Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ozanne said:

They’ve strangely reduced the target for 19th July, as in they will be jabbing less people than they currently are. Maybe there’s further supply issues coming up?

Supply constraint apparently. The 19th July  target now based on expected supply rather than delivery capacity.

Stevens says they are pacing themselves in line with predicted supply.

Wise move and to be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

You also need to understand it goes for both sides of the argment at times.

Both sides of what argument? Let's take a recent couple of examples that @gizmoman appears to believe. That the pandemic isn't real (or at least occupies an unjustified place) and that climate change isn't real (or doesn't deserve their action as long as more influential people aren't acting to their satisfaction). I've based this on the fact that they've recently used those terms in quotation marks.

The bottom line is that just because everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they wish, that doesn't make those opinions equivalent, or even justified. The position that climate change is a real problem and that individual human activity has a causal effect isn't some 'opinion' that's comparable to the idea that it's a government hoax or part of 'the great reset' or any other conspiracy theory lacking proper evidence and peer led consensus. See also: Covid-19.

So no, the part of my post in question doesn't "go for both sides of the argument". Some opinions are more justified than others, because there's more evidence and argument for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Both sides of what argument? Let's take a recent couple of examples that @gizmoman appears to believe. That the pandemic isn't real (or at least occupies an unjustified place) and that climate change isn't real (or doesn't deserve their action as long as more influential people aren't acting to their satisfaction). I've based this on the fact that they've recently used those terms in quotation marks.

The bottom line is that just because everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they wish, that doesn't make those opinions equivalent, or even justified. The position that climate change is a real problem and that individual human activity has a causal effect isn't some 'opinion' that's comparable to the idea that it's a government hoax or part of 'the great reset' or any other conspiracy theory lacking proper evidence and peer led consensus. See also: Covid-19.

So no, the part of my post in question doesn't "go for both sides of the argument". Some opinions are more justified than others, because there's more evidence and argument for them.

I think, might be wrong, that he means the ongoing restrictions vs not, and the side of the argument that is 100% behind government's decision making is pretty dismissive of any talk that they might be being over cautious. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Supply constraint apparently. The 19th July  target now based on expected supply rather than delivery capacity.

Stevens says they are pacing themselves in line with predicted supply.

Wise move and to be expected.

I wonder if they’ve considered at least offering the AZ to younger groups, while understanding if they say no? If supply of the others is the issue free things up that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Please explain why you think that’s ironic. 

He highlights the following bit-“supports whatever we’ve decided we’d like to be true, and then forums, groups and comment sections act like little mutual affirmation societies”

 

Which is entirely true. Everyone is capable of falling into an echo chamber that validates  their own beliefs and gives them a misleading impression of their popularity. Most people don’t even realise it (I include myself in that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

I think, might be wrong, that he means the ongoing restrictions vs not, and the side of the argument that is 100% behind government's decision making is pretty dismissive of any talk that they might be being over cautious. 

If you think it's jus that side of the argument that is dismissive then I have to say, enough is enough 😄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Good to see this being acknowledged more - it needs needs to be said often and clearly over the coming weeks and month

He doesn't actually say that though. It's that weird Twitter account putting its own slant on things.

He does say

"“It is possible we could end up with a situation where numbers of people going to hospital really mean that the government have to take some kind of action that they don’t want to.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

In the future the deaths are going to be compacted around the winter months.  You will hardly notice to be blunt.  Like you hardly noticed flu.  You won't be looking at charts on covid beyond 2021...

I think we will... just for something for the news to report and stir up. 

We had thousands of flu deaths and nobody batted and eyelid... it will end up like that but not this year. Maybe in a year or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

so, what is acceptable? 10s a day? 100s a day? 1000s a day? Got be a limit right?

Does there have to be a defined limit?

We don't set one for literally anything else. The "limit" is the lowest number that can be achieved without significant negative impacts elsewhere in society. I can't see any good reason to set one for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Copperface said:

He doesn't actually say that though. It's that weird Twitter account putting its own slant on things.

He does say

"“It is possible we could end up with a situation where numbers of people going to hospital really mean that the government have to take some kind of action that they don’t want to.”

 

Haha Well I was only getting at the fact it WILL kill people even after 2 jabs. I think many have forgotten this in the whole "vaccine is the way out" messaging.

Sounds like further priming for winter lockdown - at least it will come less as a surprise the more they tease it now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

In the future the deaths are going to be compacted around the winter months.  You will hardly notice to be blunt.  Like you hardly noticed flu.  You won't be looking at charts on covid beyond 2021...

Flu deaths in the UK are around 10,000 a year in the UK. https://www.greenwichccg.nhs.uk/News-Publications/news/Pages/Around-10,000-deaths-are-caused-by-flu-each-year-in-England-and-Wales.aspx

Since the start of trhe pandemic we have had 127,917 (15 months) deaths from COVID here. 

They are miles apart at the moment, but hopefully the vaccine sorts that out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrBarry465 said:

Flu deaths in the UK are around 10,000 a year in the UK. https://www.greenwichccg.nhs.uk/News-Publications/news/Pages/Around-10,000-deaths-are-caused-by-flu-each-year-in-England-and-Wales.aspx

Since the start of trhe pandemic we have had 127,917 (15 months) deaths from COVID here. 

They are miles apart at the moment, but hopefully the vaccine sorts that out. 

 

Yeah we are talking about those type of figures yearly for covid, that would be classed as "living with it". 

It may take a year or two to get to a point where we keep the deaths that low or lower. Chances are Covid will take a bunch of the flu deaths for its own meaning much lower flu deaths yearly than we are used to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Havors said:

Yeah we are talking about those type of figures yearly for covid, that would be classed as "living with it". 

It may take a year or two to get to a point where we keep the deaths that low or lower. Chances are Covid will take a bunch of the flu deaths for its own meaning much lower flu deaths yearly than we are used to. 

I'm going to hazard a guess that if we are haviing 120k+ deaths a year from COVID - in say 18 months, then we won't have learnt to 'live with it'.

Edited by MrBarry465
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Haha Well I was only getting at the fact it WILL kill people even after 2 jabs. I think many have forgotten this in the whole "vaccine is the way out" messaging.

Sounds like further priming for winter lockdown - at least it will come less as a surprise the more they tease it now

Yeah. They have also consistently pushed the vaccines plus approach. Vaccines are not the end in themselves, they are great but not perfect, but in conjunction with improved medical treatment, and other mitigating societal arrangements, they are part of a package of measures to protect populations. This was all being said at the back end of 2020 and it's not changed. We're a fair way up the road now but still a lot to do both here and across the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Sounds like further priming for winter lockdown - at least it will come less as a surprise the more they tease it now

I have no idea if that'll be the case but Gove was asked this morning if he could guarantee that 19th July would mean the lifting of all restrictions. He would only reply that they were determined to move to step 4, which is quite different.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...