Jump to content

Covid 19 / Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

^It does indeed. The Times blurted out a piece yesterday about how we'd qualify for Level 0 status were the newly tightened end of April rules applied right now. I'm not linking to it as it was an obviously stupid and irresponsible thing to publish IMHO; it'll only work to encourage some to take it as an excuse to make an early start. Level 0 may well be applicable by the end of April if nationwide cases continue to drop, the number of those vaccinated continues to rise and some sort of point of entry testing is in place... but that's not now.

Edited by Roachmill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is completely on Boris and his useless ‘Red List’ (countries who are required to quarantine when arriving in the UK).

All the hard work and sacrifices people are making wasted by an incompetent at the helm.

In direct comparison, Scotland decided to make all international arrivals quarantine, this itself might have helped a bit but when we have no control over people taking a flight to England and crossing the border it looks like it has been a waste of time and effort.

Edited by Capeesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Boris and any list he may have is no more and no less culpable for the present situation than any other national/global 'interferer' and whatever they did or didn't do.

We are where we are due to global scaremongering creating hysteria, which the 'powers that be' have reacted to.

That would have been fine if anybody knew much of anything about the 'virus' in question, they didn't. They made it up as they went along changing their minds as often as their underwear......

Even if they'd known everything there was to know about the 'virus', that was only half the story, effective measures were needed to fight it, they didn't have that either. Unless for keeping a distance from other people and minimising transferrance from handling anything anyone else had handled, the rest were questionable at best, and a few possibly counter productive.

When this began those in power globally would have needed to ask themselves two questions, do we let this shoot through as quickly as its nature allows it to, then pick up the pieces. Or do we fight it and try to kill it off. They chose, for reasons best known to themselves, the latter, which was arguably foolhardy even on a good day, as with no knowledge of their adversary nor knowing if they had anything in their arsenal that could touch it, it was fighting fog.

As it turns out we've now put ourselves in one of the worst case scenarios, where a year plus of various measures have only managed to slow its progress and create a few small temporary pockets of containment here and there from time to time. Creating ideal conditions for the 'virus' to develop all sorts of variants and mutations, any one of which has the potential to come with a far more lethal twist in its tail than anyone's worst nightmares could dream up.

When it became apparent quite early on just how little the 'powers that be' understood the 'virus' and how little they had to fight it with, had they just stood back and let it do its thing, it would have most probably been rather messy and chaotic for a period, but if that been allowed to happen come now its very probable that life would have return to normal and the 'rona was nothing more than a bad memory from this time last year. Instead we're pretty much still where we were this time last year with the sword of Damocles still hovering.

We had a four month masked, hand sanatised lockdown last year, at the end of it the 'virus' was still infecting people. With a maximum off host survival of something like 28-30 days in ideal conditions, that means at the very least the 'virus' had been picked up and infected someone, who'd in turn deposited it elsewhere for someone else to pick up and be infected by it, at the very least on four seperate occasions/locations during that masked, hand sanatised lockdown. Hardly a resounding recommendation for its effectiveness, is it.

We have a so called 'vaccine', but it isn't. It 'might' reduce a persons chances of catching it, and it 'might' reduce their chances of suffering it so severely, and it 'might' reduce the chances of them passing it on....... but there seems little info available of the expected/possible percentage reduction(s) in each of the three areas. That's a pre-emptive treatment that might knock the sharp edges off the worse of it, if you're lucky, and kinda reminds me of the vitamin ads of the 60's and 70's which implied if you took them you'd be far more resilient against all the usual winter colds, flus and general sniffels, without actually providing any verifiable data to back it up.

We've been sitting on a tinderbox for over a year, and its not going to get any better as long as we keep on in the same direction. How long are we going to put up with the 'powers that be' running their scam or pretending to be knowledgable and 'in control', so that they can sit smugly patting themselves on the back, when the evidence all points everything they've said and done to having been wholly ineffective.

Last years lockdown and everything that went with it, was presumably an attempt to kill of the 'rona by depriving it of the hosts it needs for survival.......That didn't work.

The 'vaccine' given its shortcomings is unlikely to fare any better, and may well have the opposite effect it is intended to. Some folk who've had it are likely to develop a psychological 'increased invincibility' with everything that follows on from that.....

The 'rona has been here for over a year, and will remain until it runs it course naturally, as I said, if we'd let it do that when it arrived it in all probability would now be ancient history, instead we're prolonging the agony by slowing its course right down and it infecting a few here and a few there continuously for god knows how long in to the future. Meanwhile, until it has run its course as the population has achieved whatever herd imunity it is possible to achive, we're leaving ourselves wholly unprotected against any variant or mutation that happenes to develop as that time passes.

The original Spanish flu was no different than most other flus, it was the mutated version that was the widespread fatal version. The locations where the original flu had impacted worst ended up having the lowest number of fatalities in the end, as the fatal mutated version had great difficulty in establishing itself in such locations due to the levels of resistance in the populations given to them by having had the original version.

Its difficult to argue with history when the facts speak for themselves.

Its highly unlikely given what the 'rona is current medical science has the capability of creating a true and effective 'vaccine', they've had over a year to work on it, and what they're pushing is hardly impressive, or looking very likely to make any huge difference (unless to bank balances).

The art of minimising the total negative impact of anything, is usually to remove the active cause.  The 'rona has been here and active for well over a year, starving it of hosts via a lockdown didn't work, medical science has not been able to create anything that effectively denies it a host, so the only real choice left is herd immunity to deny it hosts.

We've been lucky so far that this has hung around so long and not mutated in to something far nastier, but that luck won't necessarily last. We can either continue as we are, with restrictions continuously being racked up and eased off, but never being removed for who knows how many years in to the future, all the while risking a mutation developing someplace that no measures is going to make any real difference to and does have a high fatality rate, or we can finally just let what is rip through, and be thankful a week, a month, a year, whatever in to the future that we did when a deadly mutant maybe does develop.

I'm not much for gambling, but if the bookie was taking bets, I'd put a tenner on the latter option being wisest.

The 'rona at the end of last year had an approx 3.5% fatality rate globally (likely less, given how 'rona deaths were classified), and there are reports doing the rounds that the average age of 'rona fatalities are 82. The UK Govt's own figures claim as many as 30% of those who contract it have no detectable symptoms......

In contrast, the bubonic plague, in its least fatal form has on average a 50% fatality rate (if untreated), and in its most fatal form, 100%.

Isn't it time for a little perspective, and a little less mass hysteria.





Link to comment
Share on other sites


In the latest vaccination figures up to Sunday, just under 90 per cent of eligible adults in Shetland have received at least a first dose, including 100 per cent of those aged 70 and over. Just under 50 per cent of adults in Shetland have had both doses.


I have good reason to conclude that those keeping tally are being rather economical with truth in making the statement I've highlighted in red.

99.99% may well have had at least one shot, I'm in no position to say either way, but 100% most certainly have not.

I hate Big Brother propaganda, wherever it rears its ugly head.

(Quote from SIBC headlines this morning).

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...