When will this shit end?

[Guest]

I’ve never been to a rave, not really my type of music. I doubt they’d play cheesy music I can sing along to now!?

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, Copperface said:

Just the one death, one rape, three stabbings and assaults on police.

Stay Classy........

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/breaking-young-woman-raped-man-18418671

All but the overdose death at the Trafford one that was half the size...shockingly....

Edited June 14, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[Cream Soda]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Party 

Police say that a shocking 6,000 people attended two illegal raves in Greater Manchester last night.

According to Greater Manchester Police, 4,000 people attended a rave in Droylsden, and a further 2,000 were present at one in Carrington.

 

I can completely understand why some people just want to lift the lockdown and crack on with normality when they see shit like this happening.  

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

If I was 18 or thereabouts I expect I'd be going to raves if I had the chance.

I think I would as well. Obviously it’s irresponsible, but Covid is pretty much a non event for people that age, and they’re the group most affected by lockdown as far as socialising is concerned. This was always going to happen. I appreciate the risk is not to them but to their family etc, but when you’re that age you’re *often quite selfish.

The was incidents that have happened at these evernts are extremely unfortunate, but they regularly happen at dance festivals. I went to an awful one in Merton last year for a friends birthday and there were three stabbings at that.

*I know that’s a sweeping generalisation but I know I was a different person at 18 compared to now.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I think I would as well. Obviously it’s irresponsible, but Covid is pretty much a non event for people that age, and they’re the group most affected by lockdown as far as socialising is concerned. This was always going to happen. I appreciate the risk is not to them but to their family etc, but when you’re that age you’re *often quite selfish.

The was incidents that have happened at these evernts are extremely unfortunate, but they regularly happen at dance festivals. I went to an awful one in Merton last year for a friends birthday and there were three stabbings at that.

*I know that’s a sweeping generalisation but I know I was a different person at 18 compared to now.

I think you are right, most people at that age would probably think about themselves I reckon. I hope being outside means the spread of the virus would be low. 

[Cream Soda]

1 minute ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I think I would as well. Obviously it’s irresponsible, but Covid is pretty much a non event for people that age, and they’re the group most affected by lockdown as far as socialising is concerned. This was always going to happen. I appreciate the risk is not to them but to their family etc, but when you’re that age you’re *often quite selfish.

I still don't really understand why young people were not encouraged to socialise from the start while the most vulnerable have been shielded.  Maybe that would have resulted in higher levels of immunity.  Instead we are now at a kind of halfway house where young people are getting fed up and doing things they shouldn't be but at the same time the shielded can't stay under lock and key forever either.   That 12 weeks of shielding was a golden opportunity while the most vulnerable were protected, surely we've missed a trick there?

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

4 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

I still don't really understand why young people were not encouraged to socialise from the start while the most vulnerable have been shielded.  Maybe that would have resulted in higher levels of immunity.  Instead we are now at a kind of halfway house where young people are getting fed up and doing things they shouldn't be but at the same time the shielded can't stay under lock and key forever either.   That 12 weeks of shielding was a golden opportunity while the most vulnerable were protected, surely we've missed a trick there?

I guess it’s the big gap between the shielded and them. It’s still a bigger risk to their parents and even grandparents in a lot of cases, people who aren’t technically vulnerable and shielding, but could still have a bad outcome if they caught it.

I agree it would be a good way to deal with it on paper, but in reality you can’t let teens and twenty somethings go about life normally and still avoid a significant spread to the rest of the population.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Cream Soda]

5 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I guess it’s the big gap between the shielded and them. It’s still a bigger risk to their parents and even grandparents in a lot of cases, people who aren’t technically vulnerable and shielding, but could still have a bad outcome if they caught it.

I agree it would be a good way to deal with it on paper, but in reality you can’t let teens and twenty somethings go about life normally and still avoid a significant spread to the rest of the population.

Its a tough one for sure but I think that gap could have been closed a bit, I think 96% of deaths are over 45.  So the vast majority of healthy under 45s would be ok and they should have had no contact with older relatives throughout the lockdown period anyway.  Just thinking about the impact that might have had on the hospitality sector if some of the places with a younger clientele had had the option of remaining open.  But I don't know how it would have worked in practice.

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, Cream Soda said:

I still don't really understand why young people were not encouraged to socialise from the start while the most vulnerable have been shielded.  Maybe that would have resulted in higher levels of immunity.  Instead we are now at a kind of halfway house where young people are getting fed up and doing things they shouldn't be but at the same time the shielded can't stay under lock and key forever either.   That 12 weeks of shielding was a golden opportunity while the most vulnerable were protected, surely we've missed a trick there?

a lot of those young people live with their parents?

[Cream Soda]

Just now, steviewevie said:

a lot of those young people live with their parents?

Maybe if there had been some different advice given to say over/under 45s, some places could have operated at some kind of reduced level.  Lots of those at the rave probably live with parents too but it hasn't stopped them, at least had it been official some local businesses could have benefited. But I do realise it would be a difficult thing to manage in practice.

[Sawdusty surfer]

I've been hearing rumours of a couple of free parties in the SW in a couple of weeks time. As Solstice falls on a weekend and as I'm already hearng these rumours I suspect that there are going to be a few going on.

I must say that had this been  35 years ago I *might  have been involved.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Sawdusty Surfer

[jump]

1 hour ago, Cream Soda said:

I still don't really understand why young people were not encouraged to socialise from the start while the most vulnerable have been shielded.  Maybe that would have resulted in higher levels of immunity.  Instead we are now at a kind of halfway house where young people are getting fed up and doing things they shouldn't be but at the same time the shielded can't stay under lock and key forever either.   That 12 weeks of shielding was a golden opportunity while the most vulnerable were protected, surely we've missed a trick there?

It is possible to get the virus without developing an immunity, younger/healthier people can get and carry it but then have their general immune system take care of it without the need to develop antibodies which is where the immunity comes from. It's the people who are older/more at risk who develop harder symptoms that develop the anti-bodies.

There's also the possibility the virus can mutate meaning those antibodies are useless.

[Cream Soda]

4 minutes ago, jump said:

It is possible to get the virus without developing an immunity, younger/healthier people can get and carry it but then have their general immune system take care of it without the need to develop antibodies which is where the immunity comes from. It's the people who are older/more at risk who develop harder symptoms that develop the anti-bodies.

There's also the possibility the virus can mutate meaning those antibodies are useless.

That's interesting, I didn't know that.  Would that make a potential vaccine less useful for younger people in that case?

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

3 minutes ago, jump said:

It is possible to get the virus without developing an immunity, younger/healthier people can get and carry it but then have their general immune system take care of it without the need to develop antibodies which is where the immunity comes from. It's the people who are older/more at risk who develop harder symptoms that develop the anti-bodies.

There's also the possibility the virus can mutate meaning those antibodies are useless.

I didn’t think that was a proven fact, just a possible theory?

Along the lines of the ‘immunological dark matter’ theory that scientist had.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, jump said:

It is possible to get the virus without developing an immunity, younger/healthier people can get and carry it but then have their general immune system take care of it without the need to develop antibodies which is where the immunity comes from. It's the people who are older/more at risk who develop harder symptoms that develop the anti-bodies.

There's also the possibility the virus can mutate meaning those antibodies are useless.

Citation needed. 

[jump]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I didn’t think that was a proven fact, just a possible theory?

Along the lines of the ‘immunological dark matter’ theory that scientist had.

Its the theory to explain why people have tested positive to it twice in China, others being it's a false positive and they are dead virus cells however the official statement from WHO is there's no evidence to believe if you've recovered from it that you're immune to it.

[Cream Soda]

3 minutes ago, jump said:

Its the theory to explain why people have tested positive to it twice in China, others being it's a false positive and they are dead virus cells however the official statement from WHO is there's no evidence to believe if you've recovered from it that you're immune to it.

Think they've changed their stance on that:

 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, jump said:

Its the theory to explain why people have tested positive to it twice in China, others being it's a false positive and they are dead virus cells however the official statement from WHO is there's no evidence to believe if you've recovered from it that you're immune to it.

I meant the bit about getting the virus but not having antibodies. I’ve not seen that proven anywhere, just hypothesised by some, but more along the lines of simply being immune and that being the explanation for no antibodies

Age isn’t really a factor either, people of all ages can be asymptomatic. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, jump said:

Its the theory to explain why people have tested positive to it twice in China, others being it's a false positive and they are dead virus cells however the official statement from WHO is there's no evidence to believe if you've recovered from it that you're immune to it.

There’s also no evidence to not prove that. Just because there isn’t evidence to prove something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. 

[efcfanwirral]

Getting ripped apart in the comments as you can imagine....

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Getting ripped apart in the comments as you can imagine....

fairly horrific the use of only but the slope is going down slowly ... if we are getting accurate info ....

[Guest]

Why would he write ‘only’!? 
 

What’s are death rate this weekend compared to last? 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

That’s a really stupid tweet. He (surely?) knows how the reporting works and knows the figures will be back up tomorrow, so will be in for another pasting off the back of that. As well as the figures being lower on weekends, they’re not accurate in the slightest for the day they supposedly relate to, which again he surely must know so it’s just not worth (him in particular) tweeting anything about it.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Crazyfool01]

15 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Why would he write ‘only’!? 
 

What’s are death rate this weekend compared to last? 

lower im sure 81 rings a bell for one day last weekend .... 

[Chapple12345]

10 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

lower im sure 81 rings a bell for one day last weekend .... 

Last Sundays was 77 so its roughly halved from that point, a downward trend for sure but still devestating for those who have lost loved ones