On Fri, 1 May 2020 13:45:55 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
[snip]

Yet if we truly want herd immunity we want those young and fit to go out
and mingle.

Only when we're above the 60-70% infection rate will the infection rate
be low enough to die out.

I can remember my mum talking about 'measles parties' in the 1920s or
1930s, pre-vaccination. If one child caught measles, parents of
others would try to infect their children too. The argument was (as
now?) that the disease was far less serious in children that adults.

On 03/05/2020 15:24:33, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route would
kill off Tory voters. That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see why
Labour are keeping quiet about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to
mingle the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail the
only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory house
arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the
population they will have more say. Perhaps their state pensions should
be cut to 80% too.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

but it's not an option.

Currently not an option for anyone because of the NHS and the numbers
they can cope with. As the lock-down becomes less draconian, it
will/should become a matter of choice.

On 03/05/2020 15:25:56, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 1 May 2020 13:45:55 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
[snip]

Yet if we truly want herd immunity we want those young and fit to go out
and mingle.

Only when we're above the 60-70% infection rate will the infection rate
be low enough to die out.

I can remember my mum talking about 'measles parties' in the 1920s or
1930s, pre-vaccination. If one child caught measles, parents of
others would try to infect their children too. The argument was (as
now?) that the disease was far less serious in children that adults.

With the advent of vaccination for measles I haven't heard of measles
parties, however in a similar vein:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party

In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 15:24:33, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route
would
kill off Tory voters. That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see
why Labour are keeping quiet about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to
mingle the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail the
only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory house
arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the
population they will have more say. Perhaps their state pensions
should be cut to 80% too.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

but it's not an option.

Currently not an option for anyone because of the NHS and the numbers
they can cope with. As the lock-down becomes less draconian, it
will/should become a matter of choice.

Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/05/2020 17:21, charles wrote:
Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.

Yes,you do.



--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 03/05/2020 17:21:20, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 15:24:33, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route
would
kill off Tory voters. That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see
why Labour are keeping quiet about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to
mingle the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail the
only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory house
arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the
population they will have more say. Perhaps their state pensions
should be cut to 80% too.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

but it's not an option.

Currently not an option for anyone because of the NHS and the numbers
they can cope with. As the lock-down becomes less draconian, it
will/should become a matter of choice.

Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.

Is this a choice you've made? You say "don't" rather than "can't".

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not
work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will become
corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as long as
the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we will have a
trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in Sweden
is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be nominally the
same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route would
kill off Tory voters.
That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see why Labour are keeping quiet
about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to mingle
the Tories might have a more certain future.

They already have a certain future with that fool Labour has ended up with.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route would
kill off Tory voters.
That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see why Labour are keeping quiet
about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to mingle
the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail the
only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory house
arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the population
they will have more say.

How the hell do you work that out ?

Perhaps their state pensions should be cut to 80% too.

Even sillier than you usually manage and thats saying something.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

Correct.

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2020 23:10:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with Covid is better as time goes on?

Nope, that a lockdown produces far fewer corpses than herd immunity.

Does the virus weaken over time?

That isnt known yet. SARS did, but the spanish flu got worse over time.

There is a theory that the virus does weaken
with time as a result of mutation.

Spanish flu didn't.

It goes like this: the virus needs a host in which to live.
The most virulent strains of the virus will kill the host and thus
themselves while the less virulent strains will be able to survive -
and spread - more easily. Over time the less virulent strains will
dominate.

Didn't work like that with the spanish flu and it was much more
virulent than this one, it could quite literally kill in hours.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 04:47:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Mon, 4 May 2020 05:04:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Mon, 4 May 2020 04:49:32 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Mon, 4 May 2020 05:10:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

05:10 already? LOL Is it getting bright outside already, you senile
sociopathic trolling piece of ****?

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 03/05/2020 13:49, Andrew wrote:
Only 19 beds in the London Nightingale hospital have been used.

I believe they are now up to 31.

Not that that makes me feel much better about it.

Andy

On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not
work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will become
corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as long
as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or just
the deaths up to now?

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we will
have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

Clearly you don't have a clue. I thought you were better than this.

On 03/05/2020 20:10:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2020 23:10:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with Covid is better as time goes on?

Nope, that a lockdown produces far fewer corpses than herd immunity.

Does the virus weaken over time?

That isnt known yet. SARS did, but the spanish flu got worse over time.

Do you mean the virus mutated into a lesser form, or that the inferction
rate was sufficiently low not to propagate?


There is a theory that the virus does weaken
with time as a result of mutation.

Spanish flu didn't.

With a high final death toll.

It goes like this: the virus needs a host in which to live.
The most virulent strains of the virus will kill the host and thus
themselves while the less virulent strains will be able to survive -
and spread - more easily.Â* Over time the less virulent strains will
dominate.

Didn't work like that with the spanish flu and it was much more
virulent than this one, it could quite literally kill in hours.

There is no evidence to say it is more virulent. If you have any
evidence please provide a link.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 20:10:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2020 23:10:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with Covid is better as time goes on?

Nope, that a lockdown produces far fewer corpses than herd immunity.

Does the virus weaken over time?

That isnt known yet. SARS did, but the spanish flu got worse over time.

Do you mean the virus mutated into a lesser form,

With SARS, yep.

or that the inferction rate was sufficiently low not to propagate?

Nope.

There is a theory that the virus does weaken
with time as a result of mutation.

Spanish flu didn't.

With a high final death toll.

It goes like this: the virus needs a host in which to live.
The most virulent strains of the virus will kill the host and thus
themselves while the less virulent strains will be able to survive -
and spread - more easily. Over time the less virulent strains will
dominate.

Didn't work like that with the spanish flu and it was much more
virulent than this one, it could quite literally kill in hours.

There is no evidence to say it is more virulent.

Yes there is with the death within hours.
That means that it couldnt be passed on to
anything like as many before it killed the host.

If you have any evidence please provide a link.

Dont need a link on the question of whether it could kill in hours.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not
work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will become
corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as long as
the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or just the
deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we will have
a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

Clearly you don't have a clue. I thought you were better than this.

Pathetic.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 07:21:00 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


07:21??? Are people outside going to work already, senile troll? While YOU
have been trolling ALL night long and will be trolling ALL day long, yet
again, you useless 86-year-old cretin? Why don't you euthanize yourself?

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Mon, 4 May 2020 07:17:14 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will
not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're infected
with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will become
corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as long
as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or just
the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

That's a bit like saying Italy's death rate will be higher as a
proportion of the population simply because their death rate was
initially higher.

If you can think for one moment what you are actually saying you will
understand it is patent nonsense.
Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we will
have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Lost argument syndrome. Your final acceptance you've been beat.

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

Clearly you don't have a clue. I thought you were better than this.

Pathetic.

Try looking in a mirror, what you see is a pathetic loser who can't
stand losing an argument, even when he knows he's wrong.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not
work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're infected
with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will become
corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as long
as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or just
the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the death rate due to the virus per million.

That's a bit like saying Italy's death rate will be higher as a proportion
of the population simply because their death rate was initially higher.

Nothing like in fact.

If you can think for one moment what you are actually saying you will
understand it is patent nonsense.

Pity about the evidence.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we will
have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Lost argument syndrome. Your final acceptance you've been beat.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

Clearly you don't have a clue. I thought you were better than this.

Pathetic.

Try looking in a mirror, what you see is a pathetic loser who can't stand
losing an argument, even when he knows he's wrong.

Pathetic.

On 04/05/2020 00:14:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will
not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will
become corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with
other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as
long as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or
just the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the death rate due to the virus per million.

A rate implies so many a day or a month. We are talking about the final
death toll. Perhaps you're getting confused?

That's a bit like saying Italy's death rate will be higher as a
proportion of the population simply because their death rate was
initially higher.

Nothing like in fact.

Are you saying the final death toll is independent of the current or
past death rate?

If you can think for one moment what you are actually saying you will
understand it is patent nonsense.

Pity about the evidence.

Quite, there is none.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we
will have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Lost argument syndrome. Your final acceptance you've been beat.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

And you seem unable to put forward coherent facts, resorting to abuse
every time you lose an argument.

and not the final number,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Finally acceptance of a lost argument.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Pathetic.

Clearly you don't have a clue. I thought you were better than this.

Pathetic.

Try looking in a mirror, what you see is a pathetic loser who can't
stand losing an argument, even when he knows he's wrong.

Pathetic.

Yes, it probably is.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2020 00:14:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will
not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're infected
with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over
time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will become
corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with
other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as long
as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or just
the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the death rate due to the virus per million.

A rate implies so many a day or a month.

Or per million of the population.

We are talking about the final death toll.

No that evidence of the result sweden has got isnt.

Perhaps you're getting confused?

Nope, you are one the word rate alone.

That's a bit like saying Italy's death rate will be higher as a
proportion of the population simply because their death rate was
initially higher.

Nothing like in fact.

Are you saying the final death toll is independent of the current or past
death rate?

Corse not. I am saying what I said.

If you can think for one moment what you are actually saying you will
understand it is patent nonsense.

Pity about the evidence.

Quite, there is none.

Corse there is evidence of the death rate per million.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we will
have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate in
Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will be
nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

reams of your pathetic attempt at insults any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On 04/05/2020 06:20:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2020 00:14:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it
will not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer
corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over
time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will
become corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with
other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as
long as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or
just the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the death rate due to the virus per million.

A rate implies so many a day or a month.

Or per million of the population.

No.
rate: A magnitude or frequency relative to a timeÂ*unit

It' seems your whole argument is based on a misunderstanding of basic
English. Best stop now.

We are talking about the final death toll.

No that evidence of the result sweden has got isnt.

What result, the number of deaths so far, or the death rate? Have you
forgotten what it is you're trying to argue?

Perhaps you're getting confused?

Nope, you are one the word rate alone.

And you are confusing the death rate with the final death toll, thinking
they are they same.

That's a bit like saying Italy's death rate will be higher as a
proportion of the population simply because their death rate was
initially higher.

Nothing like in fact.

Are you saying the final death toll is independent of the current or
past death rate?

Corse not. I am saying what I said.

Which if you repeated here would show you now contradicting yourself.

If you can think for one moment what you are actually saying you
will understand it is patent nonsense.

Pity about the evidence.

Quite, there is none.

Corse there is evidence of the death rate per million.

Once again you go by rate and not the overall final number. The death
rate is determined by the degree of lock-down. The final death toll is
dependent on the rate x duration of epidemic.

Perhaps Sweden get their deaths over and done with, whereas we
will have a trickle of deaths for a much longer time.

Thats not what happens with care homes etc
which are the main place you get the most deaths.

Quite, what has got to do with the final death total?

That was a comment about your trickle line.

Once again you are confusing a death rate, where the death rate
in Sweden is higher, but where the overall number of deaths will
be nominally the same.

No they are nor and I'm not confusing anything.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to
date,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

reams of your pathetic attempt at insults any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Usual sign of lost argument.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2020 06:20:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2020 00:14:47, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 22:21:00, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 19:47:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2020 01:53:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2020 23:48:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will
not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer
corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with
Covid is better as time goes on? Does the virus weaken over
time?

Or are you confusing a death rate with an absolute number of
deaths?

If you assume 1% will die from an infection then 1% will
become corpses.

But perhaps rather more than 1%, and an excess of people with
other
serious illnesses, if the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Agreed and that is the point. The lock down can be relaxed as
long as the demand doesn't overwhelm hospitals.

Its not just overwhelmed hospitals, plenty die of this
virus even when admitted to a not overwhelmed hospital.

Swedish hospitals have not been overwhelmed and they
have had twice as many killed by this virus because they
were stupid enough to not have a lockdown.

It will be interesting to see the final figures.

Its unlikely to be different with the final figures.

Please explain, do you mean the same number of deaths overall, or
just the deaths up to now?

That the death rate is twice or more than in adjacent
scandinavian countrys will still be true with the final figures.

That claim is made without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is the death rate due to the virus per million.

A rate implies so many a day or a month.

Or per million of the population.

No.

Yep.

rate: A magnitude or frequency relative to a time unit

Pity about
https://www.google.com/search?q=deat...on+coronavirus

It' seems your whole argument is based on a misunderstanding of basic
English.

Doesnt matter if you call it death rate per million or
death per million, the number proves that not going
for a lockdown in Sweden has produced a MUCH worse
result than in the other scandinavian countrys, ****wit.

Best stop now.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

We are talking about the final death toll.

No that evidence of the result sweden has got isnt.

What result, the number of deaths so far, or the death rate?

The number of deaths per million seen right now.

Have you forgotten what it is you're trying to argue?

Nope.

Perhaps you're getting confused?

Nope, you are with the word rate alone.

And you are confusing the death rate with the final death toll, thinking
they are they same.

I am doing nothing of the sort.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:14:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Mon, 4 May 2020 19:15:23 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The problem with all armchair theorists is that they think they
understand a lot more than they actually do.

Matthew 7:3

#Paul

On 03/05/2020 21:05, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/05/2020 13:49, Andrew wrote:
Only 19 beds in the London Nightingale hospital have been used.

I believe they are now up to 31.

Not that that makes me feel much better about it.

Andy

And just now I heard that they are 'decommissioning' it and moving
the patients to other NHS establishments, where, as a result of
the publics over-reaction (not attending clinics or A&E even
for potentially serious problems) there are a considerable
number of empty beds available.

Thete are 9 of these temporary hospitals. There is even
one inside the Wales millenium stadium. That's not going to do
the grass much good.

On 03/05/2020 21:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 20:10:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2020 23:10:05 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 02/05/2020 21:25:06, Rod Speed wrote:
Tricky Dicky wrote

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the
governments scientific advisors since the beginning
of lockdown

Yes.

which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not work.

Nope, that a lockdown works much better with far fewer corpses.

Are you trying to say that the probability once you're
infected with Covid is better as time goes on?

Nope, that a lockdown produces far fewer corpses than herd immunity.

Does the virus weaken over time?

That isnt known yet. SARS did, but the spanish flu got worse over time.

Do you mean the virus mutated into a lesser form, or that the inferction
rate was sufficiently low not to propagate?


I thought the BBC documentary said it mutated after the first wave and
the mutation first appeared in Spain. Hence the name.


There is a theory that the virus does weaken
with time as a result of mutation.

Spanish flu didn't.

With a high final death toll.

It goes like this: the virus needs a host in which to live.
The most virulent strains of the virus will kill the host and thus
themselves while the less virulent strains will be able to survive -
and spread - more easily.Â* Over time the less virulent strains will
dominate.

Didn't work like that with the spanish flu and it was much more
virulent than this one, it could quite literally kill in hours.

There is no evidence to say it is more virulent. If you have any
evidence please provide a link.

On 03/05/2020 17:21, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 15:24:33, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route
would
kill off Tory voters. That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see
why Labour are keeping quiet about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to
mingle the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail the
only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory house
arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the
population they will have more say. Perhaps their state pensions
should be cut to 80% too.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

but it's not an option.

Currently not an option for anyone because of the NHS and the numbers
they can cope with. As the lock-down becomes less draconian, it
will/should become a matter of choice.

Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.


Why not ?. There are plenty of stories of 94-yo hale and hearty types
leaving hospital after a bout of ?C19, along with stories of far younger
people not surviving.

Where you live, I would say the chances of you coming into contact
with it were slim 5 weeks ago, and virtually nil now.

I thought the BBC documentary said it mutated after the first wave and
the mutation first appeared in Spain. Hence the name.

According to Wikipedia Spanish flu was already rampant before the armistice and news of it was censored so as not to affect moral. As Spain was not a protagonist their press was not subject to censorship and was able to report it fully so it appeared to be just affecting Spain, hence the label.

Richard

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 03/05/2020 21:05, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/05/2020 13:49, Andrew wrote:
Only 19 beds in the London Nightingale hospital have been used.

I believe they are now up to 31.

Not that that makes me feel much better about it.

Andy

And just now I heard that they are 'decommissioning' it and moving
the patients to other NHS establishments, where, as a result of
the publics over-reaction (not attending clinics or A&E even
for potentially serious problems) there are a considerable
number of empty beds available.

Thete are 9 of these temporary hospitals. There is even
one inside the Wales millenium stadium. That's not going to do
the grass much good.

If it's anything like the AMEX Stadium in Brighton, there will be plenty of
condrence/meeting rooms inside.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 03/05/2020 17:21, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 15:24:33, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route
would
kill off Tory voters. That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see
why Labour are keeping quiet about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to
mingle the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail
the only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory
house arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the
population they will have more say. Perhaps their state pensions
should be cut to 80% too.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

but it's not an option.

Currently not an option for anyone because of the NHS and the numbers
they can cope with. As the lock-down becomes less draconian, it
will/should become a matter of choice.

Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.


Why not ?.

Why not ?


because tbe over 70s have been specifically been banned from doing so. And
this was a week before the general lockdown.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

charles wrote:

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 03/05/2020 17:21, charles wrote:



Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.


Why not ?.

Why not ?


because tbe over 70s have been specifically been banned from doing so. And
this was a week before the general lockdown.

No they haven't. Only those especially vulnerable due to chronic
disease at any age. Mind you, if you can cope with staying in this is
the safest policy.

--

Roger Hayter

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:
charles wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:
On 03/05/2020 17:21, charles wrote:



Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting
essential supplies. We don't.


Why not ?.

Why not ?


because tbe over 70s have been specifically been banned from doing so.
And this was a week before the general lockdown.

No they haven't. Only those especially vulnerable due to chronic disease
at any age. Mind you, if you can cope with staying in this is the safest
policy.

The latest Government paper says over 70s regardless of medical condition
are clinically vulnerable

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 04/05/2020 16:22:22, charles wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 03/05/2020 17:21, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 15:24:33, charles wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 03/05/2020 14:21:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 06:54:06, harry wrote:

snip.

The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route
would
kill off Tory voters. That had passed my mind. Perhaps we can see
why Labour are keeping quiet about the government's policies.

Now if we obtained herd immunity by allowing the young and fit to
mingle the Tories might have a more certain future.

But their voters would then be enraged (according the Daily Mail
the only emotion their readers commonly feel) by age discriminatory
house arrest.

Now they are a greater number than ever as a proportion on the
population they will have more say. Perhaps their state pensions
should be cut to 80% too.

I wouldn't call it house arrest, just an option to avoid mingling and
consequential death.

but it's not an option.

Currently not an option for anyone because of the NHS and the numbers
they can cope with. As the lock-down becomes less draconian, it
will/should become a matter of choice.

Others have the option of going out for exercise or getting essential
supplies. We don't.


Why not ?.

Why not ?


because tbe over 70s have been specifically been banned from doing so. And
this was a week before the general lockdown.

There is no statute making such a ban. You're talking nonsense. Any age
related lockdown has always been optional.

It would be utterly selfish if geriatrics make it difficult for the
younger generation to get out and enjoy life. They already pay taxes for
geriatrics' keep and there is no point in making them pay longer for
this lockdown than necessary.

I would have thought any bright minded individual would welcome and
endorse herd immunity and to occur as quickly as possible. One way is to
allow the younger generation out and to mingle.

I am certain that any future lock down statute will not have age related
restrictions. But at the same time there may be public announcements on
recommendation for the 'vulnerable'.