Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

AdamD

eagle eye wrote: »

It's also.the height of selfishness to go around carefree spreading the virus.

Its also selfish to expect everyone to alter their behaviour to suit your risk-appetite.

Quite sick of people on the more pro-restriction side calling others selfish and not realising that quite frankly everyone is acting within their own self interests (as they always do). You aren't some beacon of altruism.

MOR316

eagle eye wrote: »

It's also.the height of selfishness to go around carefree spreading the virus.

We could get a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles thing going...

"The Spreader"

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

Doesn't redeem yourself, maybe apologise for painting everyone who has been affected by this terrible virus like a rampant virus spreader.

But I wasn't, I specifically said carefree people.

eagle eye

AdamD wrote:

Its also selfish to expect everyone to alter their behaviour to suit your risk-appetite.

Quite sick of people on the more pro-restriction side calling others selfish and not realising that quite frankly everyone is acting within their own self interests (as they always do). You aren't some beacon of altruism.

I'm on the side of saving lives. Is that wrong?

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

But I wasn't, I specifically said carefree people.

No you didn't. You said people going around carefree spreading the virus, despite nobody knowing for days whether they have it or not.
But blame them, I guess?

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

No you didn't. You said people going around carefree spreading the virus, despite nobody knowing for days whether they have it or not. But blame them, I guess?

Yes, carefree being the key.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes, carefree being the key.

As if they intentionally spread the virus.
I don't know if you realise incredibly out of touch you are with normal people.

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

As if they intentionally spread the virus. I don't know if you realise incredibly out of touch you are with normal people.

If you are being careful you are unlikely to spread the virus even if you have it.
If you are carefree and have it then you are likely to infect others.
Does that clear it up for you?

domrush

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm on the side of saving lives. Is that wrong?

The hysteria!

We should all stay at home forever sure. We can cut car fatalities down to zero.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are being careful you are unlikely to spread the virus even if you have it.
If you are carefree and have it then you are likely to infect others.
Does that clear it up for you?

Being careful =/= not going to spread.
Being not careful =/= going to spread.
If only it was this simple, we'd have zero cases because everyone's at home.

wadacrack

Likely to have a high mortality rate in January and a hard lockdown as seen throughout Europe.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

Nermal

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm on the side of saving lives. Is that wrong?

Not even wrong, just a worthless platitude.

You want to force other people out of work, so you can continue to do yours with no risk.

It's obvious who's selfish.

eagle eye

domrush wrote:

The hysteria!
We should all stay at home forever sure. We can cut car fatalities down to zero.

Let's bring up car accidents because why?
I've been through tough times over the years but I put up with it and things turned around. What's wrong with accepting that times are tough and we have to do our best to save lives and prevent a health crisis?
You do realise that when the vaccine arrives you'll feel a great sense of relief and a renewed vigor for life after it's over if you just put up with a bit of difficulty for another couple of months?

Turtwig

Standard of discourse in this thread:

"I support a minimum wage."

"we can't pay someone €1,000 per hour"

"I'm against the minimum wage"

"you support slavery"

Some folks really need to take a break for a few days. The echo chambers here are nauseating.

There is a spectrum to every thing. Not just one extreme interpretation vs the other.

eagle eye

Nermal wrote:

Not even wrong, just a worthless platitude.
You want to force other people out of work, so you can continue to do yours with no risk.
It's obvious who's selfish.

Please tell me how you have personal information about me such as what my job is?

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

Being careful =/= not going to spread. Being not careful =/= going to spread. If only it was this simple, we'd have zero cases because everyone's at home.

I see you are trying to look.like a mathematician again but still no projections for how many cases we'll have at Christmas despite pulling up everybody else that suggests a figure.

Ficheall

wadacrack wrote: »

Likely to have a high mortality rate in January and a hard lockdown as seen throughout Europe.

Infection rate, yes, but why a high mortality rate?

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

I see you are trying to look.like a mathematician again but still no projections for how many cases we'll have at Christmas despite pulling up everybody else that suggests a figure.

Oh dear, oh dear.
That's not mathematics, that's basic science.
If only viruses were as simple as you thought they were.


I know better than to share ridiculous predictions on models which we don't even have access to. Others can though, I guess? Because it suits your narrative/agenda.

Duke of Url

* Watching the Armchair " Medical and Scientific Experts" trying to convince their friends and family to meet up in Pubs and restaurants over the Christmas Period.

eagle eye

ACitizenErased wrote:

I know better than to share ridiculous predictions on models which we don't even have access to. Others can though, I guess? Because it suits your narrative/agenda.

I put up figures and you questioned them, even suggested that you knew more about it than me. You never came back and apologised for that when it turned out my projections were, as I said, conservative and just below where they turned out to be.

Always_Running

Why does the data hub state the 7 day positivity in testing is at 2.6 when it was 2.8 yesterday? I don't think 24hr swab count is out yet.

ACitizenErased

eagle eye wrote: »

I put up figures and you questioned them, even suggested that you knew more about it than me. You never came back and apologised for that when it turned out my projections were, as I said, conservative and just below where they turned out to be.

You made a guess, fair play. You showed zero calculations, refused to reveal your 'formula' and got lucky.
I'll send your Doctorate in the post.

ACitizenErased

Always_Running wrote: »

Why does the data hub state the 7 day positivity in testing is at 2.6 when it was 2.8 yesterday? I don't think 24hr swab count is out yet.

Testing number for yesterday was updated from ~8000 to 12000. Positivity rate very low yesterday resulted in 7 day rate dropping.

Benimar

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear.
That's not mathematics, that's basic science.
If only viruses were as simple as you thought they were.


I know better than to share ridiculous predictions on models which we don't even have access to. Others can though, I guess? Because it suits your narrative/agenda.

'There won't be a second wave'

'There won't be another lockdown'

Those sort of predictions?

ACitizenErased

Benimar wrote: »

'There won't be a second wave'

'There won't be another lockdown'

Those sort of predictions?

Name one time I made a case prediction without posting the calculations.
Those are called opinions, not calculations.

Benimar

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Name one time I made a case prediction without posting the calculations.
Those are called opinions, not calculations.

I'm paraphrasing, because I'm not going to search back through your post history for exact quotes, but you made almost identical comments to the ones I alluded to. Plenty on here will support me on that.

I don't remember any calculations being attached, and if they were they were obviously incorrect as we have had both a second wave and a second lockdown.

pc7

So Meholes speech later -
Go back over how hard it’s been
We’ve all made sacrifices
We’ve all lost
Unprecedented
All in it together
Now must pull together, next two weeks crucial
It’ll be all our fault if it goes tits up
If he mentions Santy I may throw up

ElJeffe

Duke of Url wrote: »

* Watching the Armchair " Medical and Scientific Experts" trying to convince their friends and family to meet up in Pubs and restaurants over the Christmas Period.

It's okay because it's Xmas something something.....

KrustyUCC

pc7 wrote: »

So Meholes speech later -
Go back over how hard it’s been
We’ve all made sacrifices
We’ve all lost
Unprecedented
All in it together
Now must pull together, next two weeks crucial
It’ll be all our fault if it goes tits up
If he mentions Santy I may throw up

Unfortunately you will probably be getting sick later on then lol

Happydays2020

pc7 wrote: »

So Meholes speech later -
Go back over how hard it’s been
We’ve all made sacrifices
We’ve all lost
Unprecedented
All in it together
Now must pull together, next two weeks crucial
It’ll be all our fault if it goes tits up
If he mentions Santy I may throw up

Sure Santa visiting is why it is three not two households.