Ping Brian: please help
 

On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?






--

https://www.unitedway.org/our-impact...an-trafficking

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 30/04/2020 11:53, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m,Â* was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of
not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be
allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it,
the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3%Â* of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%.Â*Â* What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?






and I will remind you of the masonic handshake at interviews I have
seen.....the whole world is corrupt ....

Ping Brian: please help
 

Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Brian, you really dont understand proportionality.

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

--
M0TEY // STC // #SaveOurNHS

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 30/04/2020 17:08, Stephen Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Brian, you really dont understand proportionality.

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

you mean reay ? ...

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Brian, you really dont understand proportionality.

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

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.

Ping Brian: please help
 

Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.


--

Roger Hayter

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 01/05/2020 13:53:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.

I agree, but this lockdown serves no purpose by itself, assuming the
idea is eventual herd immunity rather than destruction of the UK economy.

Yes we have the infection rates at a level the NHS can cope with but
what now?

Are we just hanging out for a vaccine?

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 01/05/2020 14:38, Fredxx wrote:
On 01/05/2020 13:53:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum,
imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.

I agree, but this lockdown serves no purpose by itself, assuming the
idea is eventual herd immunity rather than destruction of the UK economy.

Yes we have the infection rates at a level the NHS can cope with but
what now?

Are we just hanging out for a vaccine?

keep the fitbo concetrt pubs restaurants shut and we will be fine...just
avoid herds of sheeples people

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 01/05/2020 13:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.


Both wrong

Infection will die out when infection rate is below unity. With social
distancing that could be far less than 50%.

A lot of evidence showing that the higher density the population the
worse the virus is, therefore social distancing not only reduces
infection rate it also reduces death rate.


--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 01/05/2020 15:24:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/2020 13:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum,
imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.


Both wrong

Infection will die out when infection rate is below unity. With social
distancing that could be far less than 50%.

A lot of evidence showing that the higher density the population the
worse the virus is, therefore social distancing not only reduces
infection rate it also reduces death rate.

You grasp of numbers is worrying. Death rate is a strong function of
age. The infection rate is determined by the %age of the population that
has been infected.

The current social distancing policy means that herd immunity will occur
over an extended time, creating a more uniform mix of infection in terms
of age.

If the government policy was to encourage the young to become infected,
specifically those who have minimal contact with the elderly, then we
have a combination of reaching herd immunity quicker while keeping the
elderly safe.

The death rate is a red-herring. It's the number of deaths that we
should have a greater consideration for.

Ping Brian: please help
 

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals, about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all,
the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would
he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me of
not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be
allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people
have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the
excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was delighted
to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand it,
the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS, which
is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to
live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Brian, you really dont understand proportionality.

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

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

Problem is that that approach inevitably involves far more deaths.

Thats why sweden has got a much worse result deaths wise
than the adjacent scandinavian countrys.

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

Pity about the immense pile of corpses.

UNBELIEVABLE: It's 04:31 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for almost AN HOUR already!!!! LOL
 

On Sat, 2 May 2020 04:31:53 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

04:31 already? LMAO! And you aren't a BIT ashamed of it either, right,
sociopath? LOL

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

Ping Brian: please help
 

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/2020 13:53:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum,
imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.

I agree, but this lockdown serves no purpose by itself, assuming the idea
is eventual herd immunity

That isnt the idea. That idea was discarded
and was replaced by the lockdown.

rather than destruction of the UK economy.

Thats not going to happen. It will recover fine.

Yes we have the infection rates at a level the NHS can cope with but what
now?

Watch the infection rate continue to drop
and start relaxing parts of the lockdown,
as is already happening in spain and italy etc.

Are we just hanging out for a vaccine?

Nope.

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 01/05/2020 19:31:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals,
about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a
new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m,Â* was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After
all, the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy?
Would he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is
happy to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me
of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be
allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people
have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the
excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was
delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand
it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS,
which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3%Â* of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to
live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money
without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%.Â*Â* What is
there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than
any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Brian, you really dont understand proportionality.

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum, imo.

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

Problem is that that approach inevitably involves far more deaths.

Thats why sweden has got a much worse result deaths wise
than the adjacent scandinavian countrys.

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

Pity about the immense pile of corpses.

Intentionally or otherwise you have missed the point. If the population
gain herd immunity why the old are kept safe, there won't be a pile of
corpses.

There's likely to be a bigger pile if we carry on as we are, where the
death rate will be low but the final overall death count may well be
higher. Perhaps we'll then get to herd immunity level just before the
vaccine comes available?

Ping Brian: please help
 

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/2020 19:31:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 30/04/2020 09:26, Brian Reay wrote:
On 30/04/2020 09:25, Spike wrote:
On 29/04/2020 19:06, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 17:43, Stephen Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 29/04/2020 08:01, Stephen Cole wrote:

Is 0.3% a trivial amount compared to the remaining 99.7%?

Thanks, Jim.

pass

Jim, it's a trivial amount, Jim. HTH, Jim. Thanks, Jim.

oh right...so it is...

A new hospital or two, trivial,,,,,

Based on the numbers allocated to build a batch of 6 hospitals,
about
2/3 of one. Not exactly trivial if your area is one which needs a
new
hospital.

If the same amount, £300m, was reported as being avoided in tax
(remember tax avoidance means complying with the rules) by a major
company, I wonder if Steve would consider it 'trivial'? After all,
the
total income from tax on companies is far, far, greater than the
NHS
budget and £300m would be much smaller percentage.

What if is was tax evasion?, which would be a closer analogy? Would
he
be happy to see that ignored?

Strange isn't it. Steve claims he supports the NHS yet he is happy
to
see it ripped off to the tune of £300m per year and he accuses me
of not
believing in the NHS and I'm the one who thinks it shouldn't be
allowed.

I suppose it comes down to the freeloading mentality some people
have.

£300m is also, about, 10x the fantastic amount raised by the
excellent
old gentleman who puts people like Steve to shame. I'm was
delighted to
see his efforts have been recognised by the MOD. As I understand
it, the
money raised by his efforts can't be used directly by the NHS,
which is
unfortunate but doesn't remotely detract from his achievement.

I think the 0.3% of the NHS budget represents something like £450m.
which would build a socialist-dream hospital with private rooms for
everyone. One wonders why Stephen Thomas Cole is so against such
services being available to the public.

And top marks to Captain Tom Moore, who at the age of 100 seems to
live
life to an extent that the said Cole could only dream of.

That's begging the question of how you could collect that money
without
it costing as much as or more to collect than the 0.3%. What is
there
about this particular saving that makes it worth pursuing more than
any
other possible 0.3% saving in the NHS?

Would you use the same argument to justify not collecting £300m from
some company which either avoided or evaded paying £300m in tax?

After all, £300m would represent a far smaller percentage of the total
tax collected from companies?

Brian, you really dont understand proportionality.

Could it be a pathological
hatred of foreigners?

Remind us, who sat on a selection board which had 'special rules' for
those with Asian names to ensure they didn't get selected?


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum,
imo.

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

Problem is that that approach inevitably involves far more deaths.

Thats why sweden has got a much worse result deaths wise
than the adjacent scandinavian countrys.

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

Pity about the immense pile of corpses.

Intentionally or otherwise you have missed the point.

We'll see...

If the population gain herd immunity why the old are kept safe,

Not possible to do that.

there won't be a pile of corpses.

Have fun listing even a single country that has achieved that result.

It isnt even possible.

There's likely to be a bigger pile if we carry on as we are, where the
death rate will be low but the final overall death count may well be
higher.

That last is bull****. The old can still be kept safe.

And it isnt just the old that get killed by this virus.

Perhaps we'll then get to herd immunity level just before the vaccine
comes available?

Much more likely that herd immunity wont be
achieved because this virus is such a killer.

Ping Brian: please help
 

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/05/2020 15:24:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/05/2020 13:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 30/04/2020 17:08:06, Stephen Cole wrote:


Scandalous stuff, but lockdown breakers are the worst kind of scum,
imo.

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.

Indeed, but we need to do it gradually enough to avoid overwhelming the
hospitals.


Both wrong

Infection will die out when infection rate is below unity. With social
distancing that could be far less than 50%.

A lot of evidence showing that the higher density the population the
worse the virus is, therefore social distancing not only reduces
infection rate it also reduces death rate.

You grasp of numbers is worrying.

We'll see...

Death rate is a strong function of age.

Only really with those over 70

The infection rate is determined by the %age of the population that has
been infected.

Its actually affected by a lot more than that,
most obviously with what is locked down etc.

The current social distancing policy means that herd immunity will occur
over an extended time,

You dont know that it will ever occur if the
lockdown and social distancing gets R well
below 1 and the virus gets controlled that way.

creating a more uniform mix of infection in terms of age.

Thats not going to happen.

If the government policy was to encourage the young to become infected,
specifically those who have minimal contact with the elderly,

There are very few of those with shopping alone.

Nowhere near enough to achieve herd immunity.

then we have a combination of reaching herd immunity quicker

Nope, because there are so few of those.

while keeping the elderly safe.

Thats wrong too unless you keep all the elderly locked
up in their houses with no visitors at all and somehow
ensure that no infected delivery people are ever involved.

The death rate is a red-herring.

Nope, its what shows how well the lockdown is working.

It's the number of deaths that we should have a greater consideration for.

Thats wrong too.

Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
 

On Sat, 2 May 2020 04:45:32 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

WTF are you doing in normally evolved humans' ngs, you 86-year-old trolling
sociopathic cretin?

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

UNBELIEVABLE: It's 05:05 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for OVER AN HOUR already!!!! LOL
 

On Sat, 2 May 2020 05:05:27 +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:

UNBELIEVABLE: It's 05:30 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for TWO HOURS already!!!! LOL
 

On Sat, 2 May 2020 05:30:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

05:30 already? So you've been up and trolling for TWO HOURS! LOL

Admit it, senile Rodent, you know yourself that you are a senile piece of
sick ****!

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

Ping Brian: please help
 

There has been no talk of herd immunity from the governments scientific advisors since the beginning of lockdown which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not work. It would require the controlled infection of large numbers of the population and would mean we would have to keep the NHS on a war footing for an extensive time not to mention an overhead to cope with any fluctuations if the numbers go the wrong way.

It will be interesting to see the numbers from the like of S. Korea where more extensive testing has taken place therefore more accurate numbers although the asymptomatic numbers will always fudge the numbers until a reliable antibody test is available. There has been some figures from Germany that the infection rate is quite low in single figure %s. Again only my opinion I suggest that in S. Korea and perhaps New Zealand there has been very little herd immunity built up as both countries seem to have got on top of the virus before it has had time to spread deep into the population.

If you look back in history all pandemics eventually peter out. Some of the less survivable pandemics such as the plague will certainly not have died off because of herd immunity even the so called Spanish Flu which bounced along for three years left vast populations untouched. The traditional method of speeding up the end of an epidemic is quarantine where infected persons are separated from the general population denying the cause from having a reservoir to survive in. This is the opposite of the lockdown but unfortunately the lockdown is needed to get the infection figures manageable in order to track and trace and quarantine effectively.

The government looks set to test, track and trace the virus and they are being very cagey on what the R figure needs to drop to before easing restrictions which makes me think they want to get it way down below 0.5 to give that policy a chance to work, so I think in the short term the lockdown will be maintained.

Richard

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

It would require the controlled infection
of large numbers of the population

Doesnt have to be controlled.

and would mean we would have to keep the
NHS on a war footing for an extensive time

Thats true of a lockdown too.

not to mention an overhead to cope with any
fluctuations if the numbers go the wrong way.

Thats very arguable. Sweden hasnt bothered with
a lockdown and hasnt seen that to be necessary.

They get to wear a much higher level of deaths.

It will be interesting to see the numbers from the like
of S. Korea where more extensive testing has taken place

They are rather unusual in the sense that most of their
infected were those of one religious sect that was stupid
enough to keep having big meetings with the infection
spreading like mad because of that, so its much easier
to test all of those.

therefore more accurate numbers

Of the infected, sure.

although the asymptomatic numbers will always fudge
the numbers until a reliable antibody test is available.

Not if you test all of a particular group like they did.

There has been some figures from Germany that
the infection rate is quite low in single figure %s.

Again only my opinion I suggest that in S. Korea
and perhaps New Zealand there has been very
little herd immunity built up as both countries
seem to have got on top of the virus before it
has had time to spread deep into the population.

And australia.

If you look back in history all pandemics eventually peter out.

That isnt what happened with smallpox or polio.
Those had to be stamped out.

Some of the less survivable pandemics such as the plague
will certainly not have died off because of herd immunity
even the so called Spanish Flu which bounced along for
three years left vast populations untouched.

That is very arguable with the spanish flu.

The traditional method of speeding up
the end of an epidemic is quarantine
where infected persons are separated
from the general population

Thats more to stop the spread.

denying the cause from having a reservoir to survive in.

Thats not what quarantine is about,

This is the opposite of the lockdown but unfortunately the
lockdown is needed to get the infection figures manageable
in order to track and trace and quarantine effectively.

That mangles the real story too. Sweden doesnt have a lockdown
and doesnt even bother to track and trace and quarantine either.

They get to wear the higher death rate in care homes.

The government looks set to test, track and trace the virus

And it remains to be seen how feasible that is.

and they are being very cagey on what the R
figure needs to drop to before easing restrictions

Because they would be held to that if easing restrictions
makes no sense because so many are flouting them.

which makes me think they want to get it way down
below 0.5 to give that policy a chance to work,

It doesnt have to get that low to work. Its not that low in
new zealand or australia and that policy is working fine there.

so I think in the short term the lockdown will be maintained.

Its already being relaxed a bit in australia and new zealand
and they are noticeably less obedient than with the denizens
of that soggy little frigid island.

Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
 

On Sun, 3 May 2020 06:25:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

--

Roger Hayter

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 02/05/2020 23:48, 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.


The problem with all armchair theorists is that they think they
understand a lot more than they actually do.
Take 'death rate'
After a lot of people have died and lots more have tested positive, you
can get a 'death rate' out.
Does that mean that it's fixed? that you can't catch it badly by
attending a rave, or very slightly when someone sneezes 3 yards away?
And that you are better off with the sneeze?
Or that if the hospital isn't overloaded you might survive it better?
And yet here and elsewhere we have armchair medical experts sagely
nodding their heads and saying 'the same number of people will die with
or without lockdown, when all the evidence is that in inner city
********s like Tower Hamlets you are ten times as likely to die as where
I live?

Twenty six thousand excess deaths to date. That is not 'just a touch of
the flu'; And that is *with* the most draconian lockdown I have ever
seen in my life.

Lockdown absolutely reduces the rate and the severity of the infection.
Living in an inner city tower block, being non white and poor absolutely
increases it.


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

Ping Brian: please help
 

"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.

Ping Brian: please help
 

On Saturday, 2 May 2020 13:26:48 UTC+1, Tricky Dicky wrote:
There has been no talk of herd immunity from the governments scientific advisors since the beginning of lockdown which in my opinion is a tacit acknowledgement that it will not work. It would require the controlled infection of large numbers of the population and would mean we would have to keep the NHS on a war footing for an extensive time not to mention an overhead to cope with any fluctuations if the numbers go the wrong way.

It will be interesting to see the numbers from the like of S. Korea where more extensive testing has taken place therefore more accurate numbers although the asymptomatic numbers will always fudge the numbers until a reliable antibody test is available. There has been some figures from Germany that the infection rate is quite low in single figure %s. Again only my opinion I suggest that in S. Korea and perhaps New Zealand there has been very little herd immunity built up as both countries seem to have got on top of the virus before it has had time to spread deep into the population.

If you look back in history all pandemics eventually peter out. Some of the less survivable pandemics such as the plague will certainly not have died off because of herd immunity even the so called Spanish Flu which bounced along for three years left vast populations untouched. The traditional method of speeding up the end of an epidemic is quarantine where infected persons are separated from the general population denying the cause from having a reservoir to survive in. This is the opposite of the lockdown but unfortunately the lockdown is needed to get the infection figures manageable in order to track and trace and quarantine effectively.

The government looks set to test, track and trace the virus and they are being very cagey on what the R figure needs to drop to before easing restrictions which makes me think they want to get it way down below 0.5 to give that policy a chance to work, so I think in the short term the lockdown will be maintained.



The Tory government has realised that the "herd immunity" route would kill off Tory voters.

Ping Brian: please help
 

On Sunday, 3 May 2020 00:03:22 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2020 23:48, 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.


The problem with all armchair theorists is that they think they
understand a lot more than they actually do.
Take 'death rate'
After a lot of people have died and lots more have tested positive, you
can get a 'death rate' out.
Does that mean that it's fixed? that you can't catch it badly by
attending a rave, or very slightly when someone sneezes 3 yards away?
And that you are better off with the sneeze?
Or that if the hospital isn't overloaded you might survive it better?
And yet here and elsewhere we have armchair medical experts sagely
nodding their heads and saying 'the same number of people will die with
or without lockdown, when all the evidence is that in inner city
********s like Tower Hamlets you are ten times as likely to die as where
I live?

Twenty six thousand excess deaths to date. That is not 'just a touch of
the flu'; And that is *with* the most draconian lockdown I have ever
seen in my life.

Lockdown absolutely reduces the rate and the severity of the infection.
Living in an inner city tower block, being non white and poor absolutely
increases it.

More likely lockdown prolongs the epidemic but at a lower level.

Ping Brian: please help
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 May 2020 00:03:22 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2020 23:48, 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.


The problem with all armchair theorists is that they think they
understand a lot more than they actually do.
Take 'death rate'
After a lot of people have died and lots more have tested positive, you
can get a 'death rate' out.
Does that mean that it's fixed? that you can't catch it badly by
attending a rave, or very slightly when someone sneezes 3 yards away?
And that you are better off with the sneeze?
Or that if the hospital isn't overloaded you might survive it better?
And yet here and elsewhere we have armchair medical experts sagely
nodding their heads and saying 'the same number of people will die with
or without lockdown, when all the evidence is that in inner city
********s like Tower Hamlets you are ten times as likely to die as where
I live?

Twenty six thousand excess deaths to date. That is not 'just a touch of
the flu'; And that is *with* the most draconian lockdown I have ever
seen in my life.

Lockdown absolutely reduces the rate and the severity of the infection.
Living in an inner city tower block, being non white and poor absolutely
increases it.

More likely lockdown prolongs the epidemic but at a lower level.

Thats bull**** with autria, australia and new zealand.

Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
 

On Sun, 3 May 2020 17:22:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

Lonely Auto-contradicting Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL
 

On Sun, 3 May 2020 10:53:04 +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:

Ping Brian: please help
 

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

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.

If you still think all that matters is the number of deaths to date, and
not the final number, then perhaps you are more senile than I thought.

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 03/05/2020 00:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/05/2020 23:48, 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.

The problem with all armchair theorists is that they think they
understand a lot more than they actually do.
Take 'death rate'
After a lot of people have died and lots more have tested positive, you
can get a 'death rate' out.
Does that mean that it's fixed? that you can't catch it badly by
attending a rave, or very slightly when someone sneezes 3 yards away?
And that you are better off with the sneeze?
Or that if the hospital isn't overloaded you might survive it better?
And yet here and elsewhere we have armchair medical experts sagely
nodding their heads and saying 'the same number of people will die with
or without lockdown, when all the evidence is that in inner city
********s like Tower Hamlets you are ten times as likely to die as where
I live?

Twenty six thousand excess deaths to date. That is not 'just a touch of
the flu'; And that is *with* the most draconian lockdown I have ever
seen in my life.


80,000 died in 1968/69 but we didn't destroy the economy to try and
'prevent' it. I don't even remember anything on the telly about it.



Lockdown absolutely reduces the rate and the severity of the infection.
Living in an inner city tower block, being non white and poor absolutely
increases it.

Ping Brian: please help
 

On 03/05/2020 01:13, Fredxx wrote:
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.




Only 19 beds in the London Nightingale hospital have been used.
Thousands of NHS staff (still on full pay) who normally handle
all the other types of routine clinics and elective surgery are
just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

--

Roger Hayter

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

Ping Brian: please help
 

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? Does the virus weaken over time?

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

Ping Brian: please help
 

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.

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