Covid and Risk

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wondered this... what amount of risk are you willing to take at the moment (if everything was possible) in terms of Covid.

Would you, as this moment...

- Go into a shop without a mask?
- Go to a crowded pub or bar?
- Go to a crowded club?
- Shake hands with a stranger?
- Go to a concert?
- Get on a plane and go abroad?

[Triz]

For my personal safety, I'd do all of those things

However since mostly all of those things involves me risking others along with family members, I wouldn't do any of them, aside from go on a plane, I'd still do that assuming there were restrictions and safety measures in place still.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would do all of them and have done some of them recently.

I'm genuinely gobsmacked that healthy people are putting their lives on hold/not seeing anyone because of a virus with a 0.3% death rate.

My aunty had a phone call the other night from the daughter of her elderly (former) neighbours, telling her that the Dad had passed away (aged 99) and the mother was now going downhill immediately afterwards. Why? Both had been incredibly active, went to Church and were always meeting friends.... but thanks to the lockdown madness, both had been deprived since February of their social routines and as a result their health had declined and he passed away. At age 99 your time is extremely limited, so he lost his life and more importantly their quality of their remaining life hiding from a virus that yes at age 99 could've killed him but then so could the flu. Or a bad cold.

My grandparents, both aged 85, have chosen to continue living their lives as normal. And I completely agree with them.

[Triz]

Mines more to the point that my mum has kidney problems and a high blood pressure, my step dad has crohn's disease, my grandma has diabetes, and other family members with various conditions... so they're all extremely vulnerable, especially to new viruses such as covid, so for me it's not worth the risk, I'd rather be safe for a few months, even a few years, if it means that my family can be safe... Obviously this 0.3% death rate I assume it calculated on healthy people who got infected too, meaning if you actually calculate the death rate for people with underlying health conditions, then you'll probably find the death rate is a lot higher.

[FlyingJesus]

Restrictions are not about risk to yourself, never have been, and you know this. For myself I'm not that bothered - I don't WANT to catch it but I don't believe it would do me massive damage and I don't feel in danger personally. I do not however wish to be a carrier or run the risk of infecting those around me, whether I know them or not. Of course it isn't fun being stuck inside for months not knowing if I'll have a job to go back to when things start up again, but I'd really rather not be a silent killer who contributes to clogging up the hospitals by thinking that having a beer with the lads is more important than the world at large

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sectional;
FlyingJesus;

Those at risk/who feel at risk are free to shield themselves.

[FlyingJesus]

1) That's not how viruses work
2) That's insanely selfish of you

[DJ-Ains.T]

- Go into a shop without a mask? Yes - I keep out of peoples way.
- Go to a crowded pub or bar? Yes - so long as I was able to sit away from other people.
- Go to a crowded club? No
- Shake hands with a stranger? Yes - I'd use hand sanitizer straight away
- Go to a concert? No
- Get on a plane and go abroad? No

The probability of you getting covid goes up the longer you spend talking to someone and the distance you are from them. A brief conversation with someone isn't going to do any harm. Most covid is transmitted in a household setting, people spending extended periods of time with each other talking, coughing, etc.

Whilst I am fit and healthy, I have already had covid and I had a slight cough for a day and that was all... the chances of me passing it on are high. The week before I had a positive test I was in close contact with a friend, we stood in her kitchen chatting for about 20 minutes. We didn't wear masks. She unfortunately got covid. The day after I went to see my accountant, I wore a mask and was stood talking to her for about 15 minutes, she never caught covid. It does prove that a mask does work. For most people covid will just be similar to a cold or mild flu, however for some people it is a death sentence. I don't want to be accountable for indirectly killing someone. It's almost genocide to let the virus rip through a country.

[Triz]

that's a great option for people who can afford to do that, but that's not the case for most people..
My grandma is 72 and still working, she's not working because it's fun or out of boredom, but because she can't live off of the state pension, she's been shielding as much as she can but ultimately she can't afford to.

The same will apply for many vulnerable people, you're basically saying if you're vulnerable and don't have enough money in the bank to take a 12-18 month vacation, then you should be a lost cause because you're taking away my ability to go to the pub with my friends..

[DJ-Ains.T]

I would do all of them and have done some of them recently.

I'm genuinely gobsmacked that healthy people are putting their lives on hold/not seeing anyone because of a virus with a 0.3% death rate.

My aunty had a phone call the other night from the daughter of her elderly (former) neighbours, telling her that the Dad had passed away (aged 99) and the mother was now going downhill immediately afterwards. Why? Both had been incredibly active, went to Church and were always meeting friends.... but thanks to the lockdown madness, both had been deprived since February of their social routines and as a result their health had declined and he passed away. At age 99 your time is extremely limited, so he lost his life and more importantly their quality of their remaining life hiding from a virus that yes at age 99 could've killed him but then so could the flu. Or a bad cold.

My grandparents, both aged 85, have chosen to continue living their lives as normal. And I completely agree with them.

Please don't take offence to this, it's just my opinion, you have yours and I have mine...
I kind of think your grandparents are selfish, healthy people have put their lives on hold to protect the vulnerable. You then get the vulnerable taking risks whilst healthy people are sticking to the rules. Absolute madness if you ask me.

[buttons]

- Go into a shop without a mask? No. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience at best.
- Go to a crowded pub or bar? No
- Go to a crowded club? No.
- Shake hands with a stranger? No
- Go to a concert? No
- Get on a plane and go abroad No


Like Tom, this ain't about me. I'm not worried about getting COVID or paranoid about it. I can live without going to a pub and going on holiday but I couldn't live knowing myself or my family members passed COVID to my disabled brother who would be at high risk. He does self isolate already but that's not really the point, he has children that go to school, a partner that goes to the shop, we're relying on everyone else to do the right thing and stay safe so they don't pass it on to him! Even if you're in your 90's you still have that duty to care for the youth, no?

[jamiexo]

I completely agree with those saying that we don't do these things for ourselves. I wear a mask all day at work which is 8 hours, and I do not mind it one bit. I have already gotten COVID, even though I was super careful, and I gave it to my parents since I live with them. Seeing what they went through those two weeks when they were having terrible symptoms made me feel so guilty. I felt crappy as well, but it wasn't as bad as what my dad and mom went through (especially since my dad is high risk). It's the decent thing to do. By people not doing the little things (like wearing a mask in public), it's causing this problem to only escalate and not get any better. We'll be stuck with all of these executive orders longer if we don't do our part and try to make a difference. It's the little things we do that can make a big difference. But then again, you can't FORCE anyone to do something they don't want to, but it will make a difference in the long run.

The whole issue of why we are in this situation in the first place is because everyone is being reactive rather than proactive. Everyone starts to wear masks when it's illegal not to, and when cases are spiked, but we need to do these things BEFORE things get worse.

So, to sum up my answer: No, I would not do any of the things listed above. Rant over LOOL.

[-:Undertaker:-]

1) That's not how viruses work
2) That's insanely selfish of you

No, what is selfish is locking up the population and losing millions of people their jobs and homes for a virus that kills 0.3% of (very old + sick) people.

Depriving very old and sick people at the natural end of their lives, often with advanced dementia in care homes, from family and friends is selfish.


that's a great option for people who can afford to do that, but that's not the case for most people..
My grandma is 72 and still working, she's not working because it's fun or out of boredom, but because she can't live off of the state pension, she's been shielding as much as she can but ultimately she can't afford to.

The same will apply for many vulnerable people, you're basically saying if you're vulnerable and don't have enough money in the bank to take a 12-18 month vacation, then you should be a lost cause because you're taking away my ability to go to the pub with my friends..

I don't quite understand the point. While your Grandmother may not be in a great position, how that does then lead you to the conclusion that because she is in a difficult position, that millions of other - and much more healthy people - should then lose their jobs and homes for no reason?

If you argued for more support for people who want to shield and who are more at risk, fine. But suspending the lives of everyone? Madness.


Please don't take offence to this, it's just my opinion, you have yours and I have mine...
I kind of think your grandparents are selfish, healthy people have put their lives on hold to protect the vulnerable. You then get the vulnerable taking risks whilst healthy people are sticking to the rules. Absolute madness if you ask me.

Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?

Do you think their chances of reaching 90 would be significantly increased or decreased?


For most people covid will just be similar to a cold or mild flu, however for some people it is a death sentence. I don't want to be accountable for indirectly killing someone. It's almost genocide to let the virus rip through a country.

Tens of thousands of very elderly and sick people near the end of their lives die every year from flu. That's not genocide, but the natural conclusion to ones life.

The average age of the *very few* people who have died from Covid is 82.5, most of whom had existing co-morbidities. Aka they were at the end of their lives.

[FlyingJesus]

You're literally saying it's ok to kill off a few people if you want to go outside. If you don't understand virology that's fine, but don't pretend that you do, especially when you even manage to get mixed up between 3% and 0.3% when you mention the death rate

[Triz]

I don't quite understand the point. While your Grandmother may not be in a great position, how that does then lead you to the conclusion that because she is in a difficult position, that millions of other - and much more healthy people - should then lose their jobs and homes for no reason?

If you argued for more support for people who want to shield and who are more at risk, fine. But suspending the lives of everyone? Madness.


I was referring to what you said earlier with my reply

Those at risk/who feel at risk are free to shield themselves.

It's just not right to say to everyone to go about their day like nothing is wrong and let it be survival of the fittest. We as people have a moral obligation to protect as many lives as possible, and simply writing off the weak and vulnerable anytime a new disease rolls around is not the way to go. It's inhumane and unspeakable...

There are talks about what's known as "herd immunity" which is basically the act of exactly what you're saying, whereby letting the virus roam free around the globe and eventually there will be enough immune and healthy people that the virus stops spreading, however it's been confirmed that 50% of the worlds population would need to be immune for this to have any effect, not to mention to get to that stage would cost the lives of millions of people.. The only other way to achieve this figure would be through vaccinations, which is what we're working towards... besides Sweden tried this approach and it backfired, nearly half of all Sweden's covid related deaths occurred in care homes, so shielding the vulnerable clearly doesn't work...

In the US alone around 11 million people have confirmed cases, and look at the stress and chaos that it's caused hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... which in turn effects other non-related covid treatments... Imagine if we let the virus run free and didn't have a lockdown etc.. it would cripple any country, even healthy people that got it would probably still need to temporarily visit the hospital for some kind of treatment. Not to mention it would cripple any economy due to the amount of people off work due to sickness, the idea and best way to prevent both death rates and not screw over the economy is to slow down the virus as much as possible, and in turn of doing that, to save as many lives as possible, be that young or old, healthy of vulnerable.

Isn't your same argument like saying that we should be able to choose whether we pay less/no tax, as maybe you've never used the NHS, or you don't drive therefore don't need street lighting, or road signs, or pot holes fixed etc... I think the point is that we as a country and as the human race need to do what's right, and if that means I chip in an extra few quid every week to fund things like the NHS, that I may not use, then I'll be (and am) happy to do so.. I can apply the same logic to covid.. If I need to go into lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus which will save millions of lives if we all do it, then I'm happy to do so. yes it might cripple me financially, I could go into debt, but the government is setting up schemes to try and prevent this, obviously not everyone will benefit from these schemes, but the majority will, but I'd rather struggle financially than to go about my business knowing full well I could be killing hundreds of people, along with family members and friends.

I'd be scared as shit if there was another outbreak of something in like 30 years when I'm almost 60 and accepting the fact that I'm going to die from this because the government will just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, thus killing anyone without the antibodies to fight it off.

[dbgtz]

the problem with your argument sectional is undertaker would agree with not paying anything to a collective pot run and would happily see things like the nhs die off, street lights turned off, roads privatised etc. and hes basically "pro life" to anything not born then he couldnt give a fuck. youre arguing against someone who can't do maths, quotes incorrect figures, and basically says lies with things like "Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?" (exercise has been encouraged since march and even in the current "lockdown" you can still see people) and "losing millions of people their jobs and homes" (mortgage holidays are still in place and people cannot be evicted as it stands, so nobody should be losing their home). he also likes to say things like "At home, only around 30% of people in Liverpool were wearing a mask in shops." and "the mask policy is waste of time" and "Masks do not stop the spread of this virus" - all baseless claims and you can guess which place had one of the highest rates

its not worth your time

[DJ-Ains.T]

Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?

Do you think their chances of reaching 90 would be significantly increased or decreased?



Tens of thousands of very elderly and sick people near the end of their lives die every year from flu. That's not genocide, but the natural conclusion to ones life.

The average age of the *very few* people who have died from Covid is 82.5, most of whom had existing co-morbidities. Aka they were at the end of their lives.

I'd like to think that for an 85 year old person, they'd consider staying inside for what was 4 months, and then again for another 3 months until we have a vaccine. And it's not just them locked up, it's everyone else. Heck people who have been locked up will have gone out and died as well who otherwise would have been fit and healthy. You don't know what's going to happen - you could literally be struck down by a car and killed. I have elderly relatives who have all stayed indoors when asked. When the cases decreased during the summer they ventured out a little bit to restaurants but they don't go out now except for shopping and then they go at the quiet times.

Plenty of ways for an older person to keep there brain active whilst staying indoors and then they are allowed out to exercise as much as they want, so long as they do it with people they live with. It's not exactly a prison sentence.

My step father has COPD, his lungs have 30% capacity left. He is clearly at the end of his life. He isn't venturing out because he knows if he catches it he will die. He's hoping next year will be a good one... I also have an uncle who has terminal cancer. He is also staying indoors. Again, he's hoping next year will be better. The vaccine hopefully allows them to take more risks and enjoy life.

Whilst tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, we at least have a vaccine to minimize the deaths as much as we can. We don't have that with covid. Hence why if we was to let it rip it would have disastrous consequences.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're literally saying it's ok to kill off a few people if you want to go outside. If you don't understand virology that's fine, but don't pretend that you do, especially when you even manage to get mixed up between 3% and 0.3% when you mention the death rate

I don't think you read what I said. Have you even read the statistics? Those dying are over the life expectancy and already have existing co-morbidities such as dementia and immuno-deficiency problems... meaning they were at the end of their natural lifespan regardless of whether it was Covid-19 or the common flu that took them. Prior to the Coronavirus outbreak, did you wear a mask and hide away during the winter months to protect the very old and frail from the flu, which on average kills tens of thousands of people each year in this country? Well, did you? You did not, yet I would not accuse you of having some genocidal agenda against those who were at severe risk from the flu.


I was referring to what you said earlier with my reply

It's just not right to say to everyone to go about their day like nothing is wrong and let it be survival of the fittest. We as people have a moral obligation to protect as many lives as possible, and simply writing off the weak and vulnerable anytime a new disease rolls around is not the way to go. It's inhumane and unspeakable...

That all sounds very nice, but I am afraid shutting down society to give a 89 year old with existing co-morbidities such as dementia, cardiovascular history and a weak immune system *a few extra months at most* isn't noble, but foolish. An 89 year old with these conditions is already an impressive 9 years over the average life expectancy and in such poor health that death is highly likely in the short term. You cannot stop the inevitable.

And I use an 89 year old with these conditions as an example because that was my Grandad who passed away back in February from pnuemonia that most healthy people would've been able to fight off quite easily, especially with the anti-biotics he was pumped full of to aid his collapsing (and old) immune system. I also have a friend whose 89-year old Grandmother also had numerous ailments and was in declining health, who "died" from Covid-19 but who would have died within a short period regardless given the state of her health. Covid-19 was simply the opportunistic disease/infection that took her, which is what happens to many people at the end of their lives be it Covid, the common flu, pnuemonia, sepsis or some other opportunistic infection that attacks people with a collapsing immune system.


There are talks about what's known as "herd immunity" which is basically the act of exactly what you're saying, whereby letting the virus roam free around the globe and eventually there will be enough immune and healthy people that the virus stops spreading, however it's been confirmed that 50% of the worlds population would need to be immune for this to have any effect, not to mention to get to that stage would cost the lives of millions of people.. The only other way to achieve this figure would be through vaccinations, which is what we're working towards... besides Sweden tried this approach and it backfired, nearly half of all Sweden's covid related deaths occurred in care homes, so shielding the vulnerable clearly doesn't work...

The common flu kills an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 each year around the world.

I have to admit, initially I supported locking down care homes... but on reflection, even that is an absurd and inhumane policy. I was always told, given my Grandfather spent his last two years in a care home, that the average length of stay in a care home was around the 2 year mark as obviously a person who ends up in a care home is unable to look after themselves any longer due to physical or mental impairments (or both, as in our case).

Given most people in care homes are at the end of their lives, how can you justify preventing them from seeing their families and loved ones in their final months in the vain hope of a vaccine that may only come in a year or two, and which - given their state of health - is absolutely no use to them?


In the US alone around 11 million people have confirmed cases, and look at the stress and chaos that it's caused hospitals, doctors, nurses etc... which in turn effects other non-related covid treatments... Imagine if we let the virus run free and didn't have a lockdown etc.. it would cripple any country, even healthy people that got it would probably still need to temporarily visit the hospital for some kind of treatment. Not to mention it would cripple any economy due to the amount of people off work due to sickness, the idea and best way to prevent both death rates and not screw over the economy is to slow down the virus as much as possible, and in turn of doing that, to save as many lives as possible, be that young or old, healthy of vulnerable.

You admit here that you are only slowing the virus down by imposing lockdowns... so de facto are admitting that all of these measures actually do not prevent any deaths at all, all you are merely doing is spreading the deaths over a longer period of time. You're saving no lives at all by these measures - although you are driving up the amount of needless suicides, the increase in terminal cancers given it is now impossible to get a GP appointment, the cancellation of life-saving operations and the huge increase in poverty - and thus decline in quality of life for huge swathes of the population - that will follow when millions lose their jobs once Mr Sunak's magic money tree withers and dies.

The hospitals are empty and many staff report standing around twiddling their thumbs since March.


Isn't your same argument like saying that we should be able to choose whether we pay less/no tax, as maybe you've never used the NHS, or you don't drive therefore don't need street lighting, or road signs, or pot holes fixed etc... I think the point is that we as a country and as the human race need to do what's right, and if that means I chip in an extra few quid every week to fund things like the NHS, that I may not use, then I'll be (and am) happy to do so.. I can apply the same logic to covid.. If I need to go into lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus which will save millions of lives if we all do it, then I'm happy to do so. yes it might cripple me financially, I could go into debt, but the government is setting up schemes to try and prevent this, obviously not everyone will benefit from these schemes, but the majority will, but I'd rather struggle financially than to go about my business knowing full well I could be killing hundreds of people, along with family members and friends.

I've never said I am against taxation, just that money should be spent sensibly.

I do have a question though, when the economy is "crippled financially" where do you think the money for the NHS is going to come from?


I'd be scared as shit if there was another outbreak of something in like 30 years when I'm almost 60 and accepting the fact that I'm going to die from this because the government will just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, thus killing anyone without the antibodies to fight it off.

I really do think you need a sense of proportion with this.

The government's own statistics claim that the risk of dying of Covid-19 between the ages of 65-69 are 108.8/100,000 which equates to a 0.1088% mortality rate. Even this figure must be taken with a pinch of salt given the number of deaths that have been put down to Covid-19 but were actually due to other morbidities such as heart disease, dementia, vascular illnesses, cancers and so on meaning the figure is likely inflated.

For comparison, the chance of you being in a car crash over your lifetime in Britain is at 1/240 meaning a risk of 0.416%.


the problem with your argument sectional is undertaker would agree with not paying anything to a collective pot run and would happily see things like the nhs die off, street lights turned off, roads privatised etc. and hes basically "pro life" to anything not born then he couldnt give a fuck. youre arguing against someone who can't do maths, quotes incorrect figures, and basically says lies with things like "Can you tell me what you think the outcome of a 85 year old sitting inside for months with no social interaction/exercise would be?" (exercise has been encouraged since march and even in the current "lockdown" you can still see people) and "losing millions of people their jobs and homes" (mortgage holidays are still in place and people cannot be evicted as it stands, so nobody should be losing their home). he also likes to say things like "At home, only around 30% of people in Liverpool were wearing a mask in shops." and "the mask policy is waste of time" and "Masks do not stop the spread of this virus" - all baseless claims and you can guess which place had one of the highest rates

its not worth your time

It's a relief for people who've lost their businesses and jobs with mortgages to know that they'll lose their house a at a later date than now.


I'd like to think that for an 85 year old person, they'd consider staying inside for what was 4 months, and then again for another 3 months until we have a vaccine. And it's not just them locked up, it's everyone else. Heck people who have been locked up will have gone out and died as well who otherwise would have been fit and healthy. You don't know what's going to happen - you could literally be struck down by a car and killed. I have elderly relatives who have all stayed indoors when asked. When the cases decreased during the summer they ventured out a little bit to restaurants but they don't go out now except for shopping and then they go at the quiet times.

If you are 85 and stand a reasonable chance of reaching 89, then each year of your life is 25% of your life.

If I asked you to stay indoors for 25% of your probable remaining lifespan to shelter from a virus most do not even know they have, would you?


Plenty of ways for an older person to keep there brain active whilst staying indoors and then they are allowed out to exercise as much as they want, so long as they do it with people they live with. It's not exactly a prison sentence.

It really isn't. The reality is that once deprived of routine, a lot of older people will sit in front of the television.

The mental effect of being deprived of contact itself makes exercise unlikely. I know this to be the case myself and I am 28.


My step father has COPD, his lungs have 30% capacity left. He is clearly at the end of his life. He isn't venturing out because he knows if he catches it he will die. He's hoping next year will be a good one... I also have an uncle who has terminal cancer. He is also staying indoors. Again, he's hoping next year will be better. The vaccine hopefully allows them to take more risks and enjoy life.

Then that is entirely and rightly their decision to make. My grandparents have made a different decision based on their priorities and health status, and one that is not without risk. However, as Lord Sumption has said, a life without risk is not a life worth living for many people. We must all make decisions for our own circumstances and health in a free country, and not Kim Jong Hancock.


Whilst tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, we at least have a vaccine to minimize the deaths as much as we can. We don't have that with covid. Hence why if we was to let it rip it would have disastrous consequences.

Indeed, but we do not lock down society to prevent tens of thousands of flu deaths. Why?

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhV6g00GoNs


especially when you even manage to get mixed up between 3% and 0.3% when you mention the death rate

Where have you come up with this? Even going by the government's own questionable statistics brings an even lower level than 0.3%.

1,339,000 confirmed cases in Britain with 52,000 deaths mean a mortality rate of 0.003%. Which in reality is even less given there's loads of cases out there which are asymtomatic and they're slapping "Covid-19" on death certificates of people who haven't even died from the virus.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Scratch that last, got my figures wrong on Google.

Either way it is clear that actual spread is much more endemic which is why the widely touted 3% is obviously wrong.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't think you read what I said. Have you even read the statistics?

Yes that's why I know the actual numbers rather than making them up like you clearly have been. Here's a very very very very easy one that even you can read: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
To me, 1.3 million deaths and rising is not something to brush off as "oh well they were gonna die some time anyway"


Those dying are over the life expectancy and already have existing co-morbidities such as dementia and immuno-deficiency problems... meaning they were at the end of their natural lifespan regardless of whether it was Covid-19 or the common flu that took them.

You're still saying it's ok to kill people off if they *might* not have had much longer to go. Absolutely zero humanity. Not to mention that interaction between these people and the virus doesn't just affect them but everyone and everything they go near.


Prior to the Coronavirus outbreak, did you wear a mask and hide away during the winter months to protect the very old and frail from the flu, which on average kills tens of thousands of people each year in this country? Well, did you? You did not, yet I would not accuse you of having some genocidal agenda against those who were at severe risk from the flu.

Regular influenza is not really all that comparable other than being an illness that is more common in the winter months. Deaths are far far lower (even with your made up figures), and you're totally ignoring everything that comes along with corona including "long covid" symptoms which are attacking the brain itself and causing massive difficulties for the future, rather different to a lung problem that clears up. I wouldn't be bothered if we DID normalise mask wearing like they do in East Asia to be honest during regular flu outbreaks though, it's a very minor inconvenience


You're also bringing up comorbidity a lot as though it somehow invalidates the figures. This again does nothing except prove that you know nothing at all about virology or even about this specific virus - yes, comorbidities are what kills, but they are heightened dramatically by this virus which is the entire point. "Corona" itself is not claimed to be something that on its own withers an otherwise healthy person into nothingness, the whole modus operandi of the virus is to make everything else so much worse. You've done the same with the UTTER NONSENSE statement about "people who haven't even died from the virus", just showing that you understand nothing about this subject but as usual want to shout and scream and use personal anecdotes as evidence instead of widespread facts and figures. Tin hats abound.


Either way it is clear that actual spread is much more endemic which is why the widely touted 3% is obviously wrong.

Oh yeah clearrrrrrrrr right mate. You can't just guess and make shit up because you don't like the numbers, you're not Donald Trump. The official figure IS 3% whether you like it or not, and you're wilfully being wrong to push your own entirely flawed views as though they actually had credibility.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am looking forward to on my return home being hounded by the mask zealots. Luckily, one can easily get a mask-exemption card/lanyard for a small fee from notable charities online to shoo away any stasi-inclined authority figures. I will continue to live as normal and take my own risks in what was a formerly free country until this hysteria was pushed on us by scientists with dodgy models and a government with zero spine/sinister motives.

I'm shocked that I voted Conservative and ended up not even with Jeremy Corbyn, but Kim Jong Hancock who has the nerve to order me not to associate with whoever I want freely, to mandate that I wear a silly piece of cloth for propaganda purposes (we know they do not work) and whether i'll celebrate Christmas. F you.

1329578730176606211


Yes that's why I know the actual numbers rather than making them up like you clearly have been. Here's a very very very very easy one that even you can read: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
To me, 1.3 million deaths and rising is not something to brush off as "oh well they were gonna die some time anyway"

It isn't something to brush off, it is categorical fact that the vast majority of deaths from Covid-19 are those who are very old and who have existing serious health conditions. In layman's terms from a statistical point of view, the people who are next in line to die as we all must one day.


You're still saying it's ok to kill people off if they *might* not have had much longer to go. Absolutely zero humanity. Not to mention that interaction between these people and the virus doesn't just affect them but everyone and everything they go near.

I'm not proposing killing anybody off as people die all the time. Using language as though I am sending people to their deaths on trains leading to Auschwitz is very silly when talking about a natural virus that the very old and very sick are particularly prone to. Perhaps I used the wrong word with might, as these people who are passing from the disease in most cases are going to die in the short-term. It was simply a matter of whether one of the dozens of flu, a type of pnuemonia or now Covid-19 got to them first.

Doctors make this call every day in predicting a person's chances of survival/length of life left. Is that zero humanity, or just a reflection of reality?


Regular influenza is not really all that comparable other than being an illness that is more common in the winter months. Deaths are far far lower (even with your made up figures), and you're totally ignoring everything that comes along with corona including "long covid" symptoms which are attacking the brain itself and causing massive difficulties for the future, rather different to a lung problem that clears up.

We've suffered huge amounts of deaths during past flu peaks, the last one I believe around 40,000 extra deaths in 2018?

Do you propose that every winter we shut down our economy and end social interaction to prevent flu deaths?


I wouldn't be bothered if we DID normalise mask wearing like they do in East Asia to be honest during regular flu outbreaks though, it's a very minor inconvenience

Which longer term then makes us more prone in our old age years to dying from flu, having been sheltered from it when younger.


You're also bringing up comorbidity a lot as though it somehow invalidates the figures. This again does nothing except prove that you know nothing at all about virology or even about this specific virus - yes, comorbidities are what kills, but they are heightened dramatically by this virus which is the entire point. "Corona" itself is not claimed to be something that on its own withers an otherwise healthy person into nothingness, the whole modus operandi of the virus is to make everything else so much worse. You've done the same with the UTTER NONSENSE statement about "people who haven't even died from the virus", just showing that you understand nothing about this subject but as usual want to shout and scream and use personal anecdotes as evidence instead of widespread facts and figures. Tin hats abound.

A 95 year old with dementia and even slowly progressing cancer will likely die from Covid-19, sure. Do you think their death certificate should go down as "Covid-19" as the prime cause of death? Or is the reality much more nuanced than the figures we're being fed daily by this sinister government and its mouthpieces at the BBC and other media outlets? Because I am really not going to wet the bed in fright and halt my life when I see that a few hundred very elderly people who were very sick have died from a more severe form of flu. Media theatrics aside, this is a very normal annual occurance.


Oh yeah clearrrrrrrrr right mate. You can't just guess and make shit up because you don't like the numbers, you're not Donald Trump. The official figure IS 3% whether you like it or not, and you're wilfully being wrong to push your own entirely flawed views as though they actually had credibility.

Increasingly people are turning against this hysteria, which is why you are seeing an increased flouting of the draconian rules.

As the old adage goes, judge how people vote with their feet and not what they say. More and more are now flouting the absurd rules and good on them!

[dbgtz]

Which longer term then makes us more prone in our old age years to dying from flu, having been sheltered from it when younger.
https://media.giphy.com/media/l3q2K5jinAlChoCLS/giphy.gif

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://media.giphy.com/media/l3q2K5jinAlChoCLS/giphy.gif

Spanish conquest of South and Central America.

British/French/Spanish colonisation of North America.

[FlyingJesus]

it is categorical fact that the vast majority of deaths from Covid-19 are those who are very old and who have existing serious health conditions. In layman's terms from a statistical point of view, the people who are next in line to die as we all must one day.

I haven't ever said that this isn't the case, however it is not WHOLLY the case and you're still advocating just letting people die because it's inconvenient for you to have any humanity. Not everyone who is dying from this is old and frail, and not everyone over 80 is at death's door despite your anecdotes


these people who are passing from the disease in most cases are going to die in the short-term

Citation needed


We've suffered huge amounts of deaths during past flu peaks, the last one I believe around 40,000 extra deaths in 2018?

Citation needed as the actual figure is 22,000 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895233/Surveillance_Influenza_and_other_respiratory_virus es_in_the_UK_2019_to_2020_FINAL.pdf#page=54)


Which longer term then makes us more prone in our old age years to dying from flu, having been sheltered from it when younger.

Citation needed


A 95 year old with dementia and even slowly progressing cancer will likely die from Covid-19, sure.

Citation needed, because no not if we don't act like selfish animals who put a pint over someone else's life. These measures are temporary until vaccinations can bring it all down to more manageable rates, you'll still be able to go sit in a sweaty room full of sweaty people drinking sweaty beer once things settle


Do you think their death certificate should go down as "Covid-19" as the prime cause of death?

No and it isn't. You ***AGAIN*** don't seem to know what you're talking about, as figures with covid deaths absolutely do not attribute the entire death to the virus, but are shown with it being a complication

[-:Undertaker:-]

I haven't ever said that this isn't the case, however it is not WHOLLY the case and you're still advocating just letting people die because it's inconvenient for you to have any humanity. Not everyone who is dying from this is old and frail, and not everyone over 80 is at death's door despite your anecdotes

As Lord Sumption said earlier this week, if the *only* thing that matters to you is the total amount of deaths on a television screen then I can see your logic for supporting a lockdown and draconian measures. However, to those of us who do care about other things such as people being treated for cancer, the quality of life for both the very old and the young generally, the economy, people paying their mortgages, health and fitness, children being educated, people with mental health problems not being left alone to suffer and the countless other problems and activities we engage in as human beings - all of these things may not appear in scary red writing on a television screen, but let me tell you if they did and were able to measure pain and loss then it would be running into the millions everyday far ahead of this virus.


Citation needed as the actual figure is 22,000 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895233/Surveillance_Influenza_and_other_respiratory_virus es_in_the_UK_2019_to_2020_FINAL.pdf#page=54)

Would you have supported closing the economy and locking everyone up to save those 22,000 in 2018?


Citation needed, because no not if we don't act like selfish animals who put a pint over someone else's life. These measures are temporary until vaccinations can bring it all down to more manageable rates, you'll still be able to go sit in a sweaty room full of sweaty people drinking sweaty beer once things settle

A person at risk is not compelled to visit a sweaty pub with me. They are entirely free to shield and stay home if they so wish.


No and it isn't. You ***AGAIN*** don't seem to know what you're talking about, as figures with covid deaths absolutely do not attribute the entire death to the virus, but are shown with it being a complication

There are countless people coming out and saying how their elderly and very sick relatives are having Covid-19 put down when the reality is different.

[dbgtz]

Spanish conquest of South and Central America.

British/French/Spanish colonisation of North America.
you do understand the flu has a lot of strains and mutates frequently, yes?

[-:Undertaker:-]

you do understand the flu has a lot of strains and mutates frequently, yes?

Indeed, which is why it is important to actually catch it to build a good immune response against various strains instead of trying to hide from it. If you cut yourself off from catching colds and flus for 50 years, and then caught a strain in later life it would likely bear little relationship to those you caught 50 years ago, meaning it would hit you much harder than it would have done - especially as you'll be in old age then. Of course, it is still no guarantee of protection as your immune system may be collapsing due to other co-morbidities but the same will apply to any vaccine they come up with - it will not save the very old who are on death's door. As I stated earlier, my grandfather passed from pnuemonia despite having had it a few times before along with being pumped full of strong anti-biotics, but it never and couldn't save him because his immune system was collapsing because of his age and general state of health. At 89 and a good life, it was just time to go.

In the same way we expose children, often purposely, to chickenpox to prevent the virus in later life being much more serious. Whilst in India and other places, I have purposely eaten in dirty restaurants in the knowledge I will likely be slightly sick - but that it will improve my immune system over time. Yes, I am taking a risk with my health in that moment but longer term it will probably toughen my immune system in the same way Indians do not get "Delhi belly". I knowingly take risks when gardening, I dig with my bare hands if I can as opposed to a shovel or trowel, even if I have cut myself and have a bleeding cut on my hands I continue - doing so boosts my immune system, but at a risk.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah none of that is scientifically or medically accurate.

Catching one strain of flu will do nothing at all for you in terms of protection for future mutations of a virus. You would in fact be in a far better shape to fight off flu if you hadn't recently suffered it, as your body would be in good form as opposed to being beaten down. Chicken pox is entirely different and does not mutate - you are presumably referring to the worse condition in adulthood known as shingles, which is caused by the exact same virus (VZV) and has nothing at all to do with how influenza works. Also giving yourself food poisoning and tetanus are not good plans.


If you don't understand virology that's fine, but don't pretend that you do

Well said that chap

[-:Undertaker:-]

Two questions FlyingJesus;

1. Should we have locked down to prevent the deaths of 22,000 old and very vulnerable from flu back in 2018?

2. Is it only the scary death count on BBC news that comes into the equation, or do all the job losses/mental strain/undiagnosed illnesses matter at all?

[Seatherny]

Anyone who refuses to wear a mask or thinks its all fake is an absolute idiot. I have no words to properly describe how brain dead these people are.

If a surgeon can wear a mask for 14 hours to save someone's life, so can you.

Wear a mask and stop risking other people's lives. And grow up. You can afford to not get pissed in a pub for a year, it won't kill you.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Anyone who refuses to wear a mask or thinks its all fake is an absolute idiot. I have no words to properly describe how brain dead these people are.

If a surgeon can wear a mask for 14 hours to save someone's life, so can you.

Surgeons don't always wear masks, and when they do wear masks it has nothing to do with saving lives/airborne viruses but to prevent potential blood splatter.

Why are you not wearing goggles all day given viruses can be transferred through your eyes? If swimmers can wear them SO CAN YOU.


Wear a mask and stop risking other people's lives. And grow up.

No. Neither you, Kim Jong Hancock or Chris Witless can order people what to wear.

If your mask works - as you seem to believe despite no evidence they make any difference - then you're protected aren't you, regardless of what I do.

Here's a little experiment you can do yourself. Put your mask on, and spray some aftershave/perfume/air freshener in the room and then proceed to walk through it. Can you smell the aroma? Well, if you can then your mask doesn't work against huge droplets like that so why you think it protects you from tiny virus particles I have no idea. Still, if it makes you happy or safe to wear one then I have no problem whatsoever with you wearing one. You have my permission.


You can afford to not get pissed in a pub for a year, it won't kill you.


"what do you mean you don’t want to stay in your house for the rest of your life??"


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En6j8-dXcAQdACc?format=jpg&name=small

[FlyingJesus]

Oh look Dan's spewing lies that he knows are lies again. NO, wearing a mask is not for the wearer's protection as you well know because you've been told time after time. Stop being flat out wrong and calling it an opinion, it's dishonest and dangerous and I've told you before I won't have it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh look Dan's spewing lies that he knows are lies again. NO, wearing a mask is not for the wearer's protection as you well know because you've been told time after time.

I'm puzzled by your claim it isn't for the wearers protection. Are you claiming a mask only works one way?

So if you turn the mask around it'll work the other way?


Stop being flat out wrong and calling it an opinion, it's dishonest and dangerous and I've told you before I won't have it

I'm just quoting what the government itself said in June.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpOWI3QXcAMVwRl?format=jpg&name=900x900

[FlyingJesus]

I'm not sure if you're being wrong on purpose (dangerous and very worrying behaviour) or just haven't bothered to actually research anything before shouting about it and acting like you do know which is equally dangerous. In any case no it isn't about them working one way, it's about how exhaling is a forceful movement that sprays moisture and germs everywhere, and if you can stop most of that from getting out then there is less of it in the air around everyone. Nobody claims that a regular mask stops everything coming in or out (and still the bigger risk is surfaces because somehow in 2020 there are still adults who need to be told to wash their hands), but if you have fewer parts of the air being filled with a virus then fewer people CAN catch it by breathing it in and there are fewer places for it to disperse to. It's not exactly difficult science here

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure if you're being wrong on purpose (dangerous and very worrying behaviour) or just haven't bothered to actually research anything before shouting about it and acting like you do know which is equally dangerous. In any case no it isn't about them working one way, it's about how exhaling is a forceful movement that sprays moisture and germs everywhere, and if you can stop most of that from getting out then there is less of it in the air around everyone. Nobody claims that a regular mask stops everything coming in or out (and still the bigger risk is surfaces because somehow in 2020 there are still adults who need to be told to wash their hands), but if you have fewer parts of the air being filled with a virus then fewer people CAN catch it by breathing it in and there are fewer places for it to disperse to. It's not exactly difficult science here

The government stated the opposite as above, and the Dutch study also said there was barely any noticeable difference between both. Any benefit they have is based on very shaky evidence indeed, and even then there's arguments that masks actually spread diseases given people are then touching/adjusting their masks and then touching surfaces. I see it everyday as a teacher, students adjusting uncomfortable damp masks which is spreading whatever is inside their nose/mouth onto the tables and door handles.

I have no issue with people wearing masks if they wish. However, I will not be told hysterical emotional nonsense that has plagued this entire debate that I am in some way "killing grandma" by refusing to wear a mask when the evidence on masks is very sketchy as the government itself admitted and as we've seen with case studies of countries that enforced masks vs those who haven't. In a free society, the government enforcing masks/who I can even meet up/closing businesses on spurious grounds is an unprecedented step in state power and one I find objectionable.


You can afford to not get pissed in a pub for a year, it won't kill you.

I forgot to say with this, I am/have been suffering major depression for the past 6 months and have struggled to get out of bed everyday, staying in on weekends. My concern isn't because I "want a pint with the lads" as I haven't done that in a long time given my current mental state, my concern over this entire thing is the millions of cancer diagnosis that aren't taking place, heart diseases, old people abandoned in care homes, businesses being thrown under the bus, mental illness, the assault on civil liberties - the list of damage from this that isn't being shown on the news but which seems to me to be far more damaging than this virus itself.

You may disagree with that view, and that is fine. But do not class us who have concerns with this as being selfish because there is more to life than Covid-19.

[Seatherny]

Surgeons don't always wear masks, and when they do wear masks it has nothing to do with saving lives/airborne viruses but to prevent potential blood splatter.

Why are you not wearing goggles all day given viruses can be transferred through your eyes? If swimmers can wear them SO CAN YOU.

Are you purposely being stupid? Just for the fake of "opposing"? Surgeous wear mask so they dont accidentally spit etc on the patient. During surgery, all surgeons wear a mask.

If everyone wears a mask, any split etc stays within the mask, so no it will not go in other peoples eyes.

I think Dan you were mistaken, looking at someone doesn't transmit the virus, hence googles are not required. I know following simple rules can be so confusing for some people, and I totally understand people get confused as to how covid transmits, but it does not transmit via zoom calls, it does not transmit by looking at someone, and it does not transmit by looking up at the sun. So you do not need googles. Hope I have saved you some money Dan. You are very welcome.




No. Neither you, Kim Jong Hancock or Chris Witless can order people what to wear.

If your mask works - as you seem to believe despite no evidence they make any difference - then you're protected aren't you, regardless of what I do.

Here's a little experiment you can do yourself. Put your mask on, and spray some aftershave/perfume/air freshener in the room and then proceed to walk through it. Can you smell the aroma? Well, if you can then your mask doesn't work against huge droplets like that so why you think it protects you from tiny virus particles I have no idea. Still, if it makes you happy or safe to wear one then I have no problem whatsoever with you wearing one. You have my permission.




"what do you mean you don’t want to stay in your house for the rest of your life??"


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En6j8-dXcAQdACc?format=jpg&name=small

IT REDUCES THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION. GET THAT IN YOUR SMALL HEAD. IT IS DUE TO IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THE VIRUS IS SPREADING, AS YOU THINK THESE MASKS ETC ARE ALL USELESS. DO YOU HAVE A PHD IN SCIENCE? NO. DO YOU KNOW MORE THAN EVERY LEADING SCIENTIST? NO. THEN STOP SPREADING CRAP ONLINE. IDIOTS READ WHAT YOU POST, THEY THEN GET CONFUSED. REFUSE TO WEAR A MASK. AND DUE TO THESE STUPID ASS POSTS, THE VIRUS SPREADS MORE.

IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO BE THIS BLOODY STUPID.

[Seatherny]

I forgot to say with this, I am/have been suffering major depression for the past 6 months and have struggled to get out of bed everyday, staying in on weekends. My concern isn't because I "want a pint with the lads" as I haven't done that in a long time given my current mental state, my concern over this entire thing is the millions of cancer diagnosis that aren't taking place, heart diseases, old people abandoned in care homes, businesses being thrown under the bus, mental illness, the assault on civil liberties - the list of damage from this that isn't being shown on the news but which seems to me to be far more damaging than this virus itself.

You may disagree with that view, and that is fine. But do not class us who have concerns with this as being selfish because there is more to life than Covid-19.

Then stop making dumb comments which risks causing some people not to follow government guidance which is there to reduce the spread of COVID. Instead, your posts are doing the opposite of what you CLAIM you want, which is end COVID quickly so you can get out and all the treatments can resume.

But na, idiots keep making dumb ass posts which means people get confused, they don't follow guidance, virus spreads faster.

How hard is it to wear a mask, use santiser, wash your hands, keep a safe distance? If everyone did it, virus would reduce. But noooooo, it is SO DIFFICULT to follow some basic things.

"There is more to life than COVID-19" .... yeah say that to the families of deceased health officials. If they do not beat you up, you are lucky.

- - - Updated - - -

There is being stupid, and there is being brain dead. Clearly some people here are brain dead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you purposely being stupid? Just for the fake of "opposing"? Surgeous wear mask so they dont accidentally spit etc on the patient. During surgery, all surgeons wear a mask.

If everyone wears a mask, any split etc stays within the mask, so no it will not go in other peoples eyes.

Ridiculous. I'm not performing surgery nor am I talking into an open wound.


I think Dan you were mistaken, looking at someone doesn't transmit the virus, hence googles are not required. I know following simple rules can be so confusing for some people, and I totally understand people get confused as to how covid transmits, but it does not transmit via zoom calls, it does not transmit by looking at someone, and it does not transmit by looking up at the sun. So you do not need googles. Hope I have saved you some money Dan. You are very welcome.

Viruses can be transmitted via your eyes. So I will ask again: why are you not wearing goggles?


IT REDUCES THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION. GET THAT IN YOUR SMALL HEAD. IT IS DUE TO IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THE VIRUS IS SPREADING, AS YOU THINK THESE MASKS ETC ARE ALL USELESS. DO YOU HAVE A PHD IN SCIENCE? NO. DO YOU KNOW MORE THAN EVERY LEADING SCIENTIST? NO. THEN STOP SPREADING CRAP ONLINE. IDIOTS READ WHAT YOU POST, THEY THEN GET CONFUSED. REFUSE TO WEAR A MASK. AND DUE TO THESE STUPID ASS POSTS, THE VIRUS SPREADS MORE.

IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO BE THIS BLOODY STUPID.

The scientists and government said masks don't work in June.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpOWI3QXcAMVwRl?format=jpg&name=900x900


Then stop making dumb comments which risks causing some people not to follow government guidance which is there to reduce the spread of COVID. Instead, your posts are doing the opposite of what you CLAIM you want, which is end COVID quickly so you can get out and all the treatments can resume.

But na, idiots keep making dumb ass posts which means people get confused, they don't follow guidance, virus spreads faster.

How hard is it to wear a mask, use santiser, wash your hands, keep a safe distance? If everyone did it, virus would reduce. But noooooo, it is SO DIFFICULT to follow some basic things.

There is no "ending" endemic viruses.

Spain have followed draconian rules like you want, and infact locked down completely back in March and the virus is back to square one.

How long would you be prepared to close down the country - with the suicides, job losses, loneliness and cancers - for in regards to this virus?


"There is more to life than COVID-19" .... yeah say that to the families of deceased health officials. If they do not beat you up, you are lucky.

Did you wear a mask from birth to stop the transmission of the common flu which kills tens of thousands each year?

[dbgtz]

heres a government paper suggesting facemasks work in april 2020 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delve-report-on-face-masks-for-the-general-public-21-april-2020
WHO discussing use of the mask on June 3rd, generally advising for it https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

maybe dont just trust the government which on wednesday said christmas wouldnt be cancelled, who then go on to cancel it

i literally dont even understand this issue with masks. i can understand not liking lockdowns etc. but its a big of fabric on your face like jesus christ calm down

[-:Undertaker:-]

heres a government paper suggesting facemasks work in april 2020 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delve-report-on-face-masks-for-the-general-public-21-april-2020
WHO discussing use of the mask on June 3rd, generally advising for it https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

maybe dont just trust the government which on wednesday said christmas wouldnt be cancelled, who then go on to cancel it

i literally dont even understand this issue with masks. i can understand not liking lockdowns etc. but its a big of fabric on your face like jesus christ calm down

It is not that I am against guidance, people should be fully entitled to follow government guidance on this issue.

My gripe is with mandatory rules. Although parliament is sovereign, I have always believed that parliament should behave in a manner in which is in the spirit of personal responsibility. In my view, the rules introduced by this government have overstepped the mark of what is acceptable in a free society and should be resisted. I cannot think of a government in centuries who have decided to impose such draconian rules - despite much more dire straits.

I think as you yourself have pointed out, the government/its scientists really do not have a clue. I agree. Therefore, it ought to be up to the individual to decide.

[dbgtz]

i never said the scientists didnt have a clue, i disproved your claim that scientists said masks dont work back in june. even that document you quote still says it may work to protect others

[Seatherny]

Ridiculous. I'm not performing surgery nor am I talking into an open wound.

No, you are potentially spreading a dangerous virus which is spreading extremely fast. It is the same as talking into an open wound.




Viruses can be transmitted via your eyes. So I will ask again: why are you not wearing goggles?

I ask again, are you purposely trying to be stupid?




The scientists and government said masks don't work in June.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpOWI3QXcAMVwRl?format=jpg&name=900x900

They said masks DO work.




There is no "ending" endemic viruses.

Spain have followed draconian rules like you want, and infact locked down completely back in March and the virus is back to square one.

How long would you be prepared to close down the country - with the suicides, job losses, loneliness and cancers - for in regards to this virus?

You know why, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO FOLLOW GUIDANCE. If everyone followed the guidance and washed/sanitised their hands, the virus spread would drastically slow down.



Did you wear a mask from birth to stop the transmission of the common flu which kills tens of thousands each year?
COVID kills more people and is not a seasonal flu.

This is my last reply to you on this topic. Either you are too stupid to understand basic facts, or you are purposely being stupid. Either way, if people liked you grew a brain or used some common sense, there would be less people committing suicide, less job losses, and the world would be much better.

[Seatherny]

And to add, my business benefits from a high death rate, yet I am here trying to slow the death rate down. Because life matters more than money.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i never said the scientists didnt have a clue, i disproved your claim that scientists said masks dont work back in june. even that document you quote still says it may work to protect others

Here my evidence is in video form that they said on numerous occasions masks do not work.

1340738177817055235


No, you are potentially spreading a dangerous virus which is spreading extremely fast. It is the same as talking into an open wound.

I was potentially spreading a dangerous virus to those with co-morbidities (the common flu) whenever I lived my life from 1992 to 2020.

I did not stop living my life, nor did you.


I ask again, are you purposely trying to be stupid?

Why will you not answer my very simple question?

If the virus is as dangerous as you seem to believe, why will you not shield your eyes and wear goggles for protection?


They said masks DO work.

They've said a lot of things haven't they, each more stupid and contradictory than the last (see video above).

You are free to take their advice - and I am free not to.


You know why, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO FOLLOW GUIDANCE. If everyone followed the guidance and washed/sanitised their hands, the virus spread would drastically slow down.

How handy, a policy which no matter how many times it fails (which it has) you can simply blame the public.

You are aware that.... for a policy to be sensible, it actually has to be workable?


COVID kills more people and is not a seasonal flu.

It does kill more people but not anything on the scale like you are painting.


This is my last reply to you on this topic. Either you are too stupid to understand basic facts, or you are purposely being stupid. Either way, if people liked you grew a brain or used some common sense, there would be less people committing suicide, less job losses, and the world would be much better.

Can you tell me how many terminal cancer diagnosis, suicides, heart attacks you think will be worth delaying this virus? Quantify it for me.

[GoldenMerc]

Dan, this is honestly the dumbest shit I've ever seen you write.

I don't think I ever imagined siding with Flyingjesus, but fucking hell, get a grip. I don't like wearing a mask, I don't think anyone does, but I realise that this virus is no longer just protecting our family (older generation) it's also protecting us, no one I know has died from covid, but both my parents nearly ended up in hospital with it - No underlying health issues.

What you're saying is dangerous, and especially as younger kids use this forum, its pretty fucking stupid to be telling people not to wear a mask.

[Triz]

Thread closed because there's no more discussion to be had here.
The WHO have said that masks are a "key measure to suppress transmission and save lives" and we suggest our members follow their government and country rules or mandates accordingly. Learn more (https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-masks)