So there's a dead certain delay of 3 days in all cases? Damn
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
It’s so good. Does anyone know what the incident was? Presumably a tackle that might have meant a yellow card? How could Mourinho have seen it if he was looking at his phone? Why was he looking at his phone?
So many questions...
On average, yes. The only thing that could improve or delay it is the Xmas period being quiet, or staff shortage due to Xmas and increase in demand due to the virus spreading. Monday/Tuesday I’d be confident in saying that’s when you’ll get something. Fingers crossed it’s negative.
I think it was something along lines of realising somebody may have received a second yellow but not been sent off. It’s pointed out to Jose who goes mental
It was against Man City, Sterling was on a yellow already and collided with Loris. Ref said no penalty and gave a free kick to Spurs. Mourinho was then protesting that if it wasn’t a penalty, then it was a dive and Sterling should get a second yellow.
I hope so man. I asked the dude and he said something similar. He said usually you'd get em next day but it'll be earliest Sunday.
Nice one. Thanks. That’s the sort of expertise and scientific rigor that keeps me coming back to this thread.
What in your eyes would be worth shutting down the way we have, all across the world?
Personally living in a country that just had 100% excess deaths in November (32,000, nearly 1 in 1,000) I feel that if anything our response has been way too soft.
It is the worst pandemic of modern era, it completely warrants all the ‘hysteria’.
I think for people who believe the reaction has been disproportionate; one key reason is the opportunity cost of the trillions that as a result have either been spent on Covid or not earned due to measures introduced.
Had the world wholly ignored the virus* and focused this spend / loss of income on tackling issues such as world poverty or climate change; there's an argument that the years of life saved would be many, many times larger.
If you're sympathetic to that view then we've essentially spent trillions replacing the carpets when the roof is collapsing and the foundations are subsiding.
Truthfully if someone explained the Western reaction to this virus without giving details about the virus itself I'd have assumed the mortality to be several times greater and the average age of death to be much younger (e.g. the very young being disproportionately at risk)
*Not say this was a viable political strategy of course.
So you’d let it run rampant and where the chips fall kinda thing?
The median age in ireland is 37 btw. It’s not right for people to keep believing it’s an old person thing
Median age of cases or deaths?
Sorry I should say cases. I’ll check the deaths
The problem with this of course is that hunger, poverty and climate change are constant issues so it’s very difficult to hedge an opportunity cost against them as you know that the money ‘wouldn’t have been available’ to be spent.
Additionally, re the fatalities, we don’t really know what they’d have looked like unless measures were put in place, so it’s a mute point isn’t it?
And we all know exactly what your response would have been if governments all over the world suddenly decided to invest trillions in fighting world poverty and climate change...
I very nearly wrote this in the post above but thought it too cynical
I think that if it hadn't swamped hospital capacity as quickly as it did then this might have been a feasible option for people with a Libertarian political stance. The problem was that all across the World hospitals just could not cope with the influx of patients.
Edit: Of course I'm talking about letting the virus run it's coarse not investing in the poor when I'm talking about Libertarians.
There's a lot of unknowns in this arena, including scientific models based on so many assumptions that the outputs are all over the place.
If we're currently making decisions based on a lot of unknowns and were making decisions back in March based on even more; then I'm sure pontificating on different possibilities isn't beyond the pale.
That's the point of an opportunity cost though isn't it? It's about the opportunity.
But to answer the point more directly if given a binary choice to save a million years of wealthy white western life or tens of millions of years of poorer non-white lives; then the latter is obviously preferable.
I'm sure after decades of research we still won't get an exact idea about what would have occurred if various different scenarios were implemented.
What we will know however is the cost and what could have been done with it.
It reminds me of a statistic (how true it is I'm unsure) that I saw stating that housing regulations to prevent deaths by fires cost (per live that the save) us over one hundred thousand times that of preventing aids related deaths in some African countries. Likewise DoT spending on road safety is over fifteen thousand times.
Effectively the opportunity cost of saving one UK life from fire is over 100,000 lives in another part of the world. Counter-intuitively then it could be argued that the inevitably onerous regulations that will result from Grenfell should have us infuriated at the opportunity cost of thousands of lives in other parts of the world.
An interesting theoretical debate no doubt. However one that I've realised has taken up too much of this day so I'll wish all a Merry Christmas!
Last edited:
If he truly believes this a false negative, then he may try to get the test a second time
I would get a second test for sure, even if I had to pay for it. If his parents are high risk, there should be no messing about. From the story told, it’s almost certainly Covid anyway so I would treat it as such and isolate for 14 days anyway, even if I had 10 negative tests!
My friend has it, has had zero symptoms, hasn’t been around anyone at all. It’s a false positive, 99%, but because he’s had a positive, he’s isolating. Same should go for people who have symptoms but get a negative result.
My friend has it, has had zero symptoms, hasn’t been around anyone at all. It’s a false positive, 99%, but because he’s had a positive, he’s isolating. Same should go for people who have symptoms but get a negative result.
The problem is that argument relies on some assumptions that can never be proven because they haven't been tested. It's just a nice thing to believe because it confirms your worldview without ever providing evidence to confirm it or contradict it. How could the grass not be greener if the grass is set in a fantasy? The closest thing to ignoring the virus is the US under Trump in the last few months and it doesn't at all align with the notion that non-corona things would be significantly better if you just ignored it. But that is just swept under the rug because it is inconvenient.
Good post from the noob, shame he needs the job because the boss needs a talking to.
"UK Coronavirus" - is this not the equivalent of Trump calling it the China virus? Did we not just spot the variant as we do 45% of the world's sequencing?
"UK Coronavirus Variant" I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. If they said "UK Coronavirus' then yeah it would be a bit wrong but they didn't.
The boss needs slapping
I think it's more the attribution to the UK I guess that bothers me. I know it was discovered here, but is that not due to the UK doing more testing/sequencing? Or was it actually a strain that came from the UK? I thought that would be a stretch considering cases were spiking across Europe before us
Like that carpets and roof analogy tbh.
Needs to be made a test subject for vaccines. But I get the situation of the newbie. It's worse in banks. That's how I got my infection.
Quality control
For cases which is irrelevant. Plus the fact that basically any death now is being put down to covid. I’m not denying that it’s a problem but the scaremongering about case numbers is helping no one.
The test is horrible man. I had to take it twice and gave it a proper scrub on my tonsils and my right nasal passage. Now I have a blocked nasal passage and my tonsils are sore.
If there was no lockdowns do you think the hospital's would be able to cope with covid surges and flu surges, if covid is surging with a loosing of the lockdown, who knows someone you know might be dead from it and you would be giving out about no lockdowns.
Talking from experience, that isn’t a fact.
I've asked him basically this same question numerous times every times he pops up and says Covid is an exaggeration or we should just let it so it's thing or whatever and he never responds. Guy hasn't a clue. Just peddles shite and can't back it up.
Sad but so true.
Heard 2 stories from people who know my family and they put down to covid for people who died for other reasons (tuberculosis, and chronic respiratory insuffiency). In one of these stories, one hired a lawyer and made the necessary for the deceased person to pass a covid test - negative
Excess death still remains the best indicator by default to demonstrate the real impact of covid on life expectancy imo