News4 mins ago
Does She Have A Point?
https:/
I began reading this article with some scepticism but as I continued & looked at the statistics I found it more & more compelling, does anyone else feel this way?
I began reading this article with some scepticism but as I continued & looked at the statistics I found it more & more compelling, does anyone else feel this way?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro
"For every 1,000 people infected with the coronavirus who are under the age of 50, almost none will die. For people in their fifties and early sixties, about five will die — more men than women. The risk then climbs steeply as the years accrue."
Thats probly about right but so what, a wonder. Are you thinking we should seperate out the over 50s and lock them up (or just axcept they may catch it from anyone young or old) and let the under 50s go out and live there lifes as normal?
"For every 1,000 people infected with the coronavirus who are under the age of 50, almost none will die. For people in their fifties and early sixties, about five will die — more men than women. The risk then climbs steeply as the years accrue."
Thats probly about right but so what, a wonder. Are you thinking we should seperate out the over 50s and lock them up (or just axcept they may catch it from anyone young or old) and let the under 50s go out and live there lifes as normal?
bobbin; //Are you thinking we should seperate out the over 50s and lock them up (or just axcept they may catch it from anyone young or old) and let the under 50s go out and live there lifes as normal?//
No, I'm thinking that the statistics for deaths from coronavirus are only slightly worse than from influenza - which hasn't gone away btw.
and questioning whether it is worth this incredible scenario of lockdowns, misery & the trashing of the economy by trillions.
It is always the older generations who die from influenza anyway & that is mostly due to underlying health issues.
No, I'm thinking that the statistics for deaths from coronavirus are only slightly worse than from influenza - which hasn't gone away btw.
and questioning whether it is worth this incredible scenario of lockdowns, misery & the trashing of the economy by trillions.
It is always the older generations who die from influenza anyway & that is mostly due to underlying health issues.
//Are you thinking we should seperate out the over 50s and lock them up (or just axcept they may catch it from anyone young or old) and let the under 50s go out and live there lifes as normal?//
It's not quite as you say, but you're getting there. Nobody should be forcibly separated or locked up. But there is quite clearly a need for older people to take greater precautions than the young. It's true in many situations, not only this one. Older people should beware of contracting the 'flu. Many of them die from it. 'Flu in younger people is usually simply unpleasant.
So, with that in mind, do you think it is reasonable that the entire population should be forced to take extreme measures to avoid catching a disease that will probably have little effect on them so as to avoid passing it on to someone who is more vulnerable? Or is it more reasonable (and a whole lot better for the country) that those who are vulnerable should take more extreme precautions as they think fit?
It's not quite as you say, but you're getting there. Nobody should be forcibly separated or locked up. But there is quite clearly a need for older people to take greater precautions than the young. It's true in many situations, not only this one. Older people should beware of contracting the 'flu. Many of them die from it. 'Flu in younger people is usually simply unpleasant.
So, with that in mind, do you think it is reasonable that the entire population should be forced to take extreme measures to avoid catching a disease that will probably have little effect on them so as to avoid passing it on to someone who is more vulnerable? Or is it more reasonable (and a whole lot better for the country) that those who are vulnerable should take more extreme precautions as they think fit?
bobbin: Matt Ridley writing in the current Spectator points out, ' Among students the infection is mostly asymptomatic or mild. As of last week, 70,000 [repeat, 70,000!] students in the United States had tested positive, with just three hospitalisations (one released) and no deaths.'
Is it any wonder that our youth do not want to see their lives placed under such restrictions?
It seems to me that contracting this disease is unpleasant, you go to bed & feel like sh-i-t for a while & then you come out of it bearing immunity which is good for you & for the community (herd) as a whole.
Statistics show that it the elderly (my cohort) who are the most vulnerable, it is they who should be targeted & given the most support, not locking down the whole country - how many 82 year olds are in the pubs after 10 o-clock anyway?
Is it any wonder that our youth do not want to see their lives placed under such restrictions?
It seems to me that contracting this disease is unpleasant, you go to bed & feel like sh-i-t for a while & then you come out of it bearing immunity which is good for you & for the community (herd) as a whole.
Statistics show that it the elderly (my cohort) who are the most vulnerable, it is they who should be targeted & given the most support, not locking down the whole country - how many 82 year olds are in the pubs after 10 o-clock anyway?
//And STILL no-one answers the obvious question about it all being a hoax.
That could be because the question is not appropriate to the original question, allen, and there is no point in continually asking it.
If you read the article you would learn that the writer is not for one moment suggesting that the virus is a hoax. She goes to pains to point out some of the effects it is having globally. What she is questioning is the effectiveness of government’s increasingly bizarre measures. She concludes by suggesting that when viewed alongside them, the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax occasionally looks more plausible.
That could be because the question is not appropriate to the original question, allen, and there is no point in continually asking it.
If you read the article you would learn that the writer is not for one moment suggesting that the virus is a hoax. She goes to pains to point out some of the effects it is having globally. What she is questioning is the effectiveness of government’s increasingly bizarre measures. She concludes by suggesting that when viewed alongside them, the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax occasionally looks more plausible.
The elite of Davos are convening Agenda 2021, in which the preamble to their musings suggests that Covid 19 presents an opportunity for the restructuring of society worldwide.
The global economy, social structures, finance etc and indeed all the levers of power.
That's where the global conspiracy starts.
The global economy, social structures, finance etc and indeed all the levers of power.
That's where the global conspiracy starts.
So shes (or you) having her cake and eating it (maybe wrong term)- its not a hoax but it could be "the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax occasionally looks more plausible."
its a conspiracy but not necesserilly a hoax. Whats that about.
10 claridge st- your Typhoid Mary refrence has been blown out of the water on another thread. We know at least 90% of us havn't had corona yet.
its a conspiracy but not necesserilly a hoax. Whats that about.
10 claridge st- your Typhoid Mary refrence has been blown out of the water on another thread. We know at least 90% of us havn't had corona yet.
Latest Posts
News10 mins ago
Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
