Brace yourselves: Bobby Ball gone.

[Burney]

Deaded by the 'vid.

[Sir C]

Deaded by the 'vid.

How long before the hysterics have us in full lockdown again? My money's on a week from now. :rubshands:

[Burney]

Deaded by the 'vid.

Superbly, the Huffington Post has managed to report on this using a picture of leading scientist Lord Robert Winston. :hehe:
1206

[Luis Anaconda]

How long before the hysterics have us in full lockdown again? My money's on a week from now. :rubshands:

Pubs closed for a month from Monday here :(

[Sir C]

Pubs closed for a month from Monday here :(

I've ordered 10 cases of ordinary claret in case the *******s introduce rationing.

[Burney]

How long before the hysterics have us in full lockdown again? My money's on a week from now. :rubshands:

Don't. I'm already despairing of my short break away in Ludlow I've booked for next month. :furious:

I do struggle with the logic of seeing a rise in infections that was merely postponed by the last lockdown and concluding that the best way to deal with it is with another lockdown that can only postpone another rise in infections.

[Sir C]

Don't. I'm already despairing of my short break away in Ludlow I've booked for next month. :furious:

I do struggle with the logic of seeing a rise in infections that was merely postponed by the last lockdown and concluding that the best way to deal with it is with another lockdown that can only postpone another rise in infections.

Well you know my attitude to the whole thing. It's entirely down to the arrogance and egocentricity of the majority of the population. "Oh noooos I might die that would be so terrible! I'd best hide behind the sofa!" (Cf peoiple who are 'afraid of flying') It's just selfishness.

We are a nation of repellant, self-absorbed egomaniacs and I hate each and every one of us.

Whatever happened to living a dayt as a lion rather than years as a lamb, ffs?

[Luis Anaconda]

Don't. I'm already despairing of my short break away in Ludlow I've booked for next month. :furious:

I do struggle with the logic of seeing a rise in infections that was merely postponed by the last lockdown and concluding that the best way to deal with it is with another lockdown that can only postpone another rise in infections.
Christmas would appear to be cancelled - we need a Grinch smiley

I still have 34 days holiday to take this year - not really much point though

[Burney]

Well you know my attitude to the whole thing. It's entirely down to the arrogance and egocentricity of the majority of the population. "Oh noooos I might die that would be so terrible! I'd best hide behind the sofa!" (Cf peoiple who are 'afraid of flying') It's just selfishness.

We are a nation of repellant, self-absorbed egomaniacs and I hate each and every one of us.

Whatever happened to living a dayt as a lion rather than years as a lamb, ffs?

Well medical science has created average life expectancies of 80-fúck+ and we haven't had a proper war in ages, so the concept of suffering an early death seems even more egregious and unfair to people now than it ever has before.
Stoicism is borne of hardship and we in the west have lived in a condition of ease for a long, long time. Put simply, you can't create a society that minimises risk to an unprecedented degree and then expect everyone to happily accept and embrace risk.

[Burney]

Christmas would appear to be cancelled - we need a Grinch smiley

I still have 34 days holiday to take this year - not really much point though

Yeah, me too. I'll still take the time off. I desperately need a few days where I don't have to be welded to my phone.

[Sir C]

Well medical science has created average life expectancies of 80-fúck+ and we haven't had a proper war in ages, so the concept of suffering an early death seems even more egregious and unfair to people now than it ever has before.
Stoicism is borne of hardship and we in the west have lived in a condition of ease for a long, long time. Put simply, you can't create a society that minimises risk to an unprecedented degree and then expect everyone to happily accept and embrace risk.

Well I do, as do loads of people I know. How come the hard of thinking get a pass?

[Burney]

Well I do, as do loads of people I know. How come the hard of thinking get a pass?

You do for yourself, which is fine. But of course your risk calculation is relatively simple by virtue of having (for instance) no living parents and no kids.
But others need to consider the risk not only to themselves, but to their vulnerable relatives, neighbours, etc. In other words, not everyone's risk calculation is the same or can be managed as easily.

[Sir C]

You do for yourself, which is fine. But of course your risk calculation is relatively simple by virtue of having (for instance) no living parents and no kids.
But others need to consider the risk not only to themselves, but to their vulnerable relatives, neighbours, etc. In other words, not everyone's risk calculation is the same or can be managed as easily.

Meh. I smell fudge.

[Burney]

Meh. I smell fudge.

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

[WES]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

In which case they are free to take the decision to self-isolate. :shrug:

Or to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take and to act accordingly.

Asking the rest of us to put our lives on hold, load our children down with debt and wreck the economy in order to minimise risk that they are fully capable of controlling strikes me as really, really stupid.

[Sir C]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

It's not exactly the bubonic plague, mate. Two old dears in a nursing home died three weeks earlier than they would have otherwise and a number of people (including me) got a nasty cough. :shrug:

[Burney]

In which case they are free to take the decision to self-isolate. :shrug:

Or to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take and to act accordingly.

Asking the rest of us to put our lives on hold, load our children down with debt and wreck the economy in order to minimise risk that they are fully capable of controlling strikes me as really, really stupid.

They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

[WES]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

Someone in the Tele the other day was considering these YouGov polls that show the large majority of the people support the current restrictions or think we should go farther. His point was that the questions are really loaded and geared towards that outcome.

The question he felt everyone should really be asked was, and I paraphrase 'are you prepared to significantly curtail the social aspect of your life, no longer travel abroad and add enormous amounts of debt in order to for a small reduction in the likelihood that you live into your 90s?'.

And he's right.

[WES]

They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

But I'm not suggesting we lock them or anyone else away, I'm suggesting we allow them to decide the risk they are prepared to take.

And your moral perspective excludes the issues faced by people in the non-vulnerable category. Why is it bad to think about people in the way you describe but it's ok to ignore the impact of lockdown on mental health, domestic abuse, cancer patients etc etc ?

My main issue with our approach to Covid is that we don't look at it holistically, we seem to care only about Covid statistics rather than the impact of lockdown generally.

[Burney]

Someone in the Tele the other day was considering these YouGov polls that show the large majority of the people support the current restrictions or think we should go farther. His point was that the questions are really loaded and geared towards that outcome.

The question he felt everyone should really be asked was, and I paraphrase 'are you prepared to significantly curtail the social aspect of your life, no longer travel abroad and add enormous amounts of debt in order to for a small reduction in the likelihood that you live into your 90s?'.

And he's right.

Sure. I agree about the polls for what it's worth. And I think that to make those calculations regarding one's own personal risk are absolutely fine. But it's not just about the risk to yourself. You're also taking risks with other people's lives. And at that point your calculation of the risk to yourself ceases to be the only factor.

[Burney]

But I'm not suggesting we lock them or anyone else away, I'm suggesting we allow them to decide the risk they are prepared to take.

And your moral perspective excludes the issues faced by people in the non-vulnerable category. Why is it bad to think about people in the way you describe but it's ok to ignore the impact of lockdown on mental health, domestic abuse, cancer patients etc etc ?

My main issue with our approach to Covid is that we don't look at it holistically, we seem to care only about Covid statistics rather than the impact of lockdown generally.

It doesn't exclude people in the non-vulnerable category at all, it simply takes the view that to present vulnerable people with the stark choice between significant risk of death from this virus or self-imposed isolation is pretty inhumane when it is within the power of the rest of us to do things to help mitigate that risk.
I'm not a lockdown fanatic, but neither am I of the opinion that it is feasible or reasonable simply to return to the status quo ante and let the more vulnerable members of our society face that choice. If you're talking about a holistic approach, you can't have one without a rather more sophisticated approach to the most vulnerable than you have outlined.

[Sir C]

It doesn't exclude people in the non-vulnerable category at all, it simply takes the view that to present vulnerable people with the stark choice between significant risk of death from this virus or self-imposed isolation is pretty inhumane when it is within the power of the rest of us to do things to help mitigate that risk.
I'm not a lockdown fanatic, but neither am I of the opinion that it is feasible or reasonable simply to return to the status quo ante and let the more vulnerable members of our society face that choice. If you're talking about a holistic approach, you can't have one without a rather more sophisticated approach to the most vulnerable than you have outlined.

This is a parody, right? :hehe:

[Pat Vegas]

How long before the hysterics have us in full lockdown again? My money's on a week from now. :rubshands:

I am a bit confused. In March just before the lockdown everyone was normal then we had lockdown.

Now we generally all wear masks and keep distancing and now it's rising again. :rubchin: Almost like these magical masks don't work.

[Sir C]

I am a bit confused. In March just before the lockdown everyone was normal then we had lockdown.

Now we generally all wear masks and keep distancing and now it's rising again. :rubchin: Almost like these magical masks don't work.

'It's' rising because we're doing lots of testing.

ICUs are as busy as usual. A few people are dying of respiratory disease. Like every year. :shrug:

People have lost their fúcking minds.

[Burney]

This is a parody, right? :hehe:

With Covid, the risk of death per 1000 in the 70-79 category is 8 (approx 10 for males). Now if your chances of dying whenever you got into an aeroplane were 1 in 100, you'd call that a pretty significant risk of death, wouldn't you? It'd probably make you pretty wary of flying, no?

So yes. 'Significant'.

[Pat Vegas]

'It's' rising because we're doing lots of testing.

ICUs are as busy as usual. A few people are dying of respiratory disease. Like every year. :shrug:

People have lost their fúcking minds.

Exactly. I was watching the news last week and they said a hospital in Manchester was at 97% Capacity.
I don't find this shocknig as I assume most hospitals in the UK are like this all the time anyway.

[Luis Anaconda]

Sure. I agree about the polls for what it's worth. And I think that to make those calculations regarding one's own personal risk are absolutely fine. But it's not just about the risk to yourself. You're also taking risks with other people's lives. And at that point your calculation of the risk to yourself ceases to be the only factor.
While I agree with you, I do think WES has made some sensible and important points. The world is ****ed isn't it?

[Sir C]

With Covid, the risk of death per 1000 in the 70-79 category is 8 (approx 10 for males). Now if your chances of dying whenever you got into an aeroplane were 1 in 100, you'd call that a pretty significant risk of death, wouldn't you? It'd probably make you pretty wary of flying, no?

So yes. 'Significant'.

Your analogy is mendacious. The risk isn't a 1 in ahundred chance of dying if you get in the aeroplane, your risk is 1 in a hundred of dying if the aeroplane crashes. As you well know, 1 in a 100 70-79 year olds haven't died because they left the house.

The risk is infinitesimal.

[Burney]

Exactly. I was watching the news last week and they said a hospital in Manchester was at 97% Capacity.
I don't find this shocknig as I assume most hospitals in the UK are like this all the time anyway.

That's correct. Our hospitals customarily operate at or near capacity at all times.

The point is that if there is a significant spike in ICU admissions, then you get over 100% capacity in no time at all - which neans that people are no longer receiving adequate care and significant numbers of preventable deaths start occurring very quickly.

[Burney]

While I agree with you, I do think WES has made some sensible and important points. The world is ****ed isn't it?

Of course. This is f@cking complicated stuff and literally nobody has 'got it right' because 'getting it right' in this context is a pipe dream. It's a constant weighing of negatives against one another while trying to retain basic humanitarian principles. I don't care what political perspective you come from, but I pity any government of any political shade that is faced with making these choices.

[Pat Vegas]

That's correct. Our hospitals customarily operate at or near capacity at all times.

The point is that if there is a significant spike in ICU admissions, then you get over 100% capacity in no time at all - which neans that people are no longer receiving adequate care and significant numbers of preventable deaths start occurring very quickly.

They also showed a video of an ICU ward. You would think you'd see lifeless bodies hooked up to machines,

Not really it was the usual peope who have other problems all sitting there talking away.

Also if there was a massive problem no doubt the papers/news would have jumped all over it if there where photos of people laying around in corridors on coffee tables like in Italy.

I am by far an expert but wouldn't make sense to put the covid fellas in the Knightingale hospitals and keep the regular hospitals free (as much as possible) of the Covid.

[Luis Anaconda]

Of course. This is f@cking complicated stuff and literally nobody has 'got it right' because 'getting it right' in this context is a pipe dream. It's a constant weighing of negatives against one another while trying to retain basic humanitarian principles. I don't care what political perspective you come from, but I pity any government of any political shade that is faced with making these choices.

Indeed. ****ers should still keep the pubs open though

[Burney]

Your analogy is mendacious. The risk isn't a 1 in ahundred chance of dying if you get in the aeroplane, your risk is 1 in a hundred of dying if the aeroplane crashes. As you well know, 1 in a 100 70-79 year olds haven't died because they left the house.

The risk is infinitesimal.

It's not mendacious. Millions of people in the UK are estimated to have already had the disease, so even if you consider the lower end of those estimates, that is already a significant proportion of the population. So given that, the risk of catching it is far from infinitesimal and, given that the death rates among males aged 70-79 are 1 in 100, there's nothing infinitesimal about those risks either.

[Burney]

They also showed a video of an ICU ward. You would think you'd see lifeless bodies hooked up to machines,

Not really it was the usual peope who have other problems all sitting there talking away.

Also if there was a massive problem no doubt the papers/news would have jumped all over it if there where photos of people laying around in corridors on coffee tables like in Italy.

I am by far an expert but wouldn't make sense to put the covid fellas in the Knightingale hospitals and keep the regular hospitals free (as much as possible) of the Covid.

No. The Nightingale hospitals would far more sensibly be used to cope with the overspill of 'normal' patients whose needs are less acute.

[redgunamo]

Yes. I know what it is; all he wants is a few decent hounds (good for long walks out in the fresh air). And plenty of Vitamin B; Chabasse is a particularly toothsome brand.

Probably too late to do anything about it now though, I suppose. RIP.


Deaded by the 'vid.

[Burney]

Yes. I know what it is; all he wants is a few decent hounds (good for long walks out in the fresh air). And plenty of Vitamin B; Chabasse is a particularly toothsome brand.

Probably too late to do anything about it now though, I suppose. RIP.

I thought it was all about the Vitamin D - particularly for you more melanin-heavy chaps?

[redgunamo]

Quite right, my mistake; probably had one or two too many.


I thought it was all about the Vitamin D - particularly for you more melanin-heavy chaps?

[Burney]

Quite right, my mistake; probably had one or two too many.

Isn't Vitamin B the drinker's vitamin?

[WES]

That's correct. Our hospitals customarily operate at or near capacity at all times.

The point is that if there is a significant spike in ICU admissions, then you get over 100% capacity in no time at all - which neans that people are no longer receiving adequate care and significant numbers of preventable deaths start occurring very quickly.

That's the logic that was used, in part, to justify locking down Liverpool. And then the medical officer for Liverpool pointed out that it was complete *******s because they had contingency plans that would allow them to quickly increase ICU capacity if it was needed, they had put them in place during the first wave. Potential ICU capacity isn't even close to being maxed out, it's just more scare mongering and hyperbole from the cowards in government, the complicit media (I exclude the Tele from this who routinely write lockdown critical articles) and the introverted, anti-social, sub-normal retards in Sage who are for more concerned about not being wrong then they are about being right.

There are approximately 170,000 hospital beds in the UK (I think that does not include the Nightingale hospitals which are all currently empty) of which less than 10,000 were used for Covid patients as at last night. ICU's are running at normal capacity. Excess deaths (the metric which the 'experts' assured was the best way of measuring the impact of Covid) are more or less at the 5 year average.

And yet we're closing down part of our economy, compromising our children's education, massively increasing our national debt? Really? Your pony bothering mate is right, the world has gone mad.

As for your parents, if they are over 70 but not obese, don't smoke and have no underlying health conditions they can lead a more or less normal life with only a few sensible constraints i.e. don't attend a family gathering with 20+ people indoors and talk to everyone for 3-4 hours, with virtually no chance of catching the virus and dying from it.

[barrybueno]

Don't. I'm already despairing of my short break away in Ludlow I've booked for next month. :furious:

I do struggle with the logic of seeing a rise in infections that was merely postponed by the last lockdown and concluding that the best way to deal with it is with another lockdown that can only postpone another rise in infections.

Is it too simplistic and obvious that if you test more people you will see more infections? If anything it proves what an incredibly low mortality rate this pussy ass flu has. Darker forces are at work here make no mistake*

*Is that phrase banned? :hide:

[Luis Anaconda]

That's the logic that was used, in part, to justify locking down Liverpool. And then the medical officer for Liverpool pointed out that it was complete *******s because they had contingency plans that would allow them to quickly increase ICU capacity if it was needed, they had put them in place during the first wave. Potential ICU capacity isn't even close to being maxed out, it's just more scare mongering and hyperbole from the cowards in government, the complicit media (I exclude the Tele from this who routinely write lockdown critical articles) and the introverted, anti-social, sub-normal retards in Sage who are for more concerned about not being wrong then they are about being right.

There are approximately 170,000 hospital beds in the UK (I think that does not include the Nightingale hospitals which are all currently empty) of which less than 10,000 were used for Covid patients as at last night. ICU's are running at normal capacity. Excess deaths (the metric which the 'experts' assured was the best way of measuring the impact of Covid) are more or less at the 5 year average.

And yet we're closing down part of our economy, compromising our children's education, massively increasing our national debt? Really? Your pony bothering mate is right, the world has gone mad.

As for your parents, if they are over 70 but not obese, don't smoke and have no underlying health conditions they can lead a more or less normal life with only a few sensible constraints i.e. don't attend a family gathering with 20+ people indoors and talk to everyone for 3-4 hours, with virtually no chance of catching the virus and dying from it.

Why would anyone have to justify locking down Liverpool?

[barrybueno]

Why would anyone have to justify locking down Liverpool?

You spelt knocking wrong :calmdown:

[Arsenal Alcoholic Review]

Hard drinking old man dies shocker.

[redgunamo]

:-( Actually, you've made your parents sound like a colossal homo (as it were).

Or was that the point?



They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

[Monty92]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

"A very good chance of killing them"?

What the buggery are you jibbering on about?

[Pat Vegas]

Hard drinking old man dies shocker.

Older people die shocker.

[WES]

"A very good chance of killing them"?

What the buggery are you jibbering on about?

I find myself wondering if Berni is Chris Witty - or perhaps some other socially dysfunctional member of Sage.

His post has all the hallmarks of a Sage presentation. First you grossly exaggerate the danger presented by Covid, then you make an emotional tie to the misrepresentation, all the while completely ignoring the impact of lockdown, as though it had no victims.

Sage do it because the thing they fear most is the possibility that we try a different approach to that which they recommend, and find that it works. And that they end up then being blamed for the devastation to our economy, for compromising our children's education and for the overall impact on our way of life. Worse yet, that outcome would prove that they lacked the humility to admit what they didn't really know, and that we paid a massive price for that conceit.

Lord knows why Berni does it. :shrug:

[Monty92]

By his own estimation, men over 70 have only a 1% risk of dying of COVID if they catch it.

And of course that’s only if they catch the virus. Factor in the probability of catching it in the first place and the chances of dying of covid must presumably shrink significantly further.

How on earth does this become “a very good chance of dying”?



I find myself wondering if Berni is Chris Witty - or perhaps some other socially dysfunctional member of Sage.

His post has all the hallmarks of a Sage presentation. First you grossly exaggerate the danger presented by Covid, then you make an emotional tie to the misrepresentation, all the while completely ignoring the impact of lockdown, as though it had no victims.

Sage do it because the thing they fear most is the possibility that we try a different approach to that which they recommend, and find that it works. And that they end up then being blamed for the devastation to our economy, for compromising our children's education and for the overall impact on our way of life. Worse yet, that outcome would prove that they lacked the humility to admit what they didn't really know, and that we paid a massive price for that conceit.

Lord knows why Berni does it. :shrug:

[WES]

By his own estimation, men over 70 have only a 1% risk of dying of COVID if they catch it.

And of course that’s only if they catch the virus. Factor in the probability of catching it in the first place and the chances of dying of covid must presumably shrink significantly further.

How on earth does this become “a very good chance of dying”?

And of course, as I was trying to point out, by taking some very basic precautions which hardly make life not worth living, they can significantly reduce the odds even further.

Asking the vulnerable to accept these precautions, spending time, money and effort ensuring that the vulnerable are protected as much as possible (better PPE and more testing in care homes and hospitals, more support personnel for physical and mental well being etc) would massively reduce the mortality rate and along with better treatments we might find that we can begin leading a normal life sooner rather than later.

That or we could just keep shutting down our economy every few months and ignore what it's doing to the population generally, not to mention to our children's future. :rolleyes:

[WES]

And of course, as I was trying to point out, by taking some very basic precautions which hardly make life not worth living, they can significantly reduce the odds even further.

Asking the vulnerable to accept these precautions, spending time, money and effort ensuring that the vulnerable are protected as much as possible (better PPE and more testing in care homes and hospitals, more support personnel for physical and mental well being etc) would massively reduce the mortality rate and along with better treatments we might find that we can begin leading a normal life sooner rather than later.

That or we could just keep shutting down our economy every few months and ignore what it's doing to the population generally, not to mention to our children's future. :rolleyes:

And of course if this was suggested to that fat, blithering idiot in No. 10 he would say something insanely stupid along the lines of 'I refuse to accept that we should let the virus rip through our population'.

Despite the fact that no one has ever suggested we do exactly that. Boris and Sage want to see a nice simple world. You either nod your head dumbly at their selective and misleading statistics and never question their hyperbole or scare mongering, or you're someone that wants to 'let the virus rip'.

Cretins.

[Arsenal Alcoholic Review]

By his own estimation, men over 70 have only a 1% risk of dying of COVID if they catch it.

And of course that’s only if they catch the virus. Factor in the probability of catching it in the first place and the chances of dying of covid must presumably shrink significantly further.

How on earth does this become “a very good chance of dying”?

The vast majoirty who catch Covid have zero symptoms or problems. They just go about their normal life as if nothing happened. So obviously an enormous ammount of these people are not being recorded. So your chances of dying are ridiculously rare.

Tbh why anybody who isn't a fat cnut, 80 plus year old is giving this the time of day is beyond me.