Florida Man
Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Brilliant.Meanwhile, in a locked-down Italian city.
Brilliant.Meanwhile, in a locked-down Italian city.
Meanwhile, in a locked-down Italian city.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I actually understand very well your argument, it is just that I completely disagree with it. Look at for example, the infographic posted above, which shows quite clearly that the closure of mass gatherings was the next step - not a u-turn. You seem very focused on the fact that it was only a day between each step, which is not really relevant.It was a internal email and reported on by a FT journalist
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Again the Daily Mail has vested interest in a giving the public a positive view of the tory party, so when they admit the tory government has fecked up, you know that it's well.......... a feck up. This isn't very difficult to understand.
wonder if there's something like a ccr5 delta32 for this receptor too.
I get that it helps morale but honest to god I'd sooner march down to the ICU and start licking people's faces than be stuck at home listening to that racket.Meanwhile, in a locked-down Italian city.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We all want that. It's called a cabin in the woods.I get that it helps morale but honest to god I'd sooner march down to the ICU and start licking people's faces than be stuck at home listening to that racket.
I'd want a nice, quiet lockdown where I can read books and chill.
The staff will be using those puppies soon to clean their own asses.This must be some kind of Bond-movie plot by a toilet paper baron to stoke demand and raise profits.
Right now, the Andrex puppy is rolling in bitches.
My sentiments exactly.I almost want people here who unnecessarily stock up on things causing empty shelves to contract it, nevermind an asshat like Trump.
Quite brilliant, the mashup & the overall scene.Meanwhile, in a locked-down Italian city.
Honestly don't know enough about the subject. But we'll be seeing far too many papers, contradicting each other, that's for sure! Over time it will be sorted out though.wonder if there's something like a ccr5 delta 32 for this receptor too.
Oh yeah, the music and heat is not my scene at all, but it's good that people find ways to keep their spirits up.I get that it helps morale but honest to god I'd sooner march down to the ICU and start licking people's faces than be stuck at home listening to that racket.
I'd want a nice, quiet lockdown where I can read books and chill.
Agree with this.Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth welcomed the move in an interview on the programme, but urged the government to be "clear" about its plans.
"If that means publishing the scientific modelling so that all the experts can analyse it and peer review it and stress test it, if that maintains public confidence, that's an important step," the Labour MP said.
Its pretty relevant because it's been clear for weeks that services are going to be under a huge strain due to the virus. This governments seems to be last one to have acted on what has been known by everyone else for some time. Yet apparently this is all going according to planI actually understand very well your argument, it is just that I completely disagree with it. Look at for example, the infographic posted above, which shows quite clearly that the closure of mass gatherings was the next step - not a u-turn. You seem very focused on the fact that it was only a day between each step, which is not really relevant.
Your argument would only have been valid if the original plan had not given any indication of limiting mass gatherings.
I'd imagine they'd be very reluctant to do anything like that. As their science guy said, a lot of dealing with a situation like this comes down to behavioural science too as you try to coax the population through different measures at different stages of the crisis. Laying out the modelling would by necessity lay out the various potential future measures to the public, which may itself skew how they react.
Well they could definitely have it peer reviewed without revealing the details to the public. I don't think anyone is expecting the detailed, potentially sensitive information to be given to public.I'd imagine they'd be very reluctant to do anything like that. As their science guy said, a lot of dealing with a situation like this comes down to behavioural science too as you try to coax the population through different measures at different stages of the crisis. Laying out the modelling would by necessity lay out the various potential future measures to the public, which may itself skew how they react.
Or it more blunt terms, if the public actually knew what could be coming they might panic, which doesn't help anyone's plans.
This is absolutely terrifying. It essentially puts the mortality rate near that number, if millions of people get infected at the same time and so the system collapses.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I proposed something very similar yesterday. Great minds think alike and all that.I don't know enough about virology to determine whether this is feasible, but I'd like to see the powers-that-be test every single 65+ year old, and then quarantine the negative ones into closed off accommodation for 8 weeks whilst the rest of the country gains herd immunity (with anyone who tests positive receiving immediate intensive care).
Once herd immunity is achieved for the under 65s, the people in quarantine can integrate back with the rest of society. Then, going forward, the government can maintain relatively tight borders to ensure the infection doesn't return.
Would this kind of targetted response not be better than the one every nation seems to be taking? It helps the vulnerable who need it most, it speeds up the nation's overall recovery, and it keeps the economy afloat.
It's probably just the sheer numbers preventing it from happening. But I tend to think it's an efficient way of doing things if the population is small enough.
I don't know. I'm tired as shit.
It might be efficient but it'd also be practically impossible.I don't know enough about virology to determine whether this is feasible, but I'd like to see the powers-that-be test every single 65+ year old, and then quarantine the negative ones into closed off accommodation for 8 weeks whilst the rest of the country gains herd immunity (with anyone who tests positive receiving immediate intensive care).
Once herd immunity is achieved for the under 65s, the people in quarantine can integrate back with the rest of society. Then, going forward, the government can maintain relatively tight borders to ensure the infection doesn't return.
Would this kind of targetted response not be better than the one every nation seems to be taking? It helps the vulnerable who need it most, it speeds up the nation's overall recovery, and it keeps the economy afloat.
It's probably just the sheer numbers preventing it from happening. But I tend to think it's an efficient way of doing things if the population is small enough.
I don't know. I'm tired as shit.
Yeah but what about herd immunity?This is absolutely terrifying. It essentially puts the mortality rate near that number, if millions of people get infected at the same time and so the system collapses.
I don't know enough about virology to determine whether this is feasible, but I'd like to see the powers-that-be test every single 65+ year old, and then quarantine the negative ones into closed off accommodation for 8 weeks whilst the rest of the country gains herd immunity (with anyone who tests positive receiving immediate intensive care).
Once herd immunity is achieved for the under 65s, the people in quarantine can integrate back with the rest of society. Then, going forward, the government can maintain relatively tight borders to ensure the infection doesn't return.
Would this kind of targetted response not be better than the one every nation seems to be taking? It helps the vulnerable who need it most, it speeds up the nation's overall recovery, and it keeps the economy afloat.
It's probably just the sheer numbers preventing it from happening. But I tend to think it's an efficient way of doing things if the population is small enough.
I don't know. I'm tired as shit.
I proposed something very similar yesterday. Great minds think alike and all that.
Great idea but impossible to implement as @sullydnl pointed out. Heard about this on tv a couple of days ago. Starts at 30 seconds but really worth watching the whole video.It might be efficient but it'd also be practically impossible.
One of the main points of the UK government's argument (which has some merit) is that you have to manage the people themselves in terms of what measures they'll accept and how long they'll accept them for. It isn't a totalitarian state where anything goes. Aside from the practical issues of doing it, I'm fairly sure "round up all over 65s in the country and lock them away for 8 weeks" falls very firmly into the list of measures they don't think will wash with the public. I mean even as is they're fretting about how isolation might make keeping the elderly socially distant from their families a problem.
Really good video, thanks for sharing.Great idea but impossible to implement as @sullydnl pointed out. Heard about this on tv a couple of days ago. Starts at 30 seconds but really worth watching the whole video.
Regarding his point about school closures, that goes back to timing doesn't it?Great idea but impossible to implement as @sullydnl pointed out. Heard about this on tv a couple of days ago. Starts at 30 seconds but really worth watching the whole video.
With the time being only 24hrs earlierIt wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.
Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?
That statement was clearly made in the context of the situation at the time.
Is that worse than having it in the lungs?up to 5 confirmed in the Faroes now.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
I'm not sure what to do on schools to be honest. There has been no recorded deaths for children which obviously puts them at lowest risk. So maybe we shouldn't close schools at all and have younger teachers taking classes or at least minding them. I'm just spit balling here so no idea how viable it actually is. There seems to be no point in closing schools in my opinion as kids will get bored and will want to get together and stuff. Also, there have been a lot of reports that kids don't exhibit many symptoms at all and are pretty much asymptomatic, so it is possible that parents would take them to their grandparents thinking that they were not infected. It's a possibility. Kids are notorious at spreading viruses. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but school closures happen due to kids infecting parents who then have to take days off work rather than kids being very sick with the flu.Regarding his point about school closures, that goes back to timing doesn't it?
One of the arguments I've seen in favour of school closures is exactly that it drags parents out of work and back into the home for a few weeks, which in itself aids in slowing the spread down. However for that to work you have to time it so that a) the virus has spread enough for the measure to have worthwhile impact, b) the virus hasn't spread so much that large numbers of kids will be infecting people at home and c) essential services aren't under such strain that the loss of these parents will cause serious harm.
His take on the dangers of kids spreading the virus to grandparents seems to assume that a large number of them will already be infected when the measure is introduced. Whereas one imagines that the countries who are actually closing schools believe they are doing so before that's a major issue.
Brilliant.