Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Tomm06]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

Then, presumably, they're quite happy for people to die, potentially through their actions. 

 

Were people always this selfish? 

Yes. In fact I remembered them saying "I'd rather people die" 

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, iansheff said:

Northern lockdown rules have banned sex in homes if you do not live together - although hotel romps will be allowed. Has Boris employed someone just to think these crazy ideas up, how on earth can they enforce it? 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/northern-lockdown-rules-sex-banned-22469304

Ability to enforce isn't necessarily the main criteria for implementing it- when it comes to rules designed to slow/minimise transmission of virus it is more important that a substantial portion of the population follow it. 

 

Clearly sex with strangers is very likely to spread the virus from one person to the other. 

 

As we've seen with other lockdown measures, some of which do not make nearly as much sense, while not all people follow them, most do. 

47 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Good news.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/roll-out-of-2-new-rapid-coronavirus-tests-ahead-of-winter#:~:text=5%2C000%20DNA%20'Nudgebox'%20machines%2C,the%20need%

 

Innovation. The lab is miniaturised and the test administered on the spot.

The test could possibly be made available to the public over the counter. Employers could utilise it  and test their employees.

There is a school of thought that many more people already have coronavirus than is supposed, and the majority of them are asymptomatic and, that a explanation for the rise in numbers when testing is increased, is due to the increased testing turning up these large numbers of people who are assymptomatic and have the virus. If that is the case, then increasing testing isn't necessarily such a positive thing.

25 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Then, presumably, they're quite happy for people to die, potentially through their actions. 

 

Were people always this selfish? 

Very presumptious to assume that they are all selfish. Many of these people sincerely believe, and can rationally justify, their view that more lockdown will lead, ultimately, to more death and misery than the effects of the virus. 

 

The economic effects from lockdown have not really started yet [although the US seems to be suffering, with high levels of home repossessions?] but it looks likely that many will die or suffer over the next few years.

 

You can quibble with their reasoning, but that is how they think, so IMO it is wrong and unproductive to lable them 'selfish'- in their eyes, you are the selfish one, as you seem not to care about the huge numbers who will suffer in the near future as a result of the lockdown that you want.

24 minutes ago, Tomm06 said:

Yes. In fact I remembered them saying "I'd rather people die" 

Some of them- as pointed out above, many don't want further lockdowns precisely because they want less people to die.

[Longcol]

6 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

There is a school of thought that many more people already have coronavirus than is supposed, and the majority of them are asymptomatic and, that a explanation for the rise in numbers when testing is increased, is due to the increased testing turning up these large numbers of people who are assymptomatic and have the virus. If that is the case, then increasing testing isn't necessarily such a positive thing.

 

You're starting to sound like Donald Trump.

 

It's not a "school of thought" - it's real.

 

Isn't it positive that asymptomatic people can be identified so they can take positive action to prevent themselves spreading the virus?

[Tomm06]

8 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Ability to enforce isn't necessarily the main criteria for implementing it- when it comes to rules designed to slow/minimise transmission of virus it is more important that a substantial portion of the population follow it. 

 

Clearly sex with strangers is very likely to spread the virus from one person to the other. 

 

As we've seen with other lockdown measures, some of which do not make nearly as much sense, while not all people follow them, most do. 

There is a school of thought that many more people already have coronavirus than is supposed, and the majority of them are asymptomatic and, that a explanation for the rise in numbers when testing is increased, is due to the increased testing turning up these large numbers of people who are assymptomatic and have the virus. If that is the case, then increasing testing isn't necessarily such a positive thing.

Very presumptious to assume that they are all selfish. Many of these people sincerely believe, and can rationally justify, their view that more lockdown will lead, ultimately, to more death and misery than the effects of the virus. 

 

The economic effects from lockdown have not really started yet [although the US seems to be suffering, with high levels of home repossessions?] but it looks likely that many will die or suffer over the next few years.

 

You can quibble with their reasoning, but that is how they think, so IMO it is wrong and unproductive to lable them 'selfish'- in their eyes, you are the selfish one, as you seem not to care about the huge numbers who will suffer in the near future as a result of the lockdown that you want.

Some of them- as pointed out above, many don't want further lockdowns precisely because they want less people to die.

My comment was pure sarcasm because I struggle to get my head around people sitting there thinking those who want to carry on as normal or live with maximum ease of lockdown are all simply happy for everyone to die. 

 

In fact it would help literally everything if people would stop trying to accuse people of simply wanting to kill everyone. 

 

As we stand currently, pending any changes on local areas we are at max ease or there abouts? We all know the risks we all know the rules, surely the people who are in favour of remaining 'locked down' till this all apparently goes away are very free to do so. No? 

[Pettytom]

6 minutes ago, Tomm06 said:

My comment was pure sarcasm because I struggle to get my head around people sitting there thinking those who want to carry on as normal or live with maximum ease of lockdown are all simply happy for everyone to die. 

 

In fact it would help literally everything if people would stop trying to accuse people of simply wanting to kill everyone. 

 

As we stand currently, pending any changes on local areas we are at max ease or there abouts? We all know the risks we all know the rules, surely the people who are in favour of remaining 'locked down' till this all apparently goes away are very free to do so. No? 

Sadly, we live in a world where contrarians can easily get their bonkers ideas heard. 
 

I can’t understand why people should look so hard for excuses to avoid doing the right thing.

 

A very small number of people might have good reason for not social distancing, or wearing face coverings. But for most, these should be default behaviours out of respect for the safety of other members of our society.

 

Sadly, it appears that we live in a society with a significant number of ignorant, amoral, anti-social members. 
 

Final word chosen very carefully to avoid moderation 

[Dardandec]

Asymptomatic people is just a damp squib to cover government failings. If Asymptomatic people are Asymptomatic, why are they getting tested *? Aren't the minions only allowed to get tested if they have symptoms? Another question, if there is the amount of Asymptomatic people kicking about as people reckon, does that not make this illness nowhere near as dangerous as they make out, especially as the majority of people who catch it make a full recovery, most with mild symptoms? Mmmm something not right with all this. 

 

* Yes I know about people who are routinely tested. Still very fishy to me. 

[Longcol]

16 minutes ago, Dardandec said:

Asymptomatic people is just a damp squib to cover government failings. If Asymptomatic people are Asymptomatic, why are they getting tested *? Aren't the minions only allowed to get tested if they have symptoms? Another question, if there is the amount of Asymptomatic people kicking about as people reckon, does that not make this illness nowhere near as dangerous as they make out, especially as the majority of people who catch it make a full recovery, most with mild symptoms? Mmmm something not right with all this. 

 

* Yes I know about people who are routinely tested. Still very fishy to me. 

How do people who are asymptomatic know that they carry the virus - and therefore can infect others - without being tested?

[Dardandec]

16 minutes ago, Longcol said:

How do people who are asymptomatic know that they carry the virus - and therefore can infect others - without being tested?

Conveniently missed off some of my post there. Here it is again.

 

"Aren't the minions only allowed to get tested if they have symptoms"

[Halibut]

4 hours ago, Dardandec said:

Conveniently missed off some of my post there. Here it is again.

 

"Aren't the minions only allowed to get tested if they have symptoms"

It's remarkable that someone with an apparent interest can be so ill-informed. The short answer to that that question is no.

[andyofborg]

7 hours ago, Dardandec said:

Conveniently missed off some of my post there. Here it is again.

 

"Aren't the minions only allowed to get tested if they have symptoms"

if you are contact traced you are advised to get a test