[AnnieK]

It'll be a long time before most people are comfortable in crowds again. I love my own space so social distancing hasn't been too hard for me, miss going to gigs though but can't see them allowing 20,000 people in an arena again for a long time

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I'm going the throw my two penneth in here and play devil's advocate a little.

Logically, statistically and scientifically we know now that Covid19 is a virus that is particularly dangerous to the elderly and vulnerable. However, there have been cases of seemingly healthy younger people who have succumbed to it. Each loss of life leaves a massive hole in a families lives. So that impact should never be overlooked.

However, I honestly don't think that is what is happening here. I think people are approaching the conversation from two different angles, one from a purely scientific and one from an emotive one.

To put it another way. I lost my mum in 2014 from cancer. 4 weeks from diagnosis to death. Now logically, I know that was unlucky and most cancers can be treated to give a longer life and a lot can be cured. Doesn't stop me from going into a tailspin ever time cancer is mentioned. I have families members who have recovered from cancer after my mum passed but I cannot get passed her death to rationalise it properly. To me cancer = death.

I think personal experience goes a long way in your thought processes and actions regarding circumstances you find yourself in. Joey and BOTs have lost people close to them and so have a view of the virus that is completely different to TS and LT who haven't had their personal lives affected in the same way (and TS has another viewpoint due to his wife working throughout in the NHS so has a medical view also).

Joey and BOTs, I am very sorry for your losses.

Thank you for bringing up a subject that must have been very painful Annie, ordinarily I would agree with that had either of the two perspectives come from yourself or many others.
However, yes there were emotional responses that does not mean that with having an emotional response after being personally affected by the virus you are unable to rationalise and understand any logical or statistical evidence.

It would also mean that if bots and Joey are exhibiting emotive behaviour then LT's comment was rooted in science, as the articles I posted show it isn't. .. even with the input from someone with by proxy knowledge, had that been given for the reason for that stance that would have been understandable, it wasn't ... it was a reliance on skewed stats that persobally I took exception to, as well as having my own considered researched opinion based on scientific evidence rubbished.

That compounded by the fact that never have I ever once wanted or felt obliged to compare a thing LT has posted as anything resembling logic. Statistically it just would not make sense to.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again Bots, I do have sympathy for everyone's losses, and my response to these posts would be completely different if they were in General Chat or if I was talking to someone directly, but this is the SD section and my feeling (still, despite the various attempts to shame me for it) is that the discussion here should be more academic, more pragmatic, and based in scientific fact and not people's individual experiences when trying to wrestle out the facts relating to the pandemic. I'm not willing to ignore people poo-pooing medical science and statistics in favour of their own subjective experiences, whilst at the same time championing vaccines and lockdowns that are the product of medical science and statistics. It's the SD thread about Covid, it's not a support thread, and this thread and section is frankly not appropriate for people who are struggling with related recent personal loss. Like I said before - I've experienced personal loss, plenty of it, and I'm well aware that I'm not always able to engage in level-headed discussions on the associated topics and I fully understand that people have lost loved ones to Covid and that the same applies. I'm not and haven't minimised Covid, nor its impact on people. And whilst I understand people's hurt and frustration coming out in conversations with others, I fundamentally don't think it's something that should go unmentioned or excused, and I don't think anyone should have to avoid discussing the facts and figures of a global pandemic for fear that it might upset people who have sadly suffered disproportionate loss.

I'm aware that this probably comes across as cold. But there are many sections on this forum, and if this one isn't the place to discuss the science of the virus without impacting people's emotions and getting backlash for that, I don't know where is.

For someone who doesn't do emotional responses this comes across as decidedly whingey.

What you are neglecting to see is the possibility that some may be able to exhibit both the emotional and logical response that gives 'legs' and balance to a debate,
I appreciate you can't.

Making vague reference to unseen 'stats' is not academic or pragmatic.. nor is ignoring actual evidence provided for you in a vain attempt to maintain the illusion that your opinion has any basis in science.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

For someone who doesn't do emotional responses this comes across as decidedly whingey.

It comes across as being bored of being singled out for passive aggressive ad-hominems by the same member (you) repeatedly across almost every thread. Maybe you're right and it is whingey, as I should quite clearly just ignore it completely, given that the moderators apparently either don't notice or don't care. It all falls under the same banner really - I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to come here for free and open discussion without being either angrily deemed insensitive for not accepting people's individual experiences over broader established information, or sniped at by people who hold grudges.

What you are neglecting to see is the possibility that some may be able to exhibit both the emotional and logical response that gives 'legs' and balance to a debate

I'm perfectly open to that but that's not what I've seen, I've seen people being snappy because they're understandably upset. It's not particularly nice to call that out for what it is so I also understand why some people wouldn't do it - but I happen to think that being a prophet of doom based on anecdotal information that's contrary to the bulk of available scientific information is actively harmful to anyone reading it so I choose to call it out. You might disagree with that but again I have absolutely no clue why that makes you think you're justified in the constant passive-aggressive nastiness.

I appreciate you can't.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It comes across as being bored of being singled out for passive aggressive ad-hominems by the same member (you) repeatedly across almost every thread. Maybe you're right and it is whingey, as I should quite clearly just ignore it completely, given that the moderators apparently either don't notice or don't care. It all falls under the same banner really - I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to come here for free and open discussion without being either angrily deemed insensitive for not accepting people's individual experiences over broader established information, or sniped at by people who hold grudges.



I'm perfectly open to that but that's not what I've seen, I've seen people being snappy because they're understandably upset. It's not particularly nice to call that out for what it is so I also understand why some people wouldn't do it - but I happen to think that being a prophet of doom based on anecdotal information that's contrary to the bulk of available scientific information is actively harmful to anyone reading it so I choose to call it out. You might disagree with that but again I have absolutely no clue why that makes you think you're justified in the constant passive-aggressive nastiness.

TS .. I challenged your point in a debate, it's not personal or passive aggressive.
My theory is based on 'anecdotal' information from those academic medical articles?

And yours from... stats. (that's all we know)

This virus is new, what is known about it is constantly evolving, therefore you choosing to call out what you feel is irrelevant is not helpful and is actively damaging to any debate on this topic imo.

[arista]

[arista]

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

TS .. I challenged your point in a debate, it's not personal or passive aggressive.

My theory is based on 'anecdotal' information from those academic medical articles?



And yours from... stats. (that's all we know)



This virus is new, what is known about it is constantly evolving, therefore you choosing to call out what you feel is irrelevant is not helpful and is actively damaging to any debate on this topic imo.

If I'm going to have to be blunt I'm going to have to be blunt I guess; I don't want to actively engage with your posts because when I talk about the passive aggressive snipes we both know fine well I'm not talking about just this thread, or just recently, or frankly even just me. I don't have any interest in anything you have to say, there is literally NO point in trying to engage you in debate over any links you post because it'll just be more of the same ad-hominem nonsense in response if I critique them, and a waste of time. I cannot fathom why I'm even engaging in this, again, having said multiple times in the past that I have no interest in it. I don't want to read your posts, I don't want to click your links, and I have zero interest in your jibes. The only thing that annoys me, is that I find them annoying at all and respond. I'm sure you'll enjoy that and that really says it all.

If I ABSOLUTELY MUST - one of your links was vague information that's been known for months and has no implications on the wider data. The other (long Covid) specifically talks about potential evidence minor ongoing damage of unknown scope and longevity - it specifically stipulates minor within the first paragraph and talks about common minor post-viral ailments such as fatigue and headache - but it was posted as a counter to the idea that there's evidence of severe ongoing health complaints. I just can't be bothered. It's not that I can't come up with anything against your amazing articles - it's that you consistently (perhaps willingly?) misinterpret what's been said and post things that are irrelevant in response, peppered with ad-hominem. It's a waste of time and no one should feel beholden to engage with it, but I'm not the only one you consistently draw into this so I guess I feel a little better for that. Like I said I just feel annoyed for even bothering to be annoyed.

I suppose when it comes down to it I should just take my own advice and keep a level head; I don't enjoy discussing things with you, I get nothing out of "debates" with you, they're not helpful and they're irritating. So I should just... Not.

[parmnion]

Mods.

Can we comment on the debate within the debate?

[Ammi]

Christmas in lockdown preferred by UK public over new restrictions in January...

Most of the public would rather have a locked-down Christmas than have a new lockdown imposed in January, a new poll suggests.

With the government considering the extent to which restrictions should be lifted to limit the impact on Christmas family gatherings, the latest Opinium poll for the Observer found that the public opted for a locked-down Christmas over new January restrictions by a margin of 54% to 33%.

This split is almost identical across all party groups and demographics, with older voters in particular preferring to lock down over Christmas rather than in January.



https://uk.yahoo.com/news/christmas-...203941047.html

[bitontheslide]

i would say the tory bump up was more due to Dom and his side kick leaving

But really, everything is so volatile at the moment and the next election is so far off that it really doesnt matter

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i would say the tory bump up was more due to Dom and his side kick leaving

But really, everything is so volatile at the moment and the next election is so far off that it really doesnt matter

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i would say the tory bump up was more due to Dom and his side kick leaving

But really, everything is so volatile at the moment and the next election is so far off that it really doesnt matter

I agree with that, I have no idea why anyone bothers watching the polls 1 year into a 5 year term... god knows what will be going on in 2024.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If I'm going to have to be blunt I'm going to have to be blunt I guess; I don't want to actively engage with your posts because when I talk about the passive aggressive snipes we both know fine well I'm not talking about just this thread, or just recently, or frankly even just me. I don't have any interest in anything you have to say, there is literally NO point in trying to engage you in debate over any links you post because it'll just be more of the same ad-hominem nonsense in response if I critique them, and a waste of time. I cannot fathom why I'm even engaging in this, again, having said multiple times in the past that I have no interest in it. I don't want to read your posts, I don't want to click your links, and I have zero interest in your jibes. The only thing that annoys me, is that I find them annoying at all and respond. I'm sure you'll enjoy that and that really says it all.

If I ABSOLUTELY MUST - one of your links was vague information that's been known for months and has no implications on the wider data. The other (long Covid) specifically talks about potential evidence minor ongoing damage of unknown scope and longevity - it specifically stipulates minor within the first paragraph and talks about common minor post-viral ailments such as fatigue and headache - but it was posted as a counter to the idea that there's evidence of severe ongoing health complaints. I just can't be bothered. It's not that I can't come up with anything against your amazing articles - it's that you consistently (perhaps willingly?) misinterpret what's been said and post things that are irrelevant in response, peppered with ad-hominem. It's a waste of time and no one should feel beholden to engage with it, but I'm not the only one you consistently draw into this so I guess I feel a little better for that. Like I said I just feel annoyed for even bothering to be annoyed.

I suppose when it comes down to it I should just take my own advice and keep a level head; I don't enjoy discussing things with you, I get nothing out of "debates" with you, they're not helpful and they're irritating. So I should just... Not.

I just post my views like everyone else, it's rather laughable that you are attempting to discredit an academic article, but I'll put that aside for now as you appear quite sensitive at the moment.

I've done nothing to warrant your attack in this thread other than disagree with you and you've taken exception to that clearly. I think we should leave it there.

[arista]

[Alf]

Can't be arsed to read through this thread. But now I'm here, how's everybody coping? Crazy times we're living in.

Is everybody still well?

From my point of view, I still know of nobody in my life who has had the virus, and I live in an apparent hot spot area.

I'm not denying that the virus exists/existed, I just don't think people are being honest with us.and the measures being taken are destroying people lives.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

Christmas in lockdown preferred by UK public over new restrictions in January...

Most of the public would rather have a locked-down Christmas than have a new lockdown imposed in January, a new poll suggests.

With the government considering the extent to which restrictions should be lifted to limit the impact on Christmas family gatherings, the latest Opinium poll for the Observer found that the public opted for a locked-down Christmas over new January restrictions by a margin of 54% to 33%.

This split is almost identical across all party groups and demographics, with older voters in particular preferring to lock down over Christmas rather than in January.



https://uk.yahoo.com/news/christmas-...203941047.html

Every single person to a phone in that I listened to last week said they did not want 5 days of relaxation over Christmas, it is utter madness ..we have come this far and to throw it all away again because people want to stuff their faces in front of other family members is just obsene, if you have an elderly relative who is on their own that should really be the only relaxation of rules, drop the dinner off if its a couple and they are unable to cook, its not rocket science and pick up the phone or show them how to zoom

[arista]

Today 398 have Died

55,024 Total deaths

The Hospital Numbers are Yesterdays.

18,662 tested today with Covid-19


https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[arista]

Tomorrow in Parliament
Johnson (on a screen)
will give details

[bitontheslide]

The UK's four nations have backed plans to allow some household mixing "for a small number of days" over Christmas.

It comes as Boris Johnson is due to announce on Monday what Covid restrictions may be in place over the festive period.

The PM will also outline plans for a tougher three-tiered system for England - to be introduced at the end of the current lockdown on 2 December.

The 10pm closing time for pubs and restaurants could also be relaxed.

Three households could be allowed to meet up "over a number of days, maybe five days", according to the BBC's deputy political editor Vicki Young.

The Cabinet Office said ministers from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had endorsed a "shared objective of facilitating some limited additional household bubbling for a small number of days".

But they have emphasised that the public will be advised to "remain cautious", and that "wherever possible people should avoid travelling and minimise social contact".

Discussions are ongoing - including about travel arrangements - but it is hoped agreement on the joint approach can be reached this week.

In respect of Northern Ireland, ministers have also "recognised that people will want to see family and friends across the island of Ireland, and this is the subject of discussions with the Irish government", the Cabinet Office said.

More areas are set to be placed into the higher tiers in England, with ministers to identify the which areas will be in which tier on Thursday.

Some local measures will be the same as those in the previous three-tier system, which was in place in England until the current lockdown began.

But some tiers will be strengthened, according to Downing Street.

Mr Johnson will detail the strengthened tiered system in a statement to the House of Commons on Monday but full details of Christmas plans are not expected until after the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have consulted their own cabinets.

There have been calls by a cross-party group of MPs and peers for the PM to guarantee that church services will go ahead this Christmas, as current lockdown restrictions forbid most religious services.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55036797

[Alf]

Originally Posted by arista

Today 398 have Died

55,024 Total deaths

The Hospital Numbers are Yesterdays.

18,662 tested today with Covid-19


https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

How many people died on the same date over the past 10 years. Can you find that data for me, Arista?

We know that on the same date in 1963 that President Kennedy died. Rip Mr President. Had this pandemic been happening in 1963, would the President have been amongst the Covid statistics?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The UK's four nations have backed plans to allow some household mixing "for a small number of days" over Christmas.

It comes as Boris Johnson is due to announce on Monday what Covid restrictions may be in place over the festive period.

The PM will also outline plans for a tougher three-tiered system for England - to be introduced at the end of the current lockdown on 2 December.

The 10pm closing time for pubs and restaurants could also be relaxed.

Three households could be allowed to meet up "over a number of days, maybe five days", according to the BBC's deputy political editor Vicki Young.

The Cabinet Office said ministers from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had endorsed a "shared objective of facilitating some limited additional household bubbling for a small number of days".

But they have emphasised that the public will be advised to "remain cautious", and that "wherever possible people should avoid travelling and minimise social contact".

Discussions are ongoing - including about travel arrangements - but it is hoped agreement on the joint approach can be reached this week.

In respect of Northern Ireland, ministers have also "recognised that people will want to see family and friends across the island of Ireland, and this is the subject of discussions with the Irish government", the Cabinet Office said.

More areas are set to be placed into the higher tiers in England, with ministers to identify the which areas will be in which tier on Thursday.

Some local measures will be the same as those in the previous three-tier system, which was in place in England until the current lockdown began.

But some tiers will be strengthened, according to Downing Street.

Mr Johnson will detail the strengthened tiered system in a statement to the House of Commons on Monday but full details of Christmas plans are not expected until after the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have consulted their own cabinets.

There have been calls by a cross-party group of MPs and peers for the PM to guarantee that church services will go ahead this Christmas, as current lockdown restrictions forbid most religious services.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55036797

Agreement across the devolved nations, it must be a Christmas miracle

[bitontheslide]

what annoys me is that they have been closing everything, even establishments that have done everything they can to be covid secure. They shut all non essential shops, tell us we cant travel etc all to reduce the pressure on the NHS ... then that all goes out the window for a week at christmas, cause people couldnt possibly miss out on that. No restrictions will be taken seriously after that

[Alf]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

what annoys me is that they have been closing everything, even establishments that have done everything they can to be covid secure. They shut all non essential shops, tell us we cant travel etc all to reduce the pressure on the NHS ... then that all goes out the window for a week at christmas, cause people couldnt possibly miss out on that. No restrictions will be taken seriously after that

You can't have people around for Christmas, but two groups of rugby players can wrestle each other on the pitch, 22 football players can still compete on the same pitch, 12 celebrities can still earn huge amounts of money for staying in a castle together.

Something ain't right.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Alf

You can't have people around for Christmas, but two groups of rugby players can wrestle each other on the pitch, 22 football players can still compete on the same pitch, 12 celebrities can still earn huge amounts of money for staying in a castle together.

Something ain't right.

They are tested within an inch of their lives