The big Coronavirus thread

kingstongraham

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Consistent with the "let them drown" attitude, I suppose.

From a guy that does not have a meaningfull solution that is touching. Your hands must be so tired from all the wringing.

If you think it's going to be so bad that you need to have a "let very sick people die" policy, then respectfully, you don’t even have a laughable solution.

I don't know what the right answer is. It's either more restrictions immediately or it's not going to be too bad and we don't need more restrictions. Thinking it's going to be carnage and doing nothing is definitely wrong.

The problem is that people that know more than you or I don't think restrictions are as clear cut as you think.

Not sure how much more clearly I could have phrased my uncertainty about whether restrictions are needed.

rick_chasey

Politically it's a very high stakes.

So he has enough of his party against any restrictions that his hands are tied, but the sage evidence seems to suggest they want some form of additional restrictions to bring R down.

So if it seems to be OK, and no additional restrictions are needed, his rebels will be emboldened and it will further weaken his authority.

If they're wrong, aside from y'know, lots of dead people, BoJo will not be able to lean on the "we followed the science" routine, but above all, they'll have broken the NHS, which is what Labour have always accused them of. It's game over for the Tories for a generation at that point.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

If I have lunch with a client and a bottle of wine is ordered, does it cease to be business?

Objection: irrelevant hypothetical as it is not "at the end of the working day", plus, in the picture in question, there are no "clients".

Who was BJ business developing? His newborn?

It was a response to the statement that anything involving alcohol can't be work.

Right but that's just taking it further away from the issue at hand.

It's quite clear the picture is of BoJo and colleagues socialising over cheese and wine after work.

Given the rules everyone else abided by, either in spirit or in actual law, it is a really really bad look.

You can spin it all you want and play devil's advocate if you so wish, but that is the reality. A lot of people sacrificed an awful lot during that same time, and to even contemplate doing what that photo is of would be seen as ludicrous.

I've seen videos of grieving families being separated at funerals because they're not adhering to the social distancing rules *on the same day*.

BoJo is not king, they are not in the king's court and he is not above the law.

I have repeatedly said that the key test is why the meeting couldn't be done remotely. If it had been, and they all drank wine and ate cheese, no one would care. If Boris had a baby in his hands while doing a virtual call, again no one would care. The issue is simply that whatever is being discussed didn't need to be in person.

First.Aspect

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1471258511162195968?t=YSZwsad4t_gBt_PEpI3pVw&s=19

Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?

Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.

I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

TheBigBean

imposter2.0 said:

TheBigBean said:

If I have lunch with a client and a bottle of wine is ordered, does it cease to be business?

Have none of you seen those cop dramas from the 70s and 80s, where the detective always keeps a bottle of scotch in his desk drawer..??

One thing I have never seen is that typical scene from films where they pour someone a drink of some sort of spirit in their office. I've concluded it must be an American thing. We have beer in the fridge which is unusual.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

If I have lunch with a client and a bottle of wine is ordered, does it cease to be business?

Objection: irrelevant hypothetical as it is not "at the end of the working day", plus, in the picture in question, there are no "clients".

Who was BJ business developing? His newborn?

It was a response to the statement that anything involving alcohol can't be work.

Right but that's just taking it further away from the issue at hand.

It's quite clear the picture is of BoJo and colleagues socialising over cheese and wine after work.

Given the rules everyone else abided by, either in spirit or in actual law, it is a really really bad look.

You can spin it all you want and play devil's advocate if you so wish, but that is the reality. A lot of people sacrificed an awful lot during that same time, and to even contemplate doing what that photo is of would be seen as ludicrous.

I've seen videos of grieving families being separated at funerals because they're not adhering to the social distancing rules *on the same day*.

BoJo is not king, they are not in the king's court and he is not above the law.

I have repeatedly said that the key test is why the meeting couldn't be done remotely. If it had been, and they all drank wine and ate cheese, no one would care. If Boris had a baby in his hands while doing a virtual call, again no one would care. The issue is simply that whatever is being discussed didn't need to be in person.

IT'S NOT A MEETING. IT'S SOCIALISING.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

If I have lunch with a client and a bottle of wine is ordered, does it cease to be business?

Objection: irrelevant hypothetical as it is not "at the end of the working day", plus, in the picture in question, there are no "clients".

Who was BJ business developing? His newborn?

It was a response to the statement that anything involving alcohol can't be work.

Right but that's just taking it further away from the issue at hand.

It's quite clear the picture is of BoJo and colleagues socialising over cheese and wine after work.

Given the rules everyone else abided by, either in spirit or in actual law, it is a really really bad look.

You can spin it all you want and play devil's advocate if you so wish, but that is the reality. A lot of people sacrificed an awful lot during that same time, and to even contemplate doing what that photo is of would be seen as ludicrous.

I've seen videos of grieving families being separated at funerals because they're not adhering to the social distancing rules *on the same day*.

BoJo is not king, they are not in the king's court and he is not above the law.

I have repeatedly said that the key test is why the meeting couldn't be done remotely. If it had been, and they all drank wine and ate cheese, no one would care. If Boris had a baby in his hands while doing a virtual call, again no one would care. The issue is simply that whatever is being discussed didn't need to be in person.

IT'S NOT A MEETING. IT'S SOCIALISING.

That might be your conclusion based on the reason that the meeting was not done remotely.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

If I have lunch with a client and a bottle of wine is ordered, does it cease to be business?

Objection: irrelevant hypothetical as it is not "at the end of the working day", plus, in the picture in question, there are no "clients".

Who was BJ business developing? His newborn?

It was a response to the statement that anything involving alcohol can't be work.

Right but that's just taking it further away from the issue at hand.

It's quite clear the picture is of BoJo and colleagues socialising over cheese and wine after work.

Given the rules everyone else abided by, either in spirit or in actual law, it is a really really bad look.

You can spin it all you want and play devil's advocate if you so wish, but that is the reality. A lot of people sacrificed an awful lot during that same time, and to even contemplate doing what that photo is of would be seen as ludicrous.

I've seen videos of grieving families being separated at funerals because they're not adhering to the social distancing rules *on the same day*.

BoJo is not king, they are not in the king's court and he is not above the law.

I have repeatedly said that the key test is why the meeting couldn't be done remotely. If it had been, and they all drank wine and ate cheese, no one would care. If Boris had a baby in his hands while doing a virtual call, again no one would care. The issue is simply that whatever is being discussed didn't need to be in person.

IT'S NOT A MEETING. IT'S SOCIALISING.

Obviously it is, but if you accept they are going to try to brazen it out by saying this obvious after works drinks was a business meeting, it was still against the guidance/rules (I'm not sure which).

tailwindhome

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1471258511162195968?t=YSZwsad4t_gBt_PEpI3pVw&s=19

Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?

Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.

I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

Can't argue with that

Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.

rick_chasey

So the technique of saying "even if their lie was true, here is why it was wrong" is a terrible technique and one that those in power rely on regularly so that they can lie through their teeth.

It shifts the debate away from the issue and builds in a false assumption which is the entire lie.

It wasn't a meeting. Don't pretend it was. We even had someone responsible for handling the press explain to us on camera how they would pass off socialising if they were caught - by claiming it is a business meeting.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

So the technique of saying "even if their lie was true, here is why it was wrong" is a terrible technique and one that those in power rely on regularly so that they can lie through their teeth.

It shifts the debate away from the issue and builds in a false assumption which is the entire lie.

It wasn't a meeting. Don't pretend it was. We even had someone responsible for handling the press explain to us on camera how they would pass off socialising if they were caught - by claiming it is a business meeting.

I don't think the most effective response, in challenging a lie, is to lie e.g. stating that any meeting would result in minutes.

I'm really bored with saying it, but if they needed to talk to each other, for work, why did they need to do it in person? That is the question that needs answering.

rick_chasey

Because they weren’t working obviously

First.Aspect

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1471258511162195968?t=YSZwsad4t_gBt_PEpI3pVw&s=19

Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?

Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.

I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

Can't argue with that

Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.

Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

So the technique of saying "even if their lie was true, here is why it was wrong" is a terrible technique and one that those in power rely on regularly so that they can lie through their teeth.

It shifts the debate away from the issue and builds in a false assumption which is the entire lie.

It wasn't a meeting. Don't pretend it was. We even had someone responsible for handling the press explain to us on camera how they would pass off socialising if they were caught - by claiming it is a business meeting.

I don't think the most effective response, in challenging a lie, is to lie e.g. stating that any meeting would result in minutes.

I'm really bored with saying it, but if they needed to talk to each other, for work, why did they need to do it in person? That is the question that needs answering.

BB, you seem to be struggling because you are working on the premise they were there for work.

They were not there for work. The point of it all was socialising. They were socialising. That is it. The work thing is a lie and a red herring.

kingstongraham

I guess if it does all go a bit haywire in London, it will help the rest of the world with their decision making.

kingstonian

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1471258511162195968?t=YSZwsad4t_gBt_PEpI3pVw&s=19

Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?

Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.

I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

Can't argue with that

Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.

Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.

Yep, it is all educated guesswork at this stage. I also believe the doomsday modelling will hugely overstate the reality. As for the shortness of the peak, I can’t find the quote but am pretty sure Whitty said a week or so ago that there would be a rapid peak and then the infection rates would drop downwards swiftly (believe he referred to the chart looking like a hairpin bend).

kingstonian

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

So the technique of saying "even if their lie was true, here is why it was wrong" is a terrible technique and one that those in power rely on regularly so that they can lie through their teeth.

It shifts the debate away from the issue and builds in a false assumption which is the entire lie.

It wasn't a meeting. Don't pretend it was. We even had someone responsible for handling the press explain to us on camera how they would pass off socialising if they were caught - by claiming it is a business meeting.

I don't think the most effective response, in challenging a lie, is to lie e.g. stating that any meeting would result in minutes.

I'm really bored with saying it, but if they needed to talk to each other, for work, why did they need to do it in person? That is the question that needs answering.

BB, you seem to be struggling because you are working on the premise they were there for work.

They were not there for work. The point of it all was socialising. They were socialising. That is it. The work thing is a lie and a red herring.

I believe they were initially at No 10 for work, it then got to the end of the day and they cracked open the wine.

Should they have needed to be in person for the meeting - I don’t know what was being discussed, whether it was so top-secret it necessitated being only in person or not, but I suspect it could most likely have been possible to be done remotely. Should they have cracked open the wine afterwards - no, it was incredibly naive to do so, especially at the time when the rest of us were hunkered down.

Also, as there would always be someone that couldn’t resist taking a pic of this sort of event, I can’t fathom why they’d even take the risk. Very, very naive.

tailwindhome

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1471258511162195968?t=YSZwsad4t_gBt_PEpI3pVw&s=19

Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?

Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.

I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

Can't argue with that

Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.

Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.

That graph isn't comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations

kingstongraham

kingstonian said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

First.Aspect said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1471258511162195968?t=YSZwsad4t_gBt_PEpI3pVw&s=19

Is it just me that thinks that the case numbers and hospitalisations look distinctly coupled?

Well, hospitalisations increase as cases increases, but the 'length of the couple' has stretched.

I understand what they say it shows, but I have eyes.
Now, going back to the infections vs. hospitalisations plot, if you take 2 week's worth of infections away, you are left with essentially the pre-Omicron data. So anything you think it shows is reading tea leaves.

Let's disregard the most recent tweet you posted - because the blue line, whatever it is, however clever it is, shows something that Nick Freeman agrees with. This should be an alarm bell for you.

Can't argue with that

Remove the recent data and there'll be no Omicron data on the graph.

Don't be intentionally gormless eh? You know full well that there's a lag between infections and hospitalisations. So although it is tempting, comparing today's infections with today's hospitalisations is misleading. And that is what you are doing.

And just so you know, I think the doomsday modeling this time around is going to turn out to be wildly innacurate and the peak will be shorter and less bad than last year. However, I am guessing because there's no data yet, just some unreliable extrapolations.

Yep, it is all educated guesswork at this stage. I also believe the doomsday modelling will hugely overstate the reality. As for the shortness of the peak, I can’t find the quote but am pretty sure Whitty said a week or so ago that there would be a rapid peak and then the infection rates would drop downwards swiftly (believe he referred to the chart looking like a hairpin bend).

The doomsday modelling is expected to overstate the reality even by the modellers, isn't it? The maximum possible is based on no change to behaviour, low immunity conferred by vaccines and low efficacy of boosters. I don't think many consider all of those three things to be likely.

Which model is the 6,000 deaths a day from? The highest number on the LSHTM is about 3,000 per day on the assumption of a 0% uptake of the booster, which was clearly also a "not going to happen" model.

Edit: maybe the 6,000 a day was hospital admissions.

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

I guess if it does all go a bit haywire in London, it will help the rest of the world with their decision making.

At least the cases map is going to introduce a new colour for >1600/100k today, so it'll be prettier.

Mad_Malx

I’m amazed how much time you working guys have to spend to argue on social media

tailwindhome

Mad_Malx said:

I’m amazed how much time you working guys have to spend to argue on social media

I'm just killing time 'til the wine list arrives

rick_chasey

Mad_Malx said:

I’m amazed how much time you working guys have to spend to argue on social media

Not much happening with all face-to-face meetings pushed back into "sometimes in January" and everyone else off for holidays already.

*taps fingers on desk*

Mad_Malx

Anyways, my commitment to obeying the rules is being tested with MM minor getting his positive this morning. He’s now facing isolation alone and his housemates & local friends have already dispersed. Since Mrs MM and I have just recovered am considering driving across the country to fetch him and sitting it out together.

Ben6899

Mad_Malx said:

Anyways, my commitment to obeying the rules is being tested with MM minor getting his positive this morning. He’s now facing isolation alone and his housemates & local friends have already dispersed. Since Mrs MM and I have just recovered am considering driving across the country to fetch him and sitting it out together.

I think this is a situation where I'd bend the rules.

pblakeney

Ben6899 said:

Mad_Malx said:

Anyways, my commitment to obeying the rules is being tested with MM minor getting his positive this morning. He’s now facing isolation alone and his housemates & local friends have already dispersed. Since Mrs MM and I have just recovered am considering driving across the country to fetch him and sitting it out together.

I think this is a situation where I'd bend the rules.

Well, precedents have been set.
Need to go to an optician? Work related?....

kingstongraham

Mad_Malx said:

I’m amazed how much time you working guys have to spend to argue on social media

Doesn't take much time to spout shit on here. It's like chatting nonsense when there's nobody else here.

Ben6899

pblakeney said:

Ben6899 said:

Mad_Malx said:

Anyways, my commitment to obeying the rules is being tested with MM minor getting his positive this morning. He’s now facing isolation alone and his housemates & local friends have already dispersed. Since Mrs MM and I have just recovered am considering driving across the country to fetch him and sitting it out together.

I think this is a situation where I'd bend the rules.

Well, precedents have been set.
Need to go to an optician? Work related?....

Take some stilton and a 2009 Châteauneuf-du-Pape. Have it in an emergency refuge on a smart motorway.

Stevo_666

Mad_Malx said:

I’m amazed how much time you 'working' guys have to spend to argue on social media

FTFY. At the risk of stating the obvious, most on here will have the type and level of job that allows them to do this in work hours. Says he on his lunch break

pblakeney

Mad_Malx said:

I’m amazed how much time you working guys have to spend to argue on social media

There is a fine line being a contractor. Work too slow and get paid off. Work too fast and you show up your colleagues, they have a word and you get paid off.
I seem to have the balance just right. 😉