyond the establishment to see this as a way out of their self imposed cock ups. Big up the vaccine even if it’s not particularly effective, we have a flu vaccine and people still die of flu. I know many many people who are entitled to a free flu jab, who don’t have one. Their not abused & looked down upon, or called a nutter. IF and it’s a very big if, this vaccine takes us back to 2018 & wipes out the virus, great. But I don’t believe that for one minute. The Government will go hard on this, because they’ve backed themselves into a corner.  
 

 

They were interviewing the guy who developed the vaccine on Andrew Marr this morning. The trials were across the age range although the effectiveness fell as age increased. But even for the very elderly (80+) it was still around 45% which is similar to the overall effectiveness of the current flu vaccine.

One of the unknowns was how long will the immunity last. Will it end up being an annual jab like the current flu jab? Also, if you have it, does it stop you infecting other people ie. does it suppress the effects but still allow you to pass on the virus?   This should become clearer early next year.

Side effects among those taking part were a slight soreness after the jab and a mild fever, both which only lasted a few days. Many had no side effects at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted

It’s natural for people to worry about a new vaccine given the speed that it is being pushed through. I remember having several long discussions with my wife (who was a nurse) about our children having the MMR vaccine. She was against it initially but after a conversation with our doctor agreed to go ahead and they were fine. 
If covid killed young people in the numbers it kills older people, perhaps there would be less resistance to vaccination? 
As I am at risk, I will have it done. I would prefer a longer trial period but we don’t have the time. If we are going to beat this thing, we are going to have to take a leap of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, egg said:

That's how you do a lockdown. Decisive, harsh, clear message. If they don't nip that little burst of cases in the bud, it's not for the want of trying. 

People would respond to that better much more than a half arsed ones we've been getting i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Turkish said:

People would respond to that better much more than a half arsed ones we've been getting i think.

I think early doors I they would have done. Now I don't think there's any chance. I know of more people carrying on largely as they want than are playing by the rules. Lots of 1 person meeting another, and 1 meeting another, and surprise surprise all 4 at the same place at the same time. This is lockdown lite that'll do nothing but further decimate the economy, particularly hospitality and retail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, egg said:

I think early doors I they would have done. Now I don't think there's any chance. I know of more people carrying on largely as they want than are playing by the rules. Lots of 1 person meeting another, and 1 meeting another, and surprise surprise all 4 at the same place at the same time. This is lockdown lite that'll do nothing but further decimate the economy, particularly hospitality and retail. 

I think they would do even now, a week of being told you cant leave the house for any reason is much better than 4 weeks of basically being told you cant go to the pub, gym or shopping on a weekend. I know that's not what is intentioned but it's how people are interpreting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Turkish said:

People would respond to that better much more than a half arsed ones we've been getting i think.

Should have had a 2 week proper lockdown the week before half term and half term.

Kids could have had a week of online learning and it would have drastically cut the infection rates in secondary schools and tertiary which is clearly driving infection rates in the community at large according to the data. 

Now we have a half in/out, what the fuck is going on lockdown and infection rates in schools and colleges rocketing meaning way too many students and staff testing positive and far too many missing too much.

Local colleges to me have had to flip to totally remote, as have the 6th forms. Secondary schools are being hit hard. My own daughter as missed 4 weeks in class due to classmates testing positive.

At my college we've had a number of staff in hospital, 1 still in, a member of my team, and a member of staff die. We've also had another 16 test positive in the last week or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
On 15/11/2020 at 13:39, The Cat said:

Glad you feel better. Sounds proper grim.

Does your spreadsheet include any symptoms of delusion when you started believing that Fraser Forster was a half decent keeper? 

That genuinely made me lol.

I fear if that was the case, covid would have been about since 2014 and at least half of this forum would have had it.

thank you, by the way. I will post ‘my story’ soon... it’s a long old read but worth it if you’re interested in one of the more severe cases (should have been admitted to hospital, I was later told).

Honestly though, it was utterly utterly debilitating and took me months to recover. Please keep safe!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Cat

The Cat

Posted
Posted
On 18/11/2020 at 21:00, View From The Top said:

Local colleges to me have had to flip to totally remote, as have the 6th forms. Secondary schools are being hit hard. My own daughter as missed 4 weeks in class due to classmates testing positive.

Hamble's had loads of cases which culminated in Years 9 & 10 both being sent home from Monday this week until next Thursday.

They'd been following guidance and only been sending kids home who had had positive contact with others, at one point 4 separate positive tests came back in one day and they identified 87 kids from Year 10 who had been in contact with them. 2 days later they sent the whole of those 2 year groups home which was a great decision.

They are now doing 3 zoom lessons a day and being set work for the other 2 periods which is working well.

I can't begin to think how much extra work this situation has caused for schools having to continually trace people who have been in contact with anyone testing positive and then messaging all the parents. 

If the Government are set on everyone having a family Christmas they should shut all colleges and secondary schools from Year 9 and above at the start of December and make them teach online. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Manuel

Manuel

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't mind distributing it based on an algorithm based on risk, obviously that would take in more parameters than BAME alone though, such as age, weight, medical history, whatever.  Probably better and less complicated to concentrate on "everyone in the fastest time possible" than trying to divide people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, whelk said:

What do people think about the vaccine first going to BAME as higher risk?

I shouldn’t think it will matter too much given how fast they plan to roll it out. Leaked plans seem to suggest all over 18’s will be offered a vaccine by the end of the March, if supplies allow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I wouldn't mind distributing it based on an algorithm based on risk, obviously that would take in more parameters than BAME alone though, such as age, weight, medical history, whatever.  Probably better and less complicated to concentrate on "everyone in the fastest time possible" than trying to divide people.  

My personal priority would be:

  1. Key workers and those at risk and under 75
  2. Over 75s
  3. Over 60s
  4. All other adults
  5. Children

I can see the argument for BAME but I'm not sure on the morality of it and it'll never happen anyway. It'd cause an absolute stink with the voters; only takes a couple of elderly veterans to pop their clogs whilst 'the foreigners' get the jabs and the Mail/Express brigade will be fuming. I certainly wouldn't prioritise the overweight either. Why should I be a lower priority than someone because they could never be bothered to follow a basic diet and exercise plan? As far as I'm concerned, if you've never cared about heart disease, liver disease, bowel cancer, hypertension, stroke, diabetes or osteoarthritis, don't suddenly pretend you care about Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

My personal priority would be:

  1. Key workers and those at risk and under 75
  2. Over 75s
  3. Over 60s
  4. All other adults
  5. Children

I can see the argument for BAME but I'm not sure on the morality of it and it'll never happen anyway. It'd cause an absolute stink with the voters; only takes a couple of elderly veterans to pop their clogs whilst 'the foreigners' get the jabs and the Mail/Express brigade will be fuming. I certainly wouldn't prioritise the overweight either. Why should I be a lower priority than someone because they could never be bothered to follow a basic diet and exercise plan? As far as I'm concerned, if you've never cared about heart disease, liver disease, bowel cancer, hypertension, stroke, diabetes or osteoarthritis, don't suddenly pretend you care about Covid.

It won't be going to children as its untested on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

 

I can see the argument for BAME but I'm not sure on the morality of it and it'll never happen anyway. It'd cause an absolute stink with the voters; only takes a couple of elderly veterans to pop their clogs whilst 'the foreigners' get the jabs and the Mail/Express brigade will be fuming. 

There a very good reason it won’t distinguish between whitey & BAME even if there’s conclusive proof it hits that community first.
 

By putting that group in a higher risk category they run the risk of having to treat them differently. Imagine if the disease mutates or the virus isn’t as successful as believed. Can you imagine the outcry if the old, people with underlying health conditions, and The BAME community had to shield whilst under 70 healthy whitey doesn’t. Lammy, Femi & other assorted crusties will be going nuts. News night would become leftie porn & The FA would be having a minutes silence every time there’s a break in play. Not going to happen, never in a month of Sundays. 
 

You also seem to equate being BAME with being “foreign “. Most Mail & Express readers don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Coronavirus

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...