Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BuckinghamshireBoy
(Post 12922011)
The situation is worsening.
I read earlier of a "serious debate" as to whether a pastie would be considered a "substantial meal". :blink: |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 12922266)
Well throw in a bag of crisps and pork scratching's you now have a 3 course gourmet meal.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian
(Post 12922266)
Well throw in a bag of crisps and pork scratching's you now have a 3 course gourmet meal.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12922242)
783 new cases yesterday and 5 deaths yesterday in Ontario. 239 in Toronto. 40,000 people tested.
Is coronavirus serious? Yes it is, but I am increasingly thinking that it has attracted greater gravity than is objectively warranted. :unsure: |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 12922274)
I thought a three course meal was a starter, main course, and pudding? ..... Maybe the crisps could be an appetiser, but I think you'd need a spotted dick to have a three course meal. :unsure:
And not a crème brûlée in sight. :thumbs_up: |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 12922276)
The long term average deaths per day in the US, for all reasons, is about 11,500, the current pandemic deaths/ day in the US is averaging around 700-800, so the number of deaths caused by coronavirus is about 7% of total deaths, in other words, of the people who die today in the US, approximately 13 out of every 14 will die for something other than coronavirus.
Is coronavirus serious? Yes it is, but I am increasingly thinking that it has attracted greater gravity than is objectively warranted. :unsure: |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Gozit
(Post 12922320)
Interesting, seems you've changed your tune on it in the last month or so?
So if people are too stupid to heed the advice and/or consider the risk of death, or unknown longer term health consequences of covid infection, to be less important than going to work, then so be it. Western democratic countries just aren't equipped to enforce 100% lock-downs and clearly attempts at partial lock-downs have failed (the UK and most of Western Europe is now deep into a second wave that is worse than the first, at least in numbers of infections) so at the moment the UK and western European countries appear to be about to destroy their own economies in a futile attempt to reduce the infection rate, but it hasn't worked so far, so why are they persuing the same policy that has already failed? :rolleyes: Oh, and [3] There isn't a shortage of stupid people in the world. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 12922322)
A little maybe - I think people should stay home, but I am a pragmatist and [1] clearly people don't want to be forced to stay home, and [2] the economy is going to implode if there is another extended lock-down.
So if people are too stupid to heed the advice and/or consider the risk of death, or unknown longer term health consequences of covid infection, to be less important than going to work, then so be it. Western democratic countries just aren't equipped to enforce 100% lock-downs and clearly attempts at partial lock-downs have failed (the UK and most of Western Europe is now deep into a second wave that is worse than the first, at least in numbers of infections) so at the moment the UK and western European countries appear to be about to destroy their own economies in a futile attempt to reduce the infection rate, but it hasn't worked so far, so why are they persuing the same policy that has already failed? :rolleyes: Oh, and [3] There isn't a shortage of stupid people in the world. If only every had the option to work from home. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 12922322)
A little maybe - I think people should stay home, but I am a pragmatist and [1] clearly people don't want to be forced to stay home, and [2] the economy is going to implode if there is another extended lock-down.
So if people are too stupid to heed the advice and/or consider the risk of death, or unknown longer term health consequences of covid infection, to be less important than going to work, then so be it. Western democratic countries just aren't equipped to enforce 100% lock-downs and clearly attempts at partial lock-downs have failed (the UK and most of Western Europe is now deep into a second wave that is worse than the first, at least in numbers of infections) so at the moment the UK and western European countries appear to be about to destroy their own economies in a futile attempt to reduce the infection rate, but it hasn't worked so far, so why are they persuing the same policy that has already failed? :rolleyes: Oh, and [3] There isn't a shortage of stupid people in the world. As an oldie I don't relish a cull of those of my age but as a general rule we acquiesce to culls of the young during wars. Can it be that a reluctance to allow the virus to burn itself out results from so many policy makers being in sensitive and threatened categories? I've said it before that when I was young many dangerous illnesses were abroad and as a population we accepted the risk and carried on as usual. https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23...age-race-14863 contains some interesting statistics that confirm the risk to under 55s being relatively low and below 35 is very low. It's a difficult decision and I hate to admit it, but Trump has a valid argument when he promotes economic activity for the working class over risks to the elderly. If we examine the acceleration in infection rates in the UK and Europe, it's clear that infections are not under control and who can argue with the mayor of Manchester when he questions the order from London to lock down when to do so will be only a temporary stop gap measure that'll very likely only pause the path of infections yielding very little permanent success. Of course the counter argument is that attempting to build a 'firebreak' lowers the infection numbers in the short term allowing health systems to cope following scares earlier in the year, but techniques to cope with the illness have improved and although the threat to the elderly and infirm remains, the lower threat to those who need to work to earn money to feed their families should carry more weight than lawmakers seem to give it. Perhaps a cull of elderly lawmakers will be a good thing. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12920480)
Indeed it does.
BC seems to be taking the, as long as deaths and ICU patients remain low we will stay open and business as usual for the most part. Schools are open, and only closures on businesses are night clubs and banquet halls. Pubs can be open with some restrictions such as no alcohol sales after 10pm, but otherwise nothing really is different here except we wear masks now. We are seeing increasing cases and have been since late summer, but death rate isn't following, and ICU admissions not climbing exponentially either, so they seem to be managing things well through contact tracing still. We don't even have mandatory mask rules in place, although most businesses require masks to enter. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by jackinthetree
(Post 12922337)
I had Covid-19 and wasn't allowed to take a test.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by jackinthetree
(Post 12922337)
BC is bollocks. I had Covid-19 and wasn't allowed to take a test. This was when Henry was getting all the credit for "record low numbers" - yeah, because she refused to test anyone.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by ann m
(Post 12918410)
Can anyone give some explanations for the terrible numbers in Quebec? They have been high in first wave, second wave or whatever wave we are on now. The population is just over 8 million, over an arguably huge geographic area, what is going on?
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/video-sh...emic-1.5144769 |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by macadian
(Post 12922178)
My nephew (In Scotland) and his wife now have covid. She is a teacher. Who would have thunk it.....
In my area in north west France five recent clusters started up at the schools. :( |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BuckinghamshireBoy
(Post 12922312)
Nailed it right there.
And not a crème brûlée in sight. :thumbs_up: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:07 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.