Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

I think the thing to consider is this is nowhere near over yet - these deaths were also with lockdown and during the Summer/Spring whilst destroying our economy in the process. I suspect it would have been far higher or will be far higher if we just let the virus rip through the population, especially during the winter.

absolutely agree. But what criteria are you using for over? If this is an enduring disease then do we, as you say lockdown and destroy our economy every year or do we have to agree what is the acceptable number of deaths to return to as near as normal as possible. 20,000 a year was acceptable for flu.
 
It was made clear it was not a question session, stop crying about it.

Lucky sods. If only I knew I had the option of giving an overview of my Masters' thesis without being hammered by hard questions by a group of PhDs, or the option of refusing questions after presenting my dissertation.

Come on, Vallance and Witty were supposed to be presenting the facts, and they left us with so many unanswered questions.
 
Lucky sods. If only I knew I had the option of giving an overview of my Masters' thesis without being hammered by hard questions by a group of PhDs, or the option of refusing questions after presenting my dissertation.

Come on, Vallance and Witty were supposed to be presenting the facts, and they left us with so many unanswered questions.
They presented them clearly, they deal with data, the politicians deal with policy. Just obey the rules, it's not difficult and shouldn't be difficult for ex mil people.
 
They presented them clearly, they deal with data, the politicians deal with policy. Just obey the rules, it's not difficult and shouldn't be difficult for ex mil people.

Scientists aren't infallible. If the data is wrong (and we know the government had acted on an extremely flawed model in March), another round of heavy restrictions might be a catastrophic mistake.
 
Scientists aren't infallible. If the data is wrong (and we know the government had acted on an extremely flawed model in March), another round of heavy restrictions might be a catastrophic mistake.
So would thousands upon thousands of new infections every day, that catastrophic that it would result in thousands more perishing to covid.
 

TamH70

MIA
I see the shadow health minister is on the beeb.
#clueless.
He is a classic example of another "C" word.

I found myself shouting at the telly like a twenty-year sailor.

And his boss isn't much better.
 
"Increased firepower if we can't get the R number below 1", or words to that effect.

I've always found it cringy 'militarising' the efforts to tackle this virus (war on virus, on the front line etc) though this sounds ominous for the next six months and the government inadvertently having their bluff called to reimpose lockdown faced with failing to meet such a challenge, particularly throughout the winter.
 
"Increased firepower if we can't get the R number below 1", or words to that effect.

I've always found it cringy 'militarising' the efforts to tackle this virus (war on virus, on the front line etc) though this sounds ominous for the next six months and the government inadvertently having their bluff called to reimpose lockdown faced with failing to meet such a challenge, particularly throughout the winter.
Should be a full national lockdown for six months IMHO, get the virus in check.
 
So would thousands upon thousands of new infections every day, that catastrophic that it would result in thousands more perishing to covid.

Yes, it would be, but that's based on the assumption that x number of people would be infected, that the public doesn't take personal measures, that the vulnerable weren't adequately protected and a number of other things - essentially more assumptions than the Imperial College model was based on.
And then balance that against the risk that another 'lockdown' would indirectly result in a large number of deaths and much higher mortality.

Like I said, a heavy-handed strategy based on bad data might be a catastrophic mistake.
 
They presented them clearly, they deal with data, the politicians deal with policy. Just obey the rules, it's not difficult and shouldn't be difficult for ex mil people.
They presented their opinions and predictions not the facts.

Anyone can look at the ONS data and produce their own predictions, but we are destroying the country based on their pyramid scheme view of things and ignoring what the data is actually saying.

As I pointed out previously 200 deaths a day on their scaremongering predictions (not facts) is a lot less than their oh so successful methodology at the peak, so why not let everyone crack on that way will achieve herd immunity faster. A short sharp pain for longer term benefits.

Based on last weeks scaremongering they now have 2 weeks to show they were right with the '3 week lag', when it fails to materialise and we still have a death rate maybe hitting 40 people (though its been at an average of 19 for a week) what then?

Do they claim the new rules today provided the break we needed and forget the 3 week lag or do they acknowledge they were wrong, very much so and need to go away and rethink the whole plan?

I know what my prediction is for around the 6th of October.
 

Latest Threads

Top