| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
We are depending on those people to be right, so let's just hope that they areOriginally Posted by the other bob wilson
What's the latest available evidence? A speculative article from a month ago rather than the data from the last month? Even for you this is a leap of faith. Are you still in mourning that your sacred Conservative Treehouse Website was blocked from Twitter for calling CoronaVirus a hoax or something?
Agreed, but it's going to depend on how well observed the lockdown and social isolation are - here's the post I made few days back which I think shows how both very high and very low estimates could be proved completely wrong;-We are depending on those people to be right, so let's just hope that they are
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.php...very-effective
Even that image is a gross simplification. It implies people only have one potential source of infection. The way that's presented, a 1 to 1 relationship means that knocking one "source" out ( by isolating ) prevents others along that source tree further down the line getting it. It's nowhere near as simple as that.
Even that image is a gross simplification. It implies people only have one potential source of infection. The way that's presented, a 1 to 1 relationship means that knocking one "source" out ( by isolating ) prevents others along that source tree further down the line getting it. It's nowhere near as simple as that.
It's supposed to get a message across, not be an exact replica of what will happen and it's very effective at doing that.
The point being that message isn't the complete one. It ignores the reality that most people have probably had the virus by now too.
How do we know that?
Lunatic just like his brother
City donate 1,000 tickets to NHS workers.
https://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/news...ts-nhs-workers
How do we not know that?
It seems to be fairly infectious. I very much doubt any of the figures of infections are including those with no symptoms because who would know?
What I suspect ( gut feeling, not a virologist ) is it's something that is clearly pretty infectious, for the vast majority there are no symptoms or are very, very mild symptoms. Wife has a compromised immune system, she had a virus back in December. The symptoms were pretty much those attributed to covid-19. Didn't require hospitalisation thankfully. Now, we've not been abroad last year, not been in contact with people who have - so if she picked it up then would have been heavily present in UK back in December.
Poor bastards.
You can rest assured that Piers Corbyn, nor anyone else, will appear on the BBC to challenge the narrative because people might decide to conduct their own research to help determine whether his views have merit or not, and we can't have that.
Corbyn would no doubt mention Event 201, which he alludes in his twitter messages. A search for Event 201 at the BBC site draws a blank. It's almost as if - shock, horror - Auntie doesn't want us to know anything about it.
Interesting section below of an item in the Independents online news coverage, which I think puts the current situation in perspective. Some of the media coverage of the outbreak has been disgracefully designed to deliberately panic the public :-
‘Despite the obvious seriousness of the situation it is important to keep the threat in perspective (during the 2017-18 UK flu season there were 26,408 deaths and 1,692 in 2018-2019). The UK's chief medical officer Chris Whitty estimates a mortality rate for coronavirus of one per cent. (Other earlier estimates have been higher at between 2 to 3.4 per cent].
In comparison, SARS had a mortality rate of more than 10 per cent.’
Could it be because Piers is an utter ****wit, antisemite, climate change denying loon who makes Jeremy look like Albert Einstein? Nah, must be a CONSPIRACY.You can rest assured that Piers Corbyn, nor anyone else, will appear on the BBC to challenge the narrative because people might decide to conduct their own research to help determine whether his views have merit or not, and we can't have that.
Corbyn would no doubt mention Event 201, which he alludes in his twitter messages. A search for Event 201 at the BBC site draws a blank. It's almost as if - shock, horror - Auntie doesn't want us to know anything about it.
Okay, I'll play along. What is your views about Event 201? Do you believe it was sheer coincidence that a coronavirus outbreak was simulated six weeks before it occurred?
Ok, I'll play along.Okay, I'll play along. What is your views about Event 201? Do you believe it was sheer coincidence that a coronavirus outbreak was simulated six weeks before it occurred?
http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
People seeing low scale epidemics around the world, concerned, role pla the scenario must clearly mean it was all orchestrated... lmfao.
It's not just toilet roll and pasta that sold old, clearly tinfoil too.
Corbyn is an idiot. He claims people haven't died of coronavirus they just happened to have coronavirus...
This is actually good news that the White House have had this data since at least the 28 February, and they have been using it for their forward planning. The public only found out about it yesterday, but what Dr Birx said last night seems to back up the observation that the old data models were wrong. At least we now know that Trump made his decision to reopen America with the help of scientific opinion, and not on a whim.
He's saying they died with it and not of it. Well, 99% of them anyway. The Italian figures suggest hardly any people without serious pre-existing health conditions have conked out.
Based upon that logic, nobody dies of AIDS... well duh...
Are you seriously claiming that something that trigger pre-existing conditions ( and some without have died ) isn't the underlying cause of death? Really?
I'm suggesting it's relatively harmless to those who haven't something seriously wrong with them prior. Of course that's more acute when they're elderly who have a habit of dying when they reach 80+.
I'm not disagreeing.
The virus weakens the immune system making those symptoms deadly. No virus then there's less chance of death as the immune system would be in a better position. Generalisation, sure, but...
Some would die anyway. Some would not die in normal circumstances.
Nice to see you've backed away from Event 201...
I didn't back away from Event 201. The BBC have. I didn't make it up that there's no mention of it on their site. They have form for suppressing news as anyone familiar with my posts on the Politics forum with regard to the annual Bilderberg bash will already know.
Ah yes, the secretive Bilderberg group meetings that are well documented on the web...
But back to the Event 201 thing, maybe the media aren't covering it due to it being scaremongering, utter bollocks? "People that see regular local epidemics look to see what would happen in a pandemic" shocker...
We're living in an era of media saturation which can dictate how we perceive the event at the expense of objective analysis. If the BBC had announced one day in 2018 that "1500" people had died today from flu-related causes", and followed up with reports of over-run hospitals etc., I'm sure we would have been horrified. I reckon the audience for the TV News from 6pm onwards is massive and like myself most are almost in a panic by the end of the reports. Then you look at the numbers and the deaths - albeit to date - are equivalent to 9 for a city the size of Birmingham. In 2020 in the Western World we aren't as close to death as those African Countries where make shift hospitals are full of malnourished babies dying in their mothers' arms - we live in a cosy, well-managed world without the hardships other poorer people experience every day. I think it's like FDR said about 'nothing to fear but fear itself".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote