Off Topic Thread 4.0

sydthebeat

Isn't it re-catchable

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

Isn't it re-catchable

I think there are a few cases - but seems very unlikely.

pickarooney

sydthebeat wrote: »

Isn't it re-catchable

Apparently there were a couple of relapses reported as recatches.

Former Former

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In a few weeks time we could have the basis for a solid sci fi series. Those who have had covid-19 will be able to go back to normal life while the rest of us still cower. It will be a two tier society, the covideer's who are enjoying all life has to offer and the no-covo's who still have to social distance.

Calls of "Lol wash your hands pleb" whenever a group of covideer's see someone sporting a face mask.

The problem is that many people who've had it may not even know. If the symptoms are as mild as we've been told for many people, they'll just shrug it off and won't be tested.

Thus we'll potentially have thousands of people cowering at home with no actual risk.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Isn't it re-catchable

Former Former wrote: »

The problem is that many people who've had it may not even know. If the symptoms are as mild as we've been told for many people, they'll just shrug it off and won't be tested.

Thus we'll potentially have thousands of people cowering at home with no actual risk.

Fine then don't watch it.

sydthebeat

Is the uks "herd immunity" tactic not completely and utterly mental??

Zzippy

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is the uks "herd immunity" tactic not completely and utterly mental??

Yes. It is basically asking for an Italy situation and many more deaths than necessary, with the aim of shortening the duration of the epidemic and getting the economy back on track sooner.

molloyjh

Zzippy wrote: »

Yes. It is basically asking for an Italy situation and many more deaths than necessary, with the aim of shortening the duration of the epidemic and getting the economy back on track sooner.

I think from a healthcare perspective the thought process is that greater exposure means less risk into the future, whereas the wisdom in the UK is that the rest of us run the risk of outbreaks next year and the year after. How true that is I've no clue. How far off a vaccine is I couldnt say. But it does seem utterly bonkers on the surface of it.

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is the uks "herd immunity" tactic not completely and utterly mental??

Honestly, I think they realised they acted too late and are trying to retrospectively justify it.

Zzippy

I won't lie, I find this thing terrifying. I'm in an at-risk group with a compromised immune system. If our hospitals can't cope, I fear being denied treatment in favour of someone more likely to survive, as is happening in Italy. The reports of pubs being packed last night and people ignoring all pleas to act responsibly are so infuriating. The "I'm alright Jack" mentality and complete disregard for vulnerable people is disgusting. 10 deaths announced just now in the UK. People need to wake the #£%# up.

Synode

You'd think closing all schools and colleges and every sporting event in Europe (bar Cheltenham the clowns) would be enough to convince people to have a bit of cop on

Squidgy Black

Synode wrote: »

You'd think closing all schools and colleges and every sporting event in Europe (bar Cheltenham the clowns) would be enough to convince people to have a bit of cop on

Definitely not. I got a couple of texts yesterday afternoon asking was I going over to the local because we were all working from home. Plenty of people with the "ah sure it won't affect me" mentality. Even my auld lad who was over in Cheltenham keeps saying "there's more chance I would've caught it here in the local with people sitting all around me than over there in the open". There was people in our office going mad because we were all told to work from home because they wouldn't be able to send their kids to creche too.

People just refuse to accept that they shouldn't just be going about their life as they usually would to try and stop this thing from spreading and potentially saving lives of elderly and at risk.

Buer

Unfortunately, it's going to take deaths to focus the minds and even then people will continue to suit themselves. It's not just Cheltenham, there's racing today in several locations in England and a full card in Navan today also.

As long as pubs are open in Ireland, people will attend. There are webcams online of public areas. I could see Temple Bar was quieter than usual last night but still steady. Plenty of people outside in a smoking area with pints. We had someone phone in sick yesterday admitting they were hungover. They were out in Ranelagh and plenty of people on the lash because they'd been told to work from home.

People are treating it in the same way they treated the snow. It's a novelty and it's mad craic altogether. That's genuinely the mentality of some. Go out to a coffee shop or pub in your nearest large town. You'll see the places doing a solid business everywhere. There's a bar in Limerick that was advertising drink deals around Corona for tonight. Madness.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is the uks "herd immunity" tactic not completely and utterly mental??

Herd immunity requires one key ingredient which is vaccines. There is no vaccine for this.

DGRulz

Reading some of the stories going around, if even some of them are true I'm embarrassed to be Irish right now.

Bazzo

sydthebeat wrote: »

Isn't it re-catchable

Was chatting to an infectious disease consultant who told me the headlines about that were extremely misleading, likely the patients who were reported as having "re-caught it" had never full recovered in the first place.

prawnsambo

Best piece of advice I heard all week was from a British epidemiologist who said: "Don't behave as if you're afraid of catching it, behave as if you have it and are afraid of passing it on".

prawnsambo

Bazzo wrote: »

Was chatting to an infectious disease consultant who told me the headlines about that were extremely misleading, likely the patients who were reported as having "re-caught it" had never full recovered in the first place.

Yep, this.

stephen_n

molloyjh wrote: »

I think from a healthcare perspective the thought process is that greater exposure means less risk into the future, whereas the wisdom in the UK is that the rest of us run the risk of outbreaks next year and the year after. How true that is I've no clue. How far off a vaccine is I couldnt say. But it does seem utterly bonkers on the surface of it.

They have trialed a vaccine on mice that has been effective, trials on primates the next phase and they are hoping for human testing by June.

Given the data so far they are completely unsure how long we remain immune for. So chances are even if you get it now, you could still catch it again next year without a vaccine.

Former Former

Sloane Nutritious Ham wrote: »

Herd immunity requires one key ingredient which is vaccines. There is no vaccine for this.

Technically, no, you just need people to be immune.

However, you need 80-90% of the population to be immune to protect the rest of the herd.

There's 60 million people in Britain so they need 50 million cases to reach herd immunity. How many deaths will that be? Jesus.

pickarooney

Former Former wrote: »

Technically, no, you just need people to be immune.

However, you need 80-90% of the population to be immune to protect the rest of the herd.

There's 60 million people in Britain so they need 50 million cases to reach herd immunity. How many deaths will that be? Jesus.

I don't understand the logic. How does me being immune protect you?

Former Former

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand the logic. How does me being immune protect you?

What's happening now is that Person A has it, gives it Person B, who gives it to Person C.

If Person B is immune, Person C doesn't get it even if he has no immunity.

If enough people are immune, it becomes less and less likely that Person C meets someone who is a carrier.

This is why Chicken Pox outbreaks are so localised and short lived. Enough adults are immune that even if their kids get it, they don't transfer it on

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

What's happening now is that Person A has it, gives it Person B, who gives it to Person C.

If Person B is immune, Person C doesn't get it even if he has no immunity.

If enough people are immune, it becomes less and less likely that Person C meets someone who is a carrier.

This is why Chicken Pox outbreaks are so localised and short lived. Enough adults are immune that even if their kids get it, they don't transfer it on

and have they tested the immunity factor of SARS-CoV-2?

this virus is tearing through the population showing that the immunity levels are pathetically low... and that the UKs approach is naive at best and genocidal at worst.

pickarooney

Former Former wrote: »

Technically, no, you just need people to be immune.

However, you need 80-90% of the population to be immune to protect the rest of the herd.

There's 60 million people in Britain so they need 50 million cases to reach herd immunity. How many deaths will that be? Jesus.

I don't understand the logic. How does me being immune protect you?

prawnsambo

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand the logic. How does me being immune protect you?

You are not going to be carrying the virus. So you can't transmit it. Being immune means your immune system 'kills' it.

sydthebeat

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand the logic. How does me being immune protect you?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-how-herd-instincts-can-help-to-limit-the-damage-kb6wpcbhd

This explains it, but there are major holes in the theory

Edit : article below

sydthebeat

We don’t think of ourselves as a herd. The idea of the needs of the collective subsuming those of the individual is antithetical to much of western culture. According to the government’s chief scientific adviser, we might have to reacquaint ourselves with the concept.

Because to control coronavirus, says Patrick Vallance, will require something called “herd immunity”. It will also require controlling who in the herd it is who gains that immunity.

Herd immunity does not require everyone in Britain’s “herd” to be infected. It happens before that, when just a proportion of them have. That proportion is the second most important number in epidemic modelling. To see how it is calculated — and perhaps even changed — requires, however, understanding the most important number in epidemic modelling: R0.


R0 is a measure of how infectious a disease is. If R0 is 2, say, then it means that every person infected goes on, on average, to infect two others. If it is 20, as is the case for measles, then each person infects 20 others.

R0 is important because so long as it is more than 1 — even if it is 1.000001 — a disease proliferates exponentially. If it is less than 1 — even if it is 0.9999999 — the disease is doomed.


Infection rates, though, are not fixed for eternity. Imagine a disease with an R0 of 2, which spreads through a single sneeze. At the start of an outbreak of this disease, you sneeze on two people and infect them. In the middle of an outbreak, it is different. Infected people still sneeze the same amount, but some of those downwind of the sneeze will have had the disease already and be immune.

Until the point comes where 50 per cent of the population have been infected. Then if you sneeze on two people on average only one will be susceptible. The infection rate has now dropped from 2 to 1 — and the disease dies out. Herd immunity has been achieved.


For coronavirus, R0 is 2.5. That means, in this simplified example, that for every 2.5 people you sneeze on you want 1.5 to already be immune. Herd immunity for coronavirus, then, is 1.5 divided by 2.5, or 60 per cent.

If indeed it is the government’s belief that the coronavirus cannot be stopped until we gain herd immunity, then that seems at least superficially to be an astonishing admission: an acceptance that more than 40 million people will get the disease. With even a 1 per cent fatality rate, that is 400,000 deaths.

There are good reasons to think it will be nowhere near that bad, and there is one good reason to think it could be worse.

One reason it will not be so bad is that the 60 per cent who get it need not be a random sample of the population. Instead, with sensible measures and “cocooning” of those most at risk, it may be possible to protect the elderly and sick even as the virus sweeps through the healthy.

The second reason is that the number R0 is just that — a number.

People are not equations and cannot be reduced to a single figure. It may well be the case that in 2019 Britain coronavirus had an R0 of 2.5. But in 2020 Britain, a Britain that has reacquainted itself with handwashing and deacquainted itself with air kissing, R0 could well be very different.

So what is the reason it could be worse? The entire calculation rests on the idea that people maintain their immunity, that once infected they cannot be reinfected for a long period of time. The problem is, as with so much about the virus, we don’t know enough to be absolutely certain that that is true.

What we do know though, is that individualism only goes so far. Coronavirus has reminded us we are indeed a herd — bonded by common obligations. For all the vagaries of disease modelling and complexities of viral mutation, scientists are unanimous on one piece of advice, among the most well-validated in modern medicine. To protect everyone, wash your hands

stephen_n

Also herd immunity requires that you can’t be a carrier while immune doesn’t it? Yet it seems children can carry this and be asymptomatic, which I know doesn’t mean they are immune. If people can be carriers and transmitters, then surely those that are not immune will still catch it.

prawnsambo

stephen_n wrote: »

Also herd immunity requires that you can’t be a carrier while immune doesn’t it? Yet it seems children can carry this and be asymptomatic, which I know doesn’t mean they are immune. If people can be carriers and transmitters, then surely those that are not immune will still catch it.

Afaik, being symptomatic is the only way to transmit effectively. You have the virus in your respiratory system, then the sneeze/cough process will transmit it to the open air and onto other people. That's my understanding of it anyway.

swiwi_

I’ve discovered quite a good pastime. It’s called a “book”. Apparently been around for centuries. You have this person called an “author” who writes down a story on paper, divided into what’s called “chapters”. Seems like there’s actually quite a few books already out there. I can recommend.

sydthebeat

swiwi_ wrote: »

I’ve discovered quite a good pastime. It’s called a “book”. Apparently been around for centuries. You have this person called an “author” who writes down a story on paper, divided into what’s called “chapters”. Seems like there’s actually quite a few books already out there. I can recommend.

Wish I had the time to read one of these "books".... They sound very interesting

:P

Seems like the world is going into lock down. Will be interesting to see what data this produces in relation to climate change.

In three months a virus has brought human civilisation to a stand still.

Clegg

I was out today doing a 'big shop'. It was utterly necessary, but I now regret doing it. Loads of ppl in an enclosed areas and I couldn't help but brush off some. I might sound paranoid, but at this stage I can't know if I've now been infected or, indeed, if I was infected before that and have now spread it to others

Lads, this is no way to live.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems like the world is going into lock down. Will be interesting to see what data this produces in relation to climate change.

In three months a virus has brought human civilisation to a stand still.

There was a video on Twitter yesterday showing the difference in nitrogen output in Northern Italy between January and now. Big difference.

Clegg

Think we've all seen the videos and pictures of Temple Bar being rammed with punters. It's irresponsible and reckless to their health and the health of others.

But I'm heartened by the growing number of pubs and restaurants that have already closed their doors for the foreseeable future or are about to. It shows a level of respect and responsibility that other establishments will hopefully follow. When this is over I hope the public take note of those who led the way.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

Technically, no, you just need people to be immune.

However, you need 80-90% of the population to be immune to protect the rest of the herd.

There's 60 million people in Britain so they need 50 million cases to reach herd immunity. How many deaths will that be? Jesus.

The UK are saying 60%, which is basically 40m. They are then assuming a very conservative 0.7% mortality rate. Meaning about 275-280k dead. Basically a bare minimum of a quarter of a million dead to the virus, but in reality likely to be a lot more if they see this nonsense through. And that doesnt count those who die of preventable causes because of an overwhelmed NHS.

Neil3030

Former Former wrote: »

I think you'd be demoralised to know just how few Americans pay any close attention to the news.

Trump will find a way to spin this, Facebook will kick in and he'll romp home.

Trump actually doesn't spin anything.

You have to get inside the heads of his supporters and understand these people and their motivations. They primarily voted for a leader to protect them from the rising tide of modern liberalism. He wasn't elected in spite of saying awful things, he was elected because he said them. As the world focused increasingly on getting equal opportunities to all, he gave his voters a stay of execution; a reprieve from the stress of facing the scary reality that they no longer had a god-given superiority given their ethnicity. Your way is still OK.

As long as his voters experience no change in their quality of life, his net value remains positive. Think of the various scandals:

Caught saying "grab her by the pussy", how does that hurt the people who voted for him?

Calling a bunch of countries, "****-holes", how does that hurt the people who voted for him?

Even the impeachment accusation - withholding Ukrainian aid for looking into the Bidens, how does that hurt the people who voted for him?

etc. etc.

Not only will his voters not care about these things, they will actually get increased value from any rage elicited amongst their enemy - liberals. So Trump actually doesn't need to do any spinning, he just needs to stay on message: "libs are mad, lol". And then once his base are loyal, the GOP, terrified of losing their house/senate seats will cower into supporting him in kind.

Peter Wehner wrote:

The president’s misinformation and mendacity about the coronavirus are head-snapping. He claimed that it was contained in America when it was actually spreading. He claimed that we had “shut it down” when we had not. He claimed that testing was available when it wasn’t. He claimed that the coronavirus will one day disappear “like a miracle”; it won’t. He claimed that a vaccine would be available in months; Fauci says it will not be available for a year or more.

His value changes completely when his character, actions and political incompetence have direct consequence on the lives of his voters. And that's what's so profoundly different about coronavirus relative to anything else he has gotten away with - he'll now have to explain away something that is directly (if not disproportionately) hurting his voters. And no amount of, "libs are mad, lol" will help him when the bodycount gets into the 10s if not 100s of thousands. When the stock market continues to plummet. When riots break out. Etc.

For me, it's not a question of him losing in November. It's a question of just how ruthlessly and precisely the Democrats will press their foot into the neck of the fallen GOP.

Dubinusa

Neil3030 wrote: »

Trump actually doesn't spin anything.

You have to get inside the heads of his supporters and understand these people and their motivations. They primarily voted for a leader to protect them from the rising tide of modern liberalism. He wasn't elected in spite of saying awful things, he was elected because he said them. As the world focused increasingly on getting equal opportunities to all, he gave his voters a stay of execution; a reprieve from the stress of facing the scary reality that they no longer had a god-given superiority given their ethnicity. Your way is still OK.

As long as his voters experience no change in their quality of life, his net value remains positive. Think of the various scandals:

Caught saying "grab her by the pussy", how does that hurt the people who voted for him?

Calling a bunch of countries, "****-holes", how does that hurt the people who voted for him?

Even the impeachment accusation - withholding Ukrainian aid for looking into the Bidens, how does that hurt the people who voted for him?

etc. etc.

Not only will his voters not care about these things, they will actually get increased value from any rage elicited amongst their enemy - liberals. So Trump actually doesn't need to do any spinning, he just needs to stay on message: "libs are mad, lol". And then once his base are loyal, the GOP, terrified of losing their house/senate seats will cower into supporting him in kind.



His value changes completely when his character, actions and political incompetence have direct consequence on the lives of his voters. And that's what's so profoundly different about coronavirus relative to anything else he has gotten away with - he'll now have to explain away something that is directly (if not disproportionately) hurting his voters. And no amount of, "libs are mad, lol" will help him when the bodycount gets into the 10s if not 100s of thousands. When the stock market continues to plummet. When riots break out. Etc.

For me, it's not a question of him losing in November. It's a question of just how ruthlessly and precisely the Democrats will press their foot into the neck of the fallen GOP.

Jaysez!

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

The UK are saying 60%, which is basically 40m. They are then assuming a very conservative 0.7% mortality rate. Meaning about 275-280k dead. Basically a bare minimum of a quarter of a million dead to the virus, but in reality likely to be a lot more if they see this nonsense through. And that doesnt count those who die of preventable causes because of an overwhelmed NHS.

The data from Italy should be a profound wake-up call for the UK and their policy:

A friend just posted these graphs to Facebook, translation of the accompanying post below:

Fausto Tomei wrote:

EXPONENTIAL - Update March 14

Today finally positive news from many indicators and I am so happy to be able to observe them, after the nightmare weeks we've lived.

175 dead, many, but less than the two records recorded in the past days. The thing that comforts me most is that, after so many days that didn't happen, patients in ICU grow more than the deceased, even in Lombardy. Signs that new places in IT are finally available and have mitigated the terrible situations that hospital staff have had to face these days.

For this reason the graph I want to start today, for the first time, is different from the usual. The first graph is the evolution of the deceased, in a logarithmic scale, divided between Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna and sum of the rest of Italy. For the first time the number of the new deceased in Lombardy strongly breaks the trend. If there is no missing data (like March 1st), this is great news.

Even the trend of Emilia-Romagna continues to drop and today's figure is now equal to that of the rest of Italy. The only problem: the growth of the dead in other regions does not mention falling.

It is essential that the other regions strictly RESPECT the lockdown, in an even more stringent way than the epicenter regions, because small outbreaks must be exterminated until they are contained. They must be reset, deleted from the map, so they can then focus on helping Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna.

I would like to take advantage of this to reiterate a concept, especially valid for other regions: SWABS, SWABS, SWABS.

WE WILL NOT get such a chance for long, we can't keep the country still for too long. Let's take advantage of this block to identify all positive cases and isolate them, even beyond lockdown time.

I see that some regions of the south are starting to make many swabs, although they don't have many cases yet: GREAT, continue and increase.

And let's forget, please, the counterexam of the ISS (Higher Institute of Health), it is useless, over 98 % of the swabs have been confirmed by the counterexam: we use the forces of the ISS to examine other swabs.

Today's other graphs: the second is our usual indicator (critical+death), on a linear scale, which further away from the exponential free growth curve of the virus. Today's slope seems luckily to confirm the semi-linear growth of the past days, after yesterday's bad signal (which I think is closely linked to the crazy days of the #milanonononsiferma, exactly 14 days before).

Even the logarithmic scale graph confirms that the trend improves: the observed data are starting to dispose below the margin of error of the curve with saturation at 8000 thousand serious cases. Should a downward break happen, hopefully soon, we could start evaluating a lower saturation curve.

Notice that tomorrow, despite my bad English, I will try to make a post in this language, which I would pray to turn to all your contacts in UK, any of you have any. Because the strategy they are considering implementing in England is CRIMINAL and I will try to explain why.

Link to his Facebook: here

Neil3030

sydthebeat wrote: »

We don’t think of ourselves as a herd. The idea of the needs of the collective subsuming those of the individual is antithetical to much of western culture. According to the government’s chief scientific adviser, we might have to reacquaint ourselves with the concept.

Because to control coronavirus, says Patrick Vallance, will require something called “herd immunity”. It will also require controlling who in the herd it is who gains that immunity.

Herd immunity does not require everyone in Britain’s “herd” to be infected. It happens before that, when just a proportion of them have. That proportion is the second most important number in epidemic modelling. To see how it is calculated — and perhaps even changed — requires, however, understanding the most important number in epidemic modelling: R0.


R0 is a measure of how infectious a disease is. If R0 is 2, say, then it means that every person infected goes on, on average, to infect two others. If it is 20, as is the case for measles, then each person infects 20 others.

R0 is important because so long as it is more than 1 — even if it is 1.000001 — a disease proliferates exponentially. If it is less than 1 — even if it is 0.9999999 — the disease is doomed.


Infection rates, though, are not fixed for eternity. Imagine a disease with an R0 of 2, which spreads through a single sneeze. At the start of an outbreak of this disease, you sneeze on two people and infect them. In the middle of an outbreak, it is different. Infected people still sneeze the same amount, but some of those downwind of the sneeze will have had the disease already and be immune.

Until the point comes where 50 per cent of the population have been infected. Then if you sneeze on two people on average only one will be susceptible. The infection rate has now dropped from 2 to 1 — and the disease dies out. Herd immunity has been achieved.


For coronavirus, R0 is 2.5. That means, in this simplified example, that for every 2.5 people you sneeze on you want 1.5 to already be immune. Herd immunity for coronavirus, then, is 1.5 divided by 2.5, or 60 per cent.

If indeed it is the government’s belief that the coronavirus cannot be stopped until we gain herd immunity, then that seems at least superficially to be an astonishing admission: an acceptance that more than 40 million people will get the disease. With even a 1 per cent fatality rate, that is 400,000 deaths.

There are good reasons to think it will be nowhere near that bad, and there is one good reason to think it could be worse.

One reason it will not be so bad is that the 60 per cent who get it need not be a random sample of the population. Instead, with sensible measures and “cocooning” of those most at risk, it may be possible to protect the elderly and sick even as the virus sweeps through the healthy.

The second reason is that the number R0 is just that — a number.

People are not equations and cannot be reduced to a single figure. It may well be the case that in 2019 Britain coronavirus had an R0 of 2.5. But in 2020 Britain, a Britain that has reacquainted itself with handwashing and deacquainted itself with air kissing, R0 could well be very different.

So what is the reason it could be worse? The entire calculation rests on the idea that people maintain their immunity, that once infected they cannot be reinfected for a long period of time. The problem is, as with so much about the virus, we don’t know enough to be absolutely certain that that is true.

What we do know though, is that individualism only goes so far. Coronavirus has reminded us we are indeed a herd — bonded by common obligations. For all the vagaries of disease modelling and complexities of viral mutation, scientists are unanimous on one piece of advice, among the most well-validated in modern medicine. To protect everyone, wash your hands

Great post.

I just don't understand the logic at all, in avoiding isolation NOW.

Even if they get the R0 down to 0.5 (very rough rule of thumb - this is a 3-4% daily increase; S. Korea got here 6 days ago) the number of cases they start from has a perfect linear relationship with how many people end up getting infected.

starting with contained within (days) total cases
500000 176 1000000
100000 157 200000
50000 149 100000
25000 141 50000
10000 130 20000

While the decay rate is fairly non linear (i.e., doesn't matter if you start from 500k or 10k, it will take in and around the same period of time), the number of people infected, i.e., the burden on the health system, is linear.

And again, that's assuming they get things down to a fairly epic R0 of 0.5, and how the hell do you do this if you're letting it spread wildly to begin with?!!

I wrote some matlab code to do the models, if anyone wants it, PM me.

stephen_n

The English government now claiming that herd immunity was never their policy. That’s a u-Turn with a capital U.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Jaysez!

Not sure if you understand how people feel about politics here. I speak for myself and the majority of people I know.
We don't trust politicians! None of them. To the point that I believe, if the entire Congress fell into a sinkhole well... so be it. The alternative to Trump was HRD! She is a liar, she's despised and polarizing. Prior to her was Obama, who was awful. He ran against Romney, who is as fake and phony as John Edward's. Before that was McCain, he was a meathead. Then W another twat, who beat Longjawn Kerry and Al Gore, zzz.
Anyone who isn't in the mix, in foggy bottom is welcome!. For years, we the people have been given a choice between shyte and more shyte. It's a never ending road of retards. I worked for Trump in 1991. I've met him. My impression is he's obnoxious. But, he always shook my hand and remembered my name. I worked a menial job. But, he took the time to stop and shoot the shyte. You would never get that from Romney, Obama or any other ****bag politician.
Growing up in Dublin, my dad was a Haughey fan! My dad despised Labour and FG. Turned out that Haughey was a maggot. I wonder what the oul fella would think if he were alive now.
While not a fan of Trump, it's bizarre to see the absolute knobs the liberals put into play. I suppose the British political arena is somewhat similar. Boris is a buffoon. But his opponent apparently was more of a buffoon.
That said, Irish politics is not dissimilar. Looking back at the past few Taoisheach's Cowen was incompetent, Ahern was corrupt and so on...
Politics is a disaster, but it's our own making... unless we are unfortunate enough to be Chinese or an Arab etc.

Neil3030

Dubinusa wrote: »

Not sure if you understand how people feel about politics here. I speak for myself and the majority of people I know.
We don't trust politicians! None of them. To the point that I believe, if the entire Congress fell into a sinkhole well... so be it. The alternative to Trump was HRD! She is a liar, she's despised and polarizing. Prior to her was Obama, who was awful. He ran against Romney, who is as fake and phony as John Edward's. Before that was McCain, he was a meathead. Then W another twat, who beat Longjawn Kerry and Al Gore, zzz.
Anyone who isn't in the mix, in foggy bottom is welcome!. For years, we the people have been given a choice between shyte and more shyte. It's a never ending road of retards. I worked for Trump in 1991. I've met him. My impression is he's obnoxious. But, he always shook my hand and remembered my name. I worked a menial job. But, he took the time to stop and shoot the shyte. You would never get that from Romney, Obama or any other ****bag politician.
Growing up in Dublin, my dad was a Haughey fan! My dad despised Labour and FG. Turned out that Haughey was a maggot. I wonder what the oul fella would think if he were alive now.
While not a fan of Trump, it's bizarre to see the absolute knobs the liberals put into play. I suppose the British political arena is somewhat similar. Boris is a buffoon. But his opponent apparently was more of a buffoon.
That said, Irish politics is not dissimilar. Looking back at the past few Taoisheach's Cowen was incompetent, Ahern was corrupt and so on...
Politics is a disaster, but it's our own making... unless we are unfortunate enough to be Chinese or an Arab etc.

Well I can't tell you how or what to do with your vote (in the country I also live, btw), except to say that competent, experienced politicians are like bear spray; you don't appreciate how important they are until it's too late.

Dubinusa

Neil3030 wrote: »

Well I can't tell you how or what to do with your vote (in the country I also live, btw), except to say that competent, experienced politicians are like bear spray; you don't appreciate how important they are until it's too late.

Maybe! But.... they all suck! Everywhere!

Buer

Clegg wrote: »

I was out today doing a 'big shop'. It was utterly necessary, but I now regret doing it. Loads of ppl in an enclosed areas and I couldn't help but brush off some. I might sound paranoid, but at this stage I can't know if I've now been infected or, indeed, if I was infected before that and have now spread it to others

Lads, this is no way to live.

Sounds like someone needs a hug.

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

I’ve discovered quite a good pastime. It’s called a “book”. Apparently been around for centuries. You have this person called an “author” who writes down a story on paper, divided into what’s called “chapters”. Seems like there’s actually quite a few books already out there. I can recommend.

Are they on Netflix?

CatFromHue

Dubinusa wrote: »

Not sure if you understand how people feel about politics here. I speak for myself and the majority of people I know.
We don't trust politicians! None of them. To the point that I believe, if the entire Congress fell into a sinkhole well... so be it. The alternative to Trump was HRD! She is a liar, she's despised and polarizing. Prior to her was Obama, who was awful. He ran against Romney, who is as fake and phony as John Edward's. Before that was McCain, he was a meathead. Then W another twat, who beat Longjawn Kerry and Al Gore, zzz.
Anyone who isn't in the mix, in foggy bottom is welcome!. For years, we the people have been given a choice between shyte and more shyte. It's a never ending road of retards. I worked for Trump in 1991. I've met him. My impression is he's obnoxious. But, he always shook my hand and remembered my name. I worked a menial job. But, he took the time to stop and shoot the shyte. You would never get that from Romney, Obama or any other ****bag politician.
Growing up in Dublin, my dad was a Haughey fan! My dad despised Labour and FG. Turned out that Haughey was a maggot. I wonder what the oul fella would think if he were alive now.
While not a fan of Trump, it's bizarre to see the absolute knobs the liberals put into play. I suppose the British political arena is somewhat similar. Boris is a buffoon. But his opponent apparently was more of a buffoon.
That said, Irish politics is not dissimilar. Looking back at the past few Taoisheach's Cowen was incompetent, Ahern was corrupt and so on...
Politics is a disaster, but it's our own making... unless we are unfortunate enough to be Chinese or an Arab etc.

That's no different to politics here if you ask me.

As we're not allowed talk about politics I do wonder how Cowen will be seen from a historical point of view.

He became Minister for Finance in late 04 and unless he took major, un electable policies, straight away the crash and bailout were going to happen no matter what.

Then when he became Taoiseach in May 2008 the bomb was ready to explode.

ClanofLams

Dubinusa wrote: »

Not sure if you understand how people feel about politics here. I speak for myself and the majority of people I know.
We don't trust politicians! None of them. To the point that I believe, if the entire Congress fell into a sinkhole well... so be it. The alternative to Trump was HRD! She is a liar, she's despised and polarizing. Prior to her was Obama, who was awful. He ran against Romney, who is as fake and phony as John Edward's. Before that was McCain, he was a meathead. Then W another twat, who beat Longjawn Kerry and Al Gore, zzz.
Anyone who isn't in the mix, in foggy bottom is welcome!. For years, we the people have been given a choice between shyte and more shyte. It's a never ending road of retards. I worked for Trump in 1991. I've met him. My impression is he's obnoxious. But, he always shook my hand and remembered my name. I worked a menial job. But, he took the time to stop and shoot the shyte. You would never get that from Romney, Obama or any other ****bag politician.
Growing up in Dublin, my dad was a Haughey fan! My dad despised Labour and FG. Turned out that Haughey was a maggot. I wonder what the oul fella would think if he were alive now.
While not a fan of Trump, it's bizarre to see the absolute knobs the liberals put into play. I suppose the British political arena is somewhat similar. Boris is a buffoon. But his opponent apparently was more of a buffoon.
That said, Irish politics is not dissimilar. Looking back at the past few Taoisheach's Cowen was incompetent, Ahern was corrupt and so on...
Politics is a disaster, but it's our own making... unless we are unfortunate enough to be Chinese or an Arab etc.

Obama was excellent imo. Took over economy in absolute meltdown, when he left it was in excellent condition and primed for more growth. Unemployment rate reduced from over 10% to under 5%. Advanced the healthcare system. Got most difficult decisions correct, eg auto bailout. Represented America with dignity on the world stage.

Done this with republicans looking for any hint of dirt and the best that they could come up with was lunatic theory that he was born in Kenya.

Look at Trump, called the virus a ‘hoax’ first now it’s an emergency said he ‘doesn’t take responsibility’ for decisions his administration made, he’s an absolute disaster who is completely out of his depth.

Dubinusa

ClanofLams wrote: »

Obama was excellent imo. Took over economy in absolute meltdown, when he left it was in excellent condition and primed for more growth. Unemployment rate reduced from over 10% to under 5%. Advanced the healthcare system. Got most difficult decisions correct, eg auto bailout. Represented America with dignity on the world stage.

Done this with republicans looking for any hint of dirt and the best that they could come up with was lunatic theory that he was born in Kenya.

Look at Trump, called the virus a ‘hoax’ first now it’s an emergency said he ‘doesn’t take responsibility’ for decisions his administration made, he’s an absolute disaster who is completely out of his depth.

The health care was ruined by Obama. He destroyed it.
It's awful. It's getting worse now.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

The health care was ruined by Obama. He destroyed it.
It's awful. It's getting worse now.

I thought Trump destroyed it. Purposely.