The Irony Thread
Comments
-
I'd prefer 99 Problems But...0
-
Mask wearers getting in non-mask wearers' faces to tell them they're putting them in danger.1
-
pinno said:
[Here we go, here we go, here we go...]
FWIW and even though medical professionals have said that the NHS has 'coped', many many appointments and follow up treatments for other conditions have been postponed and there have been people with acute condition that have died because they didn't get chemo or they went undiagnosed. Routine procedures which we take for granted; smear tests, bowel screening, breast screening: all those preventative tests which can be critical to early diagnosis etc have been delayed.
Ask those medical professions what repercussions as a result of the pre-occupation, staff usage, cancellation of surgical procedures, appointments, follow up treatment, ICU capacity etc due to C19 and see what response you get.
My eye clinic appointment was cancelled and i've no idea when the next one will be.
My annual haematology appt. and blood test was delayed 6 months.
I'm not complaining because AFAIK, i'm okay despite the above but i'm simply underlining that it isn't simply how the NHS has coped with C19 directly, it's how other services have been compromised as a result.
We won't know the full extent of those repercussions for a while yet.
I know that in France they cancelled my wife's operation as she required intensive care treatment just after it. It's now been carried out but I think a lot of procedures were cancelled just in case more than anything. I know two people who work in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and most people were sitting around doing nothing.pinno said:[Here we go, here we go, here we go...]
FWIW and even though medical professionals have said that the NHS has 'coped', many many appointments and follow up treatments for other conditions have been postponed and there have been people with acute condition that have died because they didn't get chemo or they went undiagnosed. Routine procedures which we take for granted; smear tests, bowel screening, breast screening: all those preventative tests which can be critical to early diagnosis etc have been delayed.
Ask those medical professions what repercussions as a result of the pre-occupation, staff usage, cancellation of surgical procedures, appointments, follow up treatment, ICU capacity etc due to C19 and see what response you get.
My eye clinic appointment was cancelled and i've no idea when the next one will be.
My annual haematology appt. and blood test was delayed 6 months.
I'm not complaining because AFAIK, i'm okay despite the above but i'm simply underlining that it isn't simply how the NHS has coped with C19 directly, it's how other services have been compromised as a result.
We won't know the full extent of those repercussions for a while yet.0 -
Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.3
-
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
0 -
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.0 -
I don't think he was talking about mask wearing.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
But, just to add, for me personally I can't stand wearing the mask and find it quite difficult to breathe. I still do it as required but I don't even think it's that effective. You only have to walk past people's cars here to see the disposable masks they keep on the dashboard that are being used again and again.0 -
Yes, you're probably right. I just like to use that analogy as he thinks mask wearers are paranoid sheep.nickice said:
I don't think he was talking about mask wearing.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
But, just to add, for me personally I can't stand wearing the mask and find it quite difficult to breathe. I still do it as required but I don't even think it's that effective. You only have to walk past people's cars here to see the disposable masks they keep on the dashboard that are being used again and again.
I realise some people don't like it and appreciate that most of them still do in spite of this. I know what you mean about reusing disposable masks, my take on that is that if they do that the mask still works in terms of protecting others by stopping the droplets in your breath from travelling as far. The mask will not be as effective for the person wearing it though which is more their problem than anybody else's.
0 -
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)0 -
Very little difference in your case if you actually behave anything like you have told us you behave.coopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
As I suspect you know, the actual difference will all depend on lots of factors like the type of mask, how well it fits, whether the person is using it properly etc etc.
It will reduce risk though, so why not wear it.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Thank you for proving my point so quicklycoopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
0 -
You ignore the 2 biggest factors in this risk profile and that is actually having the virus in an asymptomatic state and catching the virus off someone else. Both of these risk factors dwarf any of the ones you reference.pangolin said:
Very little difference in your case if you actually behave anything like you have told us you behave.coopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
As I suspect you know, the actual difference will all depend on lots of factors like the type of mask, how well it fits, whether the person is using it properly etc etc.
It will reduce risk though, so why not wear it.
If we were running at the infections levels of March-May, mask wearing may be of some benefit with this level of open society, but at current infection levels it is purely theatre for those who have no understanding of the real risk.0 -
Despite you going on and on about how no one understands the real risk and only you know the way to resolve this situation. Has anyone said “ Do you know Coopster I think you’re right and I will change my opinion” So I wonder how long you are going to keep banging on to the inconvertible.coopster_the_1st said:
You ignore the 2 biggest factors in this risk profile and that is actually having the virus in an asymptomatic state and catching the virus off someone else. Both of these risk factors dwarf any of the ones you reference.pangolin said:
Very little difference in your case if you actually behave anything like you have told us you behave.coopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
As I suspect you know, the actual difference will all depend on lots of factors like the type of mask, how well it fits, whether the person is using it properly etc etc.
It will reduce risk though, so why not wear it.
If we were running at the infections levels of March-May, mask wearing may be of some benefit with this level of open society, but at current infection levels it is purely theatre for those who have no understanding of the real risk.0 -
So if you accept that here could have been some benefit in March-May. Do you accept that a second spike is a possibility? If so should we do anything to try and prevent it?coopster_the_1st said:
If we were running at the infections levels of March-May, mask wearing may be of some benefit with this level of open society, but at current infection levels it is purely theatre for those who have no understanding of the real risk.pangolin said:
Very little difference in your case if you actually behave anything like you have told us you behave.coopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
As I suspect you know, the actual difference will all depend on lots of factors like the type of mask, how well it fits, whether the person is using it properly etc etc.
It will reduce risk though, so why not wear it.
If the answer to both of the above is yes, at what point would you introduce mask wearing?0 -
I think there is a very real possibility of a second spike due to the virus being transmitted easier in winter seasons and the wrong strategy of suppression over the summer.veronese68 said:
So if you accept that here could have been some benefit in March-May. Do you accept that a second spike is a possibility? If so should we do anything to try and prevent it?coopster_the_1st said:
If we were running at the infections levels of March-May, mask wearing may be of some benefit with this level of open society, but at current infection levels it is purely theatre for those who have no understanding of the real risk.pangolin said:
Very little difference in your case if you actually behave anything like you have told us you behave.coopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
As I suspect you know, the actual difference will all depend on lots of factors like the type of mask, how well it fits, whether the person is using it properly etc etc.
It will reduce risk though, so why not wear it.
If the answer to both of the above is yes, at what point would you introduce mask wearing?
I see the highest transmission risk being indoor family and friend gatherings over the winter, not fleeting passes in supermarkets and other shops. If mask wearing was really about stopping transmission and saving lives, and not for the theatre, it would be mandated across all indoor settings, including household gatherings.0 -
I wonder if the loser of the Lib Dums leadership election will ask for a second vote?
(announced tomorrow)0 -
-
News to me - no idea who the candidates are. On the bright side, I suppose they don't have very big boots to fill.coopster_the_1st said:I wonder if the loser of the Lib Dums leadership election will ask for a second vote?
(announced tomorrow)"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Why do you make so many Soviet references when you thought Hunt was so out of order to do so?rick_chasey said:
Like Stalin’s generalsbriantrumpet said:
0 -
Context?TheBigBean said:
Why do you make so many Soviet references when you thought Hunt was so out of order to do so?rick_chasey said:
Like Stalin’s generalsbriantrumpet said:0 -
You understand the context perfectly whereas Hunt doesn't?rick_chasey said:
Context?TheBigBean said:
Why do you make so many Soviet references when you thought Hunt was so out of order to do so?rick_chasey said:
Like Stalin’s generalsbriantrumpet said:0 -
No, the context in which they are said.TheBigBean said:
You understand the context perfectly whereas Hunt doesn't?rick_chasey said:
Context?TheBigBean said:
Why do you make so many Soviet references when you thought Hunt was so out of order to do so?rick_chasey said:
Like Stalin’s generalsbriantrumpet said:
Bike forum from a nobody vs uk minister to the world?0 -
Is this a suggestion?coopster_the_1st said:
I think there is a very real possibility of a second spike due to the virus being transmitted easier in winter seasons and the wrong strategy of suppression over the summer.veronese68 said:
So if you accept that here could have been some benefit in March-May. Do you accept that a second spike is a possibility? If so should we do anything to try and prevent it?coopster_the_1st said:
If we were running at the infections levels of March-May, mask wearing may be of some benefit with this level of open society, but at current infection levels it is purely theatre for those who have no understanding of the real risk.pangolin said:
Very little difference in your case if you actually behave anything like you have told us you behave.coopster_the_1st said:
The highlighted 'may' is doing a hell of a lot of work in your post and perfectly proves my point of those posters, of which you are one, having an extreme misunderstand of risk regarding C19.veronese68 said:
You do know everything has an element of risk attached to it, there re pros and cons and people weigh up the advantages against the risk. With cycling it is generally accepted that cycling is better for a person's health than not cycling. The risk of injury is more than offset by the improvement in general fitness and everything that comes with it.coopster_the_1st said:
Said poster, and others of the same extreme misunderstanding of risk, are happy to regularly cycle with the increased risk of injury if they were to have an accident.nickice said:Poster accusing others of not understanding risks while showing themselves to be ultra cautious to the extreme.
Something like wearing a mask carries very little risk, is a really minor inconvenience to the wearer but may be of huge benefit to others. So many people think it is worth doing, your opinion clearly differs. But that says a lot more about you than it does about anybody else.
How much less risk to another person is there from me wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask?
Taking into account the risk of catching the virus based on social distancing of 2m is 1.4% and 1m SD is 2.9% (I can't recall the exposure time and indoors/outdoors that contributed to this percentage risk)
As I suspect you know, the actual difference will all depend on lots of factors like the type of mask, how well it fits, whether the person is using it properly etc etc.
It will reduce risk though, so why not wear it.
If the answer to both of the above is yes, at what point would you introduce mask wearing?
I see the highest transmission risk being indoor family and friend gatherings over the winter, not fleeting passes in supermarkets and other shops. If mask wearing was really about stopping transmission and saving lives, and not for the theatre, it would be mandated across all indoor settings, including household gatherings.0 -
I think that's a fairly weak standard. I tend to judge the words not the speaker.rick_chasey said:
No, the context in which they are said.TheBigBean said:
You understand the context perfectly whereas Hunt doesn't?rick_chasey said:
Context?TheBigBean said:
Why do you make so many Soviet references when you thought Hunt was so out of order to do so?rick_chasey said:
Like Stalin’s generalsbriantrumpet said:
Bike forum from a nobody vs uk minister to the world?
0 -
It's the entire context, but I'm not going to argue as I think you seem to think words don't exist in the context in which they are uttered.TheBigBean said:
I think that's a fairly weak standard. I tend to judge the words not the speaker.rick_chasey said:
No, the context in which they are said.TheBigBean said:
You understand the context perfectly whereas Hunt doesn't?rick_chasey said:
Context?TheBigBean said:
Why do you make so many Soviet references when you thought Hunt was so out of order to do so?rick_chasey said:
Like Stalin’s generalsbriantrumpet said:
Bike forum from a nobody vs uk minister to the world?0 -
Littlejohn writing in the mail today a long ranty article about how people need to go back to the office, and then in the final paragraph notes he's been working from home for the past 30 years.2
-
Made me chuckle. But but, are you reading the Heil...??0
-
rick_chasey said:
Littlejohn writing in the mail today a long ranty article about how people need to go back to the office, and then in the final paragraph notes he's been working from home for the past 30 years.
Perhaps we need a hypocrisy thread.
There certainly does seem to be a big right wing push to get people back into offices, in order to get unnecessary travelling and expenditure going again. So much for the 'new ways of working' that people were praising a few short months ago...0 -
