Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • steviewevie

    4801

  • Ozanne

    3477

  • crazyfool1

    3441

  • zahidf

    2229

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think on a music festival message board it’s a legitimate question to ask. It doesn’t suggest the OP doesn’t give a shit about anything else. Of course there are much bigger things to be worrie

I can’t get the following thought out of my head and it’s making the old bottom lip wobble: Wednesday evening at the 2021 festival, the sun has been out all day but temperature not stifling, perf

Howdy folks...sorry I'm late to the party! Was in a meeting and could see notifications coming up! So, looks very promising indeed. The vaccinated group not only didn't develop severe disease, bu

Posted Images

Just now, zero000 said:

Paging @Toilet Duck  With the covid vaccines in development I understand it’s likely they may not stop you catching Covid, but may reduce the strength of the disease course.
 

If that is the case do we have any idea if those people who are vaccinated and who do contract COVID, will be less infectious than individuals who aren’t vaccinated?

At the moment no unfortunately. The hope is that they fall into this category though. The viral loads in the upper respiratory tract of animals in the pre-clinical studies for the Oxford vaccine were still pretty high, but reduced in the lungs, so the initial suggestion was that it might not have the desired effect on transmissibility. That seems to have tempered somewhat as the phase 1/2 trial went on and the noises coming out from the various vaccine groups are that they are expecting a good neutralising antibody response giving good protection against disease (for how long we don't know yet), but also reducing transmission a bit (while not being entirely sterilising...though hard data on this isn't really there yet). This is pretty much where the flu vaccine sits, though again, suggestions from the different vaccine groups are that they are seeing 70-90% efficacy rates (datasets are still small though, there's time for this to drop), rather than the 30-50% we get with the flu vaccine, meaning that the vulnerable population decreases a good bit with reasonable uptake of the vaccines (if the 75% or so of vulnerable individuals that normally take the flu vaccine is bettered, along with a 50% uptake in low risk populations, then even though the CFR of COVID is higher than most flus, we should be able to get it down to a point where they are comparable...the balance really is between better efficacy and uptake versus a higher mortality rate...somebody smarter than me will work out the exact maths on that, but being optimistic, a 90% efficacy rate would drop the risk of dying from about 20% in an over 80s male with underlying conditions, back down to 2%...that's the extreme example both in in terms of optimistic efficacy and pessimistic mortality rates..add in better therapeutics to improve outcomes and I think that's something we can live with, albeit still a strain on our healthcare systems...the minimum efficacy rate required to get approval for a vaccine would still halve the fatality rates, so again, coupled with therapeutics that have now been shown to improve outcomes significantly, we'd be close to managing things...of course, the caveat here being what the efficacy rate is like in older, high risk populations). 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Doesn't Biden have something like a 30 point lead in California? A couple of the house races are neck and neck, but there's no way on earth Trump wins California! 

Even Clinton beat Trump in California by over 4 million votes! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

To be honest I see them as kind of  a novelty band, but thought they'd be a good laugh. Kind of raucous fun punk. Check out Smoko.

Saw them last December, they were a far tighter live band than I was expecting, you'll have a great time when it does eventually happen. Also had a few beers with them in the pub after and they were all really sound lads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Thanks! I think I'll probably be okay. Hope so as am signing up to do it semi regularly for this study...

It's not that terrible when you self administer as you have control.  I've done 5 ONS tests now (and one NHS test I never got a result from, still grumbling about that) and I have a really bad gag reflex so the throat part is the worst bit.  The NHS video on how to self administer is worth watching as it goes into more detail than the ONS instructions.  First appointment takes a while as there are more questions to answer, now they just ask if there are any changes in my circumstances to report (contact with others) and it's over and done with in 5-10 minutes each week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

R 1.3 suggests infections doubling every 14 days if my numbers are correct 

and we should get a slowing down with the new areas under restrictions .... although we won't in the areas that arent .... these will just grow but maybe not some of the large numbers as some of the more densely populated areas .... but any slowing is obviously good .... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

R 1.3 suggests infections doubling every 14 days if my numbers are correct 

have to see what difference the areas going into Tier2 and Tier3 makes.

I think probably all the messaging may be getting across and people are being more careful too.

Trouble is, it is still going up, and people who die of it in the next 4 weeks have already got it now, so going to be unpleasant news for a while yet...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spindles said:

It's not that terrible when you self administer as you have control.  I've done 5 ONS tests now (and one NHS test I never got a result from, still grumbling about that) and I have a really bad gag reflex so the throat part is the worst bit.  The NHS video on how to self administer is worth watching as it goes into more detail than the ONS instructions.  First appointment takes a while as there are more questions to answer, now they just ask if there are any changes in my circumstances to report (contact with others) and it's over and done with in 5-10 minutes each week.

 

CE19E91C-1582-4DD7-9344-9E9F6E1A1B2B.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crazyfool1 said:

and we should get a slowing down with the new areas under restrictions .... although we won't in the areas that arent .... these will just grow but maybe not some of the large numbers as some of the more densely populated areas .... but any slowing is obviously good .... 

It's Friday.

Let's have some positivity to end the week!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

no thats fair :) .... I tried to be as positive there whilst being realistic .... :) 

Thats all you can be. Whilst the R has dropped slightly it still shows the rate of infection is rising and now moving into older categories of people too. So yeah it’s slightly good news but as we are seeing in case numbers it’s still rising. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ace56blaa said:

I watched the whole debate. 

I have to say it was actually an exciting debate in my opinion. Both candidates did a hell of lot better than last time.

Biden actually laid out a plan last night. A plan that made me have some hope for America. He talks about Bidencare and the transition to sustainable energy. He talks about accountability and how he would straight away tackle covid when he got into power. He talked about the fact that Trump has constantly spoke about plans and new healthcare but never actually released any information. I think anyone with half a brain cell could see Trump is lying about anything he says is coming "very soon" including his tax returns, healthcare and a vaccine. I think if none of those come before Election Day, a lot of people may not be inspired to vote Trump.

Trump tried to sow doubt in Biden, with the hunter emails and Biden's past crime bill hurting Black Americans. But Biden called his crime bill a mistake and said he'd had been fixing it. Trump keep asking Biden, why he couldn't get anything passed in the 8 years under Obama and Biden FINALLY said it was because a republican senate was blocking him. Trump also said some crazy insane things about wind-power. That it kills birds and causes cancer. Which is conspiratory and will play to his q-anon base. But I suspect that base won't be enough to help him win. 

I think if politics hadn't been warped over the years you could say Biden easily won that debate. Becauase so many of trumps statements were baseless and easily disproven. But whether that matters to a lot of Americans is to be seen. If you say Trump won that debate, then all Biden could do to win over voters would be to spew conspiracies and hate speech. But yes I understand the pessimist who grow in everyone in 2016, doesn't want to get their hopes up for Biden. When Trump could still take it. 

Trump actually knew how to Debate and campaign last time. This time he has become desperate and sweaty. 

It was Biden that claimed Trump believed the windmills caused cancer, he may have said something to that effect in the past but he was probably talking about the pollution generated while manufacturing the windmills. To be honest his comments on wind were pretty accurate, even if you discount the fact that some birds are killed by them there is good reason to doubt their value, if you have time watch this video,

  The amount of material used to produce this one turbine is incredible, there is a cost both financial and ecological in producing so much steel and concrete, the turbines have an expected life of 20 years will they produce enough energy in that time to justify all this effort? Because this is green technology it is subsidised if they had to be installed and operated on a purely commercial basis they wouldn't be viable. If after 20 years they have to be dismantled that is another cost to consider, hopefully they can be upgraded with more efficient technology by then. I'm not knocking green energy, far from it, it would be great if these turbines gave us unlimited green free energy, but we have to look at these things realistically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It’s unfortunate that we don’t really have any solid data on case numbers from the spring time because we weren’t mass testing or really doing any monitoring of community prevalence. That makes it really hard to know what the impacts of the first 2 weeks of the previous lockdown were. But I’m going to try to do that anyway.

 

Let’s assume a one month lag between infections and deaths, and an IFR rate of 0.5%. For example, on the 17th March 2020, the day after population wide social distancing measures were announced, 50 people died with covid-19 in England. I’m going to therefore assume that 10,000 people caught the virus in England on 17th February (pretty scary given that community transmission was believed to be minimal if existent at all on that date).

 

The peak deaths of 975 in England occurred on 8th April. This suggests that either my one month lag is too long, or more likely that cases had already started to fall before the full lockdown was announced, presumably due to hand washing advice and voluntary social distancing measures that were in place such as working from home and avoiding hospitality venues.

 

Two weeks after this date, on 22nd April, there were 642 deaths in England, implying that the first two weeks measures probably cut the prevalence by around 1/3. The following week they’d fallen to 493 (just over half of the peak) and another week later they’d fallen to 392 (just over 40% of the peak)

 

That to me implies that two weeks of tough measures can cut case numbers by a third, and three weeks of tough measures can halve them. I favour the latter option because I think halving them would be needed for T&T to stand a chance of not being overwhelmed like it has been now. A third week would also buy extra time to actually sort out the T&T system. 


A four or even six week long circuit breaker would drive infections even lower (40% and 24% of current levels), but I don’t think a circuit breaker of this length would be appropriate given that you’d need a full shutdown including schools and non-essential retail. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

It’s unfortunate that we don’t really have any solid data on case numbers from the spring time because we weren’t mass testing or really doing any monitoring of community prevalence. That makes it really hard to know what the impacts of the first 2 weeks of the previous lockdown were. But I’m going to try to do that anyway.

 

Let’s assume a one month lag between infections and deaths, and an IFR rate of 0.5%. For example, on the 17th March 2020, the day after population wide social distancing measures were announced, 50 people died with covid-19 in England. I’m going to therefore assume that 10,000 people caught the virus in England on 17th February (pretty scary given that community transmission was believed to be minimal if existent at all on that date).

 

The peak deaths of 975 in England occurred on 8th April. This suggests that either my one month lag is too long, or more likely that cases had already started to fall before the full lockdown was announced, presumably due to hand washing advice and voluntary social distancing measures that were in place such as working from home and avoiding hospitality venues.

 

Two weeks after this date, on 22nd April, there were 642 deaths in England, implying that the first two weeks measures probably cut the prevalence by around 1/3. The following week they’d fallen to 493 (just over half of the peak) and another week later they’d fallen to 392 (just over 40% of the peak)

 

That to me implies that two weeks of tough measures can cut case numbers by a third, and three weeks of tough measures can halve them. I favour the latter option because I think halving them would be needed for T&T to stand a chance of not being overwhelmed like it has been now. A third week would also buy extra time to actually sort out the T&T system. 


A four or even six week long circuit breaker would drive infections even lower (40% and 24% of current levels), but I don’t think a circuit breaker of this length would be appropriate given that you’d need a full shutdown including schools and non-essential retail. 

 

Well, not happening here, not yet anyway. They missed this half term which would have been a good opportunity. Maybe they could do circuit break over next school break in christmas hols, I'm sure that will go down well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

It was Biden that claimed Trump believed the windmills caused cancer, he may have said something to that effect in the past but he was probably talking about the pollution generated while manufacturing the windmills. To be honest his comments on wind were pretty accurate, even if you discount the fact that some birds are killed by them there is good reason to doubt their value, if you have time watch this video,

  The amount of material used to produce this one turbine is incredible, there is a cost both financial and ecological in producing so much steel and concrete, the turbines have an expected life of 20 years will they produce enough energy in that time to justify all this effort? Because this is green technology it is subsidised if they had to be installed and operated on a purely commercial basis they wouldn't be viable. If after 20 years they have to be dismantled that is another cost to consider, hopefully they can be upgraded with more efficient technology by then. I'm not knocking green energy, far from it, it would be great if these turbines gave us unlimited green free energy, but we have to look at these things realistically.

Yes all renewable energy sources will have huge teething problems from transitioning from the oil industry. Obviously the easier cheaper, more profitable option is oil. There is already infrastructure for oil and a huge industry around it, Which is why Trump defends it beyond all reason.

But that's not the point, no one is trying to make the argument that we should invest in renewable energy for immediate profit, that's just not realistic. Yes wind turbines will cost billions to make and install and same for installing the solar pannelling in buildings across America. But that's not the point, the point is the oil industry is unstainable and destroying our environment, It will only cause great hardships to the world and American people for it to continue. - Yes these oil tycoons and industries will stay rich until the planet dies.

The point about birds dying for me was ridiculous not because I don't believe building a turbine will have no effect on the environment at all, (that's just not realistic) But the actual goal of renewable energy is a far longer game than the effect of it being built. - When renewable energy is an industry, they will find ways to make turbines last longer than 20 years (Going off your facts, I haven't looked into that) - But the laughable bit about the bird is comparing a few birds harmed in turbine building, to the millions of birds, fish and wildlife, harmed by just the BP oil spill alone. And that's before you even factor in the amount of wildlife being displaced or destroyed due to global warming and then the end of all wildlife if we destroy this planet by mining all it's resources. 

This is the quote from Trump on windmills Biden was referring to: "If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer, you tell me that one, okay?" - source: https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-claims-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-11683102

Overall I don't understand your point, If we are being realistic we have to face the fact that continuing with an oil industry and not looking for alternative renewable energy will be the undoing of the human race according to most, if not all,  credible scientists. Trump and the republican party just don't care about the effect of the industry because they'll be dead when it matters

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Important to note that this was originally a UKGOV petition but it was taken down after 5 signatures

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...