Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

So with the question now turning to people not vaccinating and focus being shifted away from number of cases to serious cases, do we know what % of people who get the virus get a serious illness broken down by group (e.g. clinically vulnerable, over 80s etc).

 

 

The ONS weekly studies might have that info at some stage, otherwise maybe PHE? Sorry that’s pretty useless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

So with the question now turning to people not vaccinating and focus being shifted away from number of cases to serious cases, do we know what % of people who get the virus get a serious illness broken down by group (e.g. clinically vulnerable, over 80s etc).

 

 

Someone will have the numbers to hand surely, but i recall even the % of over 80's that get seriously ill is small.. but they are the most likely to get seriously ill... if that makes sense? ha 

We have reduced the risk to over 80's and vulnerable by a large amount. In theory if that is correct then the number of deaths and hospital admission will drop to almost nothing. 

We are bound to see some seasonal resurgence in the autumn though.... which should be covered by booster jabs. 

Edited by Havors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, st dan said:

Allowing all school years to return at the same time appears to be an anomaly in what is otherwise a cautious approach. I wonder if that shows there was some compromising along the way from different fields of expertise. 

expect so, by all accounts Whitty was not supportive of all years going back. In the end they have to find a balance, can't please everyone...but does look like Johnson listening to health experts over economists this time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

"Kinda defines what type of person you are." Judgemental and intolerant? Is it OK for me to refuse to be a friend of a muslim (as an example) because I don't agree with their views on women's role in society or homosexuality? Anti-muslim sentiment on here is usually frowned upon (quite rightly), they have a right to a different opinion to me. I have friends with differing views on many things but I doubt I would lose them over a political argument.

"because at that point im calling 99%  researchers, doctors and medical professionals a liar because they are telling me this is safe." It's possible to believe they are telling the truth but are mistaken, not everything is as black and white as you seem to think. 

Yes. If someone is anti-LBGTQ rights or tries to repress a women's role in society then its is 100% ok for you not to be their friend. If any of my friends felt that way, then it would be an issue for me. How can it not be an issue for you?!

So you're ok with your friends supporting trump? Denying climate change? What if your friends Denies the holocaust ? Are you going to be like "differing view" and move on. You wouldn't want to lose that friendship with a racist eh?

Lets switch the argument around. Say 99% of experts say that Chemical X will harm you but 1% on a Facebook post said it will cure you. Who are you going to listen to? 

 

Im sure your argument sounded smarter in your head... Genuinely shocked how stupid your arguments are. Sound like someone who struggles to tie their shoelaces 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

expect so, by all accounts Whitty was not supportive of all years going back. In the end they have to find a balance, can't please everyone...but does look like Johnson listening to health experts over economists this time....

Yeah, assuming it was purely on Johnson and Williamson to agree and sign off on the plan for schools though, as this would not be the preferred approach of the scientists, and the economists would be fairly neutral about them you would think.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

SAGE desperate for more lockdowns

 

Do you think it would be better if SAGE said "there's a small chance a new variant won't be stopped by the vaccine, but if that happens we won't bother with any restrictions while we develop and roll out booster jabs cos everyone is so sick of lockdown they'd rather risk dying"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, st dan said:

Yeah, assuming it was purely on Johnson and Williamson to agree and sign off on the plan for schools though, as this would not be the preferred approach of the scientists, and the economists would be fairly neutral about them you would think.  

yes, and that is how it should be ultimately. I mean they were probably listening to education experts, mental health experts etc as well as the scientists here.

Maybe if things keep improving adn the data is good Johnson will listen more to people calling for pubs/restaurants to open for outdoor dining/drinking in April....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This tweet, showing cases by age

Then this tweet, showing hospital admissions per 100,000 by age (bottom left image) 

And icu admissions (second tweet in the quoted thread - couldn't  work out how to make it put just one)

This does indicate to me that when the over 44s are done that there is an argument that we don't need many restrictions. The high weighting of cases in the 16-44 groups in the first graph has not translated too much into the hosptialisations graphs, but above that isn't looking great. 

And this isn't even taking into account the many who have already had the virus.

I actually agree with Hancock's "at your own risk" by then- obviously some won't want to take the risk but many will and those hospitalisation numbers are definitely not indicating an NHS likely to be in trouble by that point

This is probably what others have already seen but I haven't seen the numbers broken down like that as its usually 18-64 lumped together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

It's relevant because we are talking about treating a group of people differently because of their perceived views, not all vaccine refusers have the same reasons or are followers of conspiracy theories, just as not all muslims hold the same views re: women and gays, though quite a few do. But this is a distraction from my original point which is we will all be affected by the response to the unvaccinated it will be one of the most divisive subjects ever, things are going to get ugly.

The Muslim thing is irrelevant to how I'd treat someone though. I would certainly be (and am) friends with Muslims who think that men and women are equally and homosexuality is okay. I would not be friends with someone who didn't believe that, regardless of if they were Muslim or not.

Your initial post sort of read like you were saying it'd be weird to end a friendship because you found out your friend didn't think gay people should exist, I was just saying that seemed a perfectly reasonable course of action to me.

I don't think that's on the same level as not taking the COVID jab though. I think it's socially irresponsible but then I think the same about voting Tory and plenty of other things. Including plenty of things that I still do myself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...