Coronavirus Thread

[UniFox21]

5 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

I don't think that is true. Maybe, it's just that no one agreed with you in your first 12 years of posting...

Please don't turn this into a who has the most rep points competition. You'll attract @urban.spaceman and @Ric Flair then we'll never hear the end of it 

Edited 18 July 2021 by UniFox21

[grth2004]

4 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

I don't think that is true. Maybe, it's just that no one agreed with you in your first 12 years of posting...

Look you love GB News and probably Farage I don’t , I’m sure you’ll get loads of like in your future posts if that’s what turns you on good luck 😁

[Duquesne Whistle]

Just now, UniFox21 said:

Please don't turn this into a who has the most rep points competition.  

Simply defending my corner. 

If some mug wants to have a pop, whilst making things up, I'm entitled to fight back, no?

[grth2004]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

Please don't turn this into a who has the most rep points competition. You'll attract @urban.spaceman and @Ric Flair then we'll never hear the end of it 

I didn’t even though it was a thing until today 😂

[Duquesne Whistle]

Just now, grth2004 said:

Look you love GB News and probably Farage I don’t , 

Resorting to making things up? I'm surprised the mods allow this, but you fill yer boots. If you make 70 posts a year on average, which you seem to, I wouldn't bother responding so often to someone you don't like for a reason you've made up 

[grth2004]

3 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

Resorting to making things up? I'm surprised the mods allow this, but you fill yer boots. If you make 70 posts a year on average, which you seem to, I wouldn't bother responding so often to someone you don't like for a reason you've made up 

Ok tell me again why you like GB News , I’m honestly interested 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

Simply defending my corner. 

If some mug wants to have a pop, whilst making things up, I'm entitled to fight back, no?

In all fairness...has the statement that GB News "[appears] to be a far more reliable source of news after a few weeks broadcasting, than the likes of BBC, ITV, C4 and Sky UK news" really aged well?

 

I suppose that the "appears" qualifier allows for a certain leeway, but for the sake of clarity it doesn't "appear" to be the case (more reliable) right now, yes?

[Duquesne Whistle]

Just now, grth2004 said:

Ok tell me again why you like GB News , I’m honestly interested 

That's where the problem lies, I have zero interest in you. 

 

You can now reply and have the last word mate.

 

That goes for any sycophants replying in a mob culture way too...

 

 

[Duquesne Whistle]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

In all fairness...has the statement that GB News "[appears] to be a far more reliable source of news after a few weeks broadcasting, than the likes of BBC, ITV, C4 and Sky UK news" really aged well?

 

I suppose that the "appears" qualifier allows for a certain leeway, but for the sake of clarity it doesn't "appear" to be the case (more reliable) right now, yes?

If you want to take words out of what I actually wrote to make it suit what you've stated, the burden doesn't lie with me. No?

 

If you want to pull me up about it, look at the date it was posted. The major news channels were ignoring what was happening.

 

As you bracketed and want to remove a word that was vital to the context of what I said and when, I don't really see the point in responding to you again either. You and popular grth can mumble away to each other.

 

[Voll Blau]

I've got some magic beans I'd be keen to flog to anyone still up for voting for Johnson after this. DM me.

[st albans fox]

54 minutes ago, reynard said:

Article from Israel with early suggestion that Pfizer vaccine may not be as effective against the Delta variant as hoped.

 

More than 1,000 Israelis test positive for COVID - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

 

Their vaccine roll out has been pretty effective but restrictions are starting to come back in.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Yet over a period of days 6 (SIX) people were taken seriously ill in hospital. 

At the risk of bringing the thread back OT, there has been a marked shift in the narrative over the months.  Initially it was hoped that vaccination would stop you contracting the disease or at least passing it on.  Now it’s clear that isn’t the case and the best we will get from the vaccines is protection from severe illness. I would assume that the new variants are responsible for this although I guess we need to get data from other countries where delta is not yet the primary strain. 
 

scientists will be v nervous that the next step will be a variant that brings protection from severe infection down 20/30% ….. perhaps the thought is that natural immunity from contracting delta would provide better protection from a new variant than the vaccines currently do  ……

[DennisNedry]

11 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Delta only rocked up in this country because Johnson and his cronies governed with utter stupidity and irresponsibility. 

I agree that the border policies have been shambolic throughout, but Delta would have got here regardless. BJ only hastened it.

[UniFox21]

Just now, DennisNedry said:

I agree that the border policies have been shambolic throughout, but Delta would have got here regardless. BJ only hastened it.

Hastened the speed of its entrance and spread. Had it been delayed, we would've had more people vaccinated 

[UniFox21]

8 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

That's where the problem lies, I have zero interest in you. 

 

You can now reply and have the last word mate.

 

That goes for any sycophants replying in a mob culture way too...

 

 

Mate, he was making a joke at how GB News has basically become a meme of a news channel having been predicted to be at least interesting.

 

Instead of sharing your views on it or discussing with him, you started attacking him based off of his rep points. Out of the two, that's the weird thing to do 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

If you want to take words out of what I actually wrote to make it suit what you've stated, the burden doesn't lie with me. No?

 

If you want to pull me up about it, look at the date it was posted. The major news channels were ignoring what was happening.

 

As you bracketed and want to remove a word that was vital to the context of what I said and when, I don't really see the point in responding to you again either. You and popular grth can mumble away to each other.

 

Normally I would leave it at that, but I feel I must defend myself here. Looking at the entire post:

 

On 28/06/2021 at 01:05, Duquesne Whistle said:

If you're looking for reasoned debate, or indeed any debate at all, the new GB News channel on freeview at least raise and discuss both sides of arguments. You have to pick the programmes and presenters to suit your own taste and requirement, but they appear to be a far more reliable source of news after a few weeks broadcasting, than the likes of BBC, ITV, C4 and Sky UK news.

 

I used the word "appears" as a way to keep the flow of the sentence while taking very great pains not to change the meaning of what was said, because I knew that was important. There is no difference in meaning between the highlighted part of the post here and what I stated and I don't have the faintest idea why the accusation would come my way when that is reasonably obvious.

 

There's a point to be made about GB News covering events that the other media outlets might have been "ignoring" (that's a debate and a half in of itself), but I'm genuinely interested in hearing what good work they might be doing now that might counteract the idea that the statement hasn't "aged well".

 

Perhaps this is all rather semantic as I know I can be, but I certainly have no intention of being antagonistic in the spirit of friendly inquiry.

[foxile5]

54 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Agreed. First Michael Gove and now this. If that's the approach and the top then fat chance of most people acting on pings now.

They think the public are scum. Its so blatant. The tory supporters must not know how to act when this kind of shit goes on. 

 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

I’ve been mulling over the decision to open back up (‘freedom day’) and how people will respond. It makes me wonder whether a key underlying factor in the governments decision on this is their long stated desire in publications (aimed at their core support and largely unknown to the public) to erode and destroy the NHS from within.

 

Waiting lists are already out of control for non-Covid issues, and hospitals are about to be hit with another wave of Covid - it will be chaos and staffing is down as well through people needing to isolate and becoming unwell themselves. The burden may be unprecedented. All sounds like the perfect storm to propose more privatization… and perhaps asking people on waiting lists to pay to skip the queue (which has always been around tbf…). The only thing that would stop this is a lack of resources as most private work has always taken place in NHS settings by NHS staff. And they simple cannot increase staffing levels to the level they’d need.

[Duquesne Whistle]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Normally I would leave it at that, but I feel I must defend myself here. Looking at the entire post:

 

I used the word "appears" as a way to keep the flow of the sentence while taking very great pains not to change the meaning of what was said, because I knew that was important. There is no difference in meaning between the highlighted part of the post here and what I stated and I don't have the faintest idea why the accusation would come my way when that is reasonably obvious.

 

There's a point to be made about GB News covering events that the other media outlets might have been "ignoring" (that's a debate and a half in of itself), but I'm genuinely interested in hearing what good work they might be doing now that might counteract the idea that the statement hasn't "aged well".

 

Perhaps this is all rather semantic as I know I can be, but I certainly have no intention of being antagonistic in the spirit of friendly inquiry.

It is rather semantic, as you put it

.

On a day, when the major news channels appeared to be ignoring, in my opinion, (or at least reduced major news to a hard to find footnote), the actual reporting of major news events in the headlines appeared way more reliable on that channel. They reported it and discussed it. I didn't see that on the other channels.

Stating you had to pick presenters, if you're capable of reading between the lines, suggests that it isn't to everyone's tastes and there's a lot on it I wouldn't watch. As I said though, you have to be capable of reading written English in more than one way.

 

If that means I have to vouch for that channel for the rest of eternity, that was my mistake... That being the case though, I'm sure we could all trawl through each other's posts and have a real mudslinging contest on here. 

 

 

Separately, and in response solely to unifox's post above. What's weird is that he brought up a post of mine for the 2nd time in 3 weeks, a post that was specific to the time it was made, along with you commenting, again. He didn't want to discuss it, he wasn't making a joke, he wanted to have a 2nd go at me and get a few others on board, just as he did the first time. I noticed he'd been lurking around my profile since then, checking it every few days, presumably waiting to have another go. In response I make an initial joke about only 51 people repping his 800+ posts. What I said is the 'weird' part according to you? Ok.

I responded to the sensible poster on here, giving my view, there was no point replying to the original bloke. He really didn't want to discuss it, if you don't see that, well...

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 July 2021 by Duquesne Whistle

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I’ve been mulling over the decision to open back up (‘freedom day’) and how people will respond. It makes me wonder whether a key underlying factor in the governments decision on this is their long stated desire in publications (aimed at their core support and largely unknown to the public) to erode and destroy the NHS from within.

 

Waiting lists are already out of control for non-Covid issues, and hospitals are about to be hit with another wave of Covid - it will be chaos and staffing is down as well through people needing to isolate and becoming unwell themselves. The burden may be unprecedented. All sounds like the perfect storm to propose more privatization… and perhaps asking people on waiting lists to pay to skip the queue (which has always been around tbf…). The only thing that would stop this is a lack of resources as most private work has always taken place in NHS settings by NHS staff. And they simple cannot increase staffing levels to the level they’d need.

If there was a point in time that privatisation of the NHS would be most difficult, it would be during / shortly after a global pandemic.

 

I think the public at large would be incandescent with such a move.

 

Of course, that doesn’t mean the government aren’t doing what you’ve suggested - but it would be political suicide for the entire Conservative Party if they did.

[CosbehFox]

7 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I’ve been mulling over the decision to open back up (‘freedom day’) and how people will respond. It makes me wonder whether a key underlying factor in the governments decision on this is their long stated desire in publications (aimed at their core support and largely unknown to the public) to erode and destroy the NHS from within.

 

Waiting lists are already out of control for non-Covid issues, and hospitals are about to be hit with another wave of Covid - it will be chaos and staffing is down as well through people needing to isolate and becoming unwell themselves. The burden may be unprecedented. All sounds like the perfect storm to propose more privatization… and perhaps asking people on waiting lists to pay to skip the queue (which has always been around tbf…). The only thing that would stop this is a lack of resources as most private work has always taken place in NHS settings by NHS staff. And they simple cannot increase staffing levels to the level they’d need.

Yep don’t have the required number of trained staff. Staff are leaving disillusioned and overworked from the ‘industry’. Take up for the career is a lot lower than it was as well

[foxile5]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

If there was a point in time that privatisation of the NHS would be most difficult, it would be during / shortly after a global pandemic.

 

I think the public at large would be incandescent with such a move.

 

Of course, that doesn’t mean the government aren’t doing what you’ve suggested - but it would be political suicide for the entire Conservative Party if they did.

Ordinarily id agree but they're Teflon. Their supporters seem to have that selective blindness that allows Johnson et al to just act awfully and enjoy no consequence. Its baffling. 

 

If Kiev Starmer called Muslim ladies letterboxes or commented on the watermelon smiles of picaninnies can you imagine. He'd be out of job so ****ing fast. 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

If there was a point in time that privatisation of the NHS would be most difficult, it would be during / shortly after a global pandemic.

 

I think the public at large would be incandescent with such a move.

 

Of course, that doesn’t mean the government aren’t doing what you’ve suggested - but it would be political suicide for the entire Conservative Party if they did.

I agree, but they’ve been chipping away at it for years. They probably couldn’t do it all at the moment for the reasons you state, but do I think they will definitely try to edge us closer to more of a private system involving direct user payment (as opposed to the private sector delivering public services).

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

It is rather semantic, as you put it

.

On a day, when the major news channels appeared to be ignoring, in my opinion, (or at least reduced major news to a hard to find footnote), the actual reporting of major news events in the headlines appeared way more reliable on that channel. They reported it and discussed it. I didn't see that on the other channels.

Stating you had to pick presenters, if you're capable of reading between the lines, suggests that it isn't to everyone's tastes and there's a lot on it I wouldn't watch. As I said though, you have to be capable of reading written English in more than one way.

 

If that means I have to vouch for that channel for the rest of eternity, that was my mistake... That being the case though, I'm sure we could all trawl through each other's posts and have a real mudslinging contest on here. 

 

 

 

That's a fair response and thank you for it.

 

I think there's an argument to be had about the ignorance (or lack thereof) of some events from the "mainstream media" but I can also see why someone might take that side of that particular argument. I'm certainly not looking for someone to defend the thing in perpetuity.

 

And I'm pretty sure there's a number of posts I've made that haven't aged well - distinctly remember a lot of input about Hilary having little trouble with Trump in 2016.

[Jon the Hat]

22 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I’ve been mulling over the decision to open back up (‘freedom day’) and how people will respond. It makes me wonder whether a key underlying factor in the governments decision on this is their long stated desire in publications (aimed at their core support and largely unknown to the public) to erode and destroy the NHS from within.

 

Waiting lists are already out of control for non-Covid issues, and hospitals are about to be hit with another wave of Covid - it will be chaos and staffing is down as well through people needing to isolate and becoming unwell themselves. The burden may be unprecedented. All sounds like the perfect storm to propose more privatization… and perhaps asking people on waiting lists to pay to skip the queue (which has always been around tbf…). The only thing that would stop this is a lack of resources as most private work has always taken place in NHS settings by NHS staff. And they simple cannot increase staffing levels to the level they’d need.

Wow.  And where will the staff for the private facilities come from?

[enmac]

12 hours ago, Nalis said:

What is the significant number? Do you have a percentage and if so is that of those childre  testing positive or all children?

UK advocacy group Long Covid Kids says that it currently has details of 1200 children with long covid from 890 families in England. “And that number has been rising quickly,” says founder Sammie Mcfarland. “Not one has returned to their previous health, and most are unable to do their normal activities.”

 

From:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927578/