You said it. Seemingly better. Maybe there is a reason that bojo doesnt appear to give a s*** atm.
He could be quite poorly behind closed doors.
A virus is very dangerous. ME was a laughed at one years ago with people getting flak for making it up to blag but its proved to be very damaging for years and even a lifetime sadly. It's not the now with C19, it's the then that's the worry.

I could’ve pulled a positive piece on written by many different people. It just happened to be a Daily Mail one.

I remember you saying how important education is in the future investment into a country, yet here you are criticising Sweden that kept their schools open throughout rather than this s*** pit of a country that’ll keep children out of school for 6 months. 9-12 if the NEU get their way. They will also not have caused thousands upon thousands of other serious illnesses and deaths, and of course mass unemployment and poverty. Now there’s something to ponder. They value life. Just not in the haphazard plaster this, fvck that type approach we’re making. I always said we should’ve locked down temporarily.

Your article says, and this is where I can’t take it seriously,

‘The sad fact is that herd immunity just isn't a solution to our pandemic woes. Yes, it may eventually happen anyway, but hoping that it will save us all is just not realistic. The time to discuss herd immunity is when we have a vaccine developed, and not one second earlier, because at that point we will be able to really stop the epidemic in its tracks.

Until we have a vaccine, anyone talking about herd immunity as a preventative strategy for COVID-19 is simply wrong. Fortunately, there are other ways of preventing infections from spreading, which all boil down to avoiding people who are sick.

So stay home, stay safe, and practice physical distancing as much as possible.’

It’s so f’ing delusional that I can’t be bothered to type this late at night. Funny seeing as he accuses the herd immunity route as delusional. And on his 70% herd immunity figure. It’s thought under a third of that number could be enough, and nowhere in his article does he mention T-cell immunity. If that was printed on paper I think I’d have flung it away. It would probably only make a free paper or the Guardian. They’re coming out with vaccine praying toss on a daily basis.

It’s really pretty simple. Shield the vulnerable. It’s slightly revealing that with regards to this long term Covid thing, there’s absolutely no figures or findings whatsoever. Nothing. I expect you have to listen to James o’ Brien or read Owen Jones using any opportunity to influence people into accepting this government control and loss of consideration for the future and young people especially. That’s left lies for you. Illogical at best. Idiotic at worst.

Edit: Sweden hasn’t had the experience of people going undiagnosed or dying of other illnesses. We have, and lots of ‘em. There are untold amounts of cancer patients undiagnosed and I think the cardiac symptom patients were down by a half. Sweden may have not (tried) to protect everyone the best they could (or couldn’t) from Covid, but they didn’t seriously kill and affect many more like we have. Unfortunately nobody in political opposition opposes it.

The cure is worse than the disease. But I just don’t want to hear anyone complaining about it if they get a shock redundancy if they’ve been all for this. Of course there are plenty all for this while knowing they won’t be affected. As expected.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (10 Aug 2020 12.15am)

COYP

Just the major majority of them.

Conservative teachers get zero representation in any of the far left teaching unions.....zero.

And those entering the profession learn to shut up in the staff room pretty quickly.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Aug 2020 11.43pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The source of the info is the CDC
I can't provide a link, sadly, but that's where it comes from.

This seems to say 0.65%

[Link]

Note that 28% of those over 65 admitted to hospital die. If using the IFR of .65% you then have to bear in mind that most people that are infected don't have a positive test making your IFR worse as the tested people will mostly be more ill. Then factor in the dramatic change in mortality rate as you age. Your original assertion simply cannot be anywhere near correct. If you are tested positive when you are 100 you are - to put it mildly - in deep sh*t.

Edited by Mapletree (10 Aug 2020 1.30pm)

Unlikely to be working, or if they are, can be supported by the state.

COYP