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

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 ....

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

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 ? ...

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.

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

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?

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

"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.

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

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.

"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.

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:

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?

"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.

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

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 15:25:56, 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