Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

By filbertway, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Like it's been mentioned elsewhere if we follow that trajectory (which we won't), it'll be all over by about February as everyone will have been infected.

So IF it’s hugely less virulent then it’s potentially the way out as has been mooted ….. we will know within a few weeks …

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Rain King said:

Anyone heard if any strange goings on with the PCR test at the moment?

 

I know to different people (they don't know each other) who have this week had several positive lateral flow tests but both of them have had their PCR come back negative?

 

Seems a strange coincidence.

My niece lives in Leicester, this happened to her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
Just now, Farrington fox said:

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

The difference between SARS-CoV-19 and the flu?...I think you'll find it is. 

 

Moreover, you posted an opinion on twitter from a Tory back bencher. 

 

A global viral infection doesn't read social media and it doesn't do politics. No different to climate change. The politics needs to follow the science. Steve Baker obviously does not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

Indeed.

 

It is a fact that policy decisions related to science aren't and cannot be solely made on the basis of scientific data itself, as much as someone like myself would like them to be.

 

However, is it too much to expect for the scientific information known at one time to at least take priority in terms of decision-making on scientific matters, especially when the matter concerns an act of nature that is a rather large threat? Looking at climate change and specifically how we're dropping the ball there, perhaps it is too much to expect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pazzerfox

pazzerfox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The difference between SARS-CoV-19 and the flu?...I think you'll find it is. 

 

Moreover, you posted an opinion on twitter from a Tory back bencher. 

 

A global viral infection doesn't read social media and it doesn't do politics. No different to climate change. The politics needs to follow the science. Steve Baker obviously does not. 

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The difference between SARS-CoV-19 and the flu?...I think you'll find it is. 

 

Moreover, you posted an opinion on twitter from a Tory back bencher. 

 

A global viral infection doesn't read social media and it doesn't do politics. No different to climate change. The politics needs to follow the science. Steve Baker obviously does not. 

The politics needs to follow the science, but the right question needs to be asked.  The question "what is the best way to reduce deaths from covid, at least in the short term" is not the question that they should be asking.  The question is more like "what is the best thing for the country and the world, taking into account all factors including quality of life, long term prognoses, death and suffering from other diseases, economics, future tax burdens, value and quality of education, etc etc etc etc".  Can science answer that question?  No.  Politicians have to answer it, taking all things into account, including medical science but also economics, psychology, life sciences, statistics, etc etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

Science is questioned, constantly and legitimately. However there are many who don't want to see obvious answers and at the end of the day those answers are pretty much only legit when they come from the peer review process.

 

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

The politics needs to follow the science, but the right question needs to be asked.  The question "what is the best way to reduce deaths from covid, at least in the short term" is not the question that they should be asking.  The question is more like "what is the best thing for the country and the world, taking into account all factors including quality of life, long term prognoses, death and suffering from other diseases, economics, future tax burdens, value and quality of education, etc etc etc etc".  Can science answer that question?  No.  Politicians have to answer it, taking all things into account, including medical science but also economics, psychology, life sciences, statistics, etc etc etc.

A recent course that I've taken has impressed upon me the importance of other factors in science policy planning, like economics and legal issues that you mention here. As you say, they must be included in the policymaking process.

 

However, I can't help but wonder if such multifaceted thinking will come back to screw us royally if and when a much larger natural threat appears on the horizon closing fast. Fiddling while Rome is about to burn, as it were. As such, I think there are situations, though few, where the scientific data we have must at the very least take primacy in terms of decision-making.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

lollollol And yet here you are using a device that lets you instantly share this claim with people all over the world. You live in and benefit from a world that has been shaped by the effectiveness of the scientific method.

 

Oh Jeez. Where to start with this?

 

Science is self-evident, and axiomatic. It is the role of scientific enquiry to as you suggest, question itself, which is what the scientific method involves. 

 

Science is open to all. When you stir sugar into your coffee, what happens? That's science. Are you denying that? When you clean your toilet with bleach...it's science. When you turn on your laptop...that's science. How can that be a "religion"? Science is always open to question....with the right questions, that is. Are you not interested in getting the truth?

 

Known science is not a 'religion' - religion implies 'belief' and science is not about that. Religion and science are oil and water. They might co-exist, but they can never mix to produce a homogeneous medium. Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. They disagree profoundly on how we obtain knowledge of the world. Science is based observation and reasoning from observation. Religion assumes that human beings can access a deeper level of information that is not available by either observation or reason and is thus unfalsifiable. The scientific method is proven by its success and it proves science through testing its validity. The religious method is refuted by its failure. 

 

There are two key components that make the prediction scientific:

1/ The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.

2/ As the evidence changes - as we obtain more, newer and better evidence and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions, postdictions and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with it.

 

There is no such thing as a good scientist who isn't willing to both base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available, nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who won't revise their beliefs in the face of new evidence.

 

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. You are conflating known science which is governed by nature and answerable to physical laws with politicisation and human interference. 

 

May I suggest a good read to you?  It's Sagan, so it's wonderfully composed and very accessible. 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'. Remarkably sagacious in respect of the opinion driven age that we inhabit today. 

Edited by Line-X
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

So IF it’s hugely less virulent then it’s potentially the way out as has been mooted ….. we will know within a few weeks …

I wonder if so, how they handle it. If this is the case then a country being badly managed and ill prepared may get to the end result quicker than a cautious and careful country that will suddenly have to say to their nation they've been drilling fear and caution in to their lives for 2 years that this new strain is the meal ticket out of this and let's open the floodgates. Lick bog seats, cram in to poorly ventilated places and let's get this over and done with. They'd not do that so it will be fascinating to see.

 

I think our approach would be quite reasonable in our country and we do seem to want an element of spread to boost the protection where its manageable so we'd probably rip up the rule book but the likes of Australia and New Zealand will try and plat piss as per usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ric Flair said:

I wonder if so, how they handle it. If this 8s the case then a country being badly managed and prepared may get to the end result quicker than a cautious and careful country that will suddenly have to say to their nation they've been drilling fear and caution in to their lives for 2 years that this new strain is the meal ticket out of this and let's open the floodgates. Lick bog seats, cram in to poorly ventilated places and let's get this over and done with. They'd not do that so it will be fascinating to see.

 

I think our approach would be quite reasonable in our country and we do seem to want an element of spread to boost the protection where its manageable so we'd probably rip up the rule book but the likes of Australia and New Zealand will try and plat piss as per usual.

I'm interested in how they'd handle it over here tbh.

 

Korea have been pretty stringent with restrictions while keeping the lights on and things open for the most part to decent effect, so I wonder if they'd be willing to blow the bloody doors off if the science said they should. Personally, I think that they would.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Everyone here complaining about our restrictions as if it is bad. It is way worse almost everywhere else. My mates live in Vancouver and they have to wear masks everywhere and everyone needs to show proof of double vaccine status to get in to any pub or restaurant. A negative test is not accepted. That’s been in place there for around 3 months. 

I don't get this mindset at all. Just because its worse somewhere else, why cant we complain about it being bad here? There is literally always, in any situation, something better or worse than what you are experiencing. Does that mean humans are never allowed to complain or be happy? If your neighbour woke up with two massive steaming turds in his bed and you only had one, i highly doubt you'd roll over and say 'oh well its way worse over there!!'

 

Anyway, comparing our situation to Canada is not fair. I also have a friend in Vancouver, who is from the UK. They do not have the hospital capacity or infrastructure we do. We have adminstered booster jabs to over 30% of our population, they have not even got to 10%. Why should we sink to their standards when we are in a much better position? We should enjoy our hard work and the freedoms that come with it, not lower standards and be happy with it.

Edited by grobyfox1990
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, Farrington fox said:

It isn't just about the science though is it. Politics are involved.

Ah yes, the politics must flow.  Mother nature cares a lot about which party has the most seats, this pandemic is just a ploy by big nature to make the Tories look corrupt.

 

1 hour ago, pazzerfox said:

Science is there to be questioned, however it's becoming more and more of a religion.

By people with the relevant training and skillset who apply themselves to carrying out the necessary research to pose questions of the current paradigm.  Science being open to question doesn't mean everybody's opinion is equal and valid, this special snowflake stuff has gone too far and ironically it's those whose media consumption has led them to consistently mock 'political correctness' who exemplify it the most.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The politics needs to follow the science, but the right question needs to be asked.  The question "what is the best way to reduce deaths from covid, at least in the short term" is not the question that they should be asking.  The question is more like "what is the best thing for the country and the world, taking into account all factors including quality of life, long term prognoses, death and suffering from other diseases, economics, future tax burdens, value and quality of education, etc etc etc etc".  Can science answer that question?  No.  Politicians have to answer it, taking all things into account, including medical science but also economics, psychology, life sciences, statistics, etc etc etc.

The whole problem with the pandemic is that the politicians got involved. If your doctor said you need to wear a mask or you need this vaccination or whatever, no-one would question it, why's that? because people know that a doctor is trusted and hasn't got an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda whereas politicians do. So saying that politics needs to follow the science is all very well and good and in an ideal world that should be the case, but in this world, it just isn't going to happen, people don't trust politicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

So IF it’s hugely less virulent then it’s potentially the way out as has been mooted ….. we will know within a few weeks …

It wont be. The next month or so will be a bit of a sh*tshow I think. Perhaps not in terms of hospitals being overwhelmed (vaccines will do their job), but we'll have so many people isolating and unwell that society will cease to function in the same way that it is now (ie a de facto lockdown).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...