Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[COYBL25]

Cant you just wear a mask whilst maxing the envelope and feeling the burn and all that good stuff?

Maybe this would keep him happy in the gym ?

 

[Tea_drinker]

View attachment 95907

Maybe this would keep him happy in the gym ?

His glasses are gonna get foggy.

 

[WA Toffee]

You are missing the point I was making then.

Just because a scientist has said something doesn't make it true or even proven. Yet people regurgitate that information without even questioning it. If it's positive then it's unproven yet if it's negative it's fine to take on face value?

So many different things said and reported have not been validated yet we are suppose to believe it? Kawasaki disease , gone. They have found the first covid animal TWICE since this started, what was wrong with the first one? Key symptoms are being pushed to be included yet there is only a 3% difference between positive and negative tests. The virus affects minorities more , yet it doesnt. It affects males more , yet it doesn't. Everyone is dying from it , except they aren't.

You can take all your Information from scientists by all means. But actually listen to what that says and go and find the source because chances are it's a theory being printed as truth. So much has been disproven yet been 'fact' at the time of release.

Once this is over you will be able to look back on the coverage of this and see what I'm saying is right. The sheer amount of scare tactics , theories and guesswork that has been printed from scientists without any corroboration between them is amazing. The fact people just want to regurgitate these facts without making their own mind up is worse.

I think you may be confusing what scientists say, with what the media publish. They are very rarely aligned. If you are suggesting I shouldn't believe everything I read in newspapers or see on tv, then we would be in complete agreement. But I am still curious as to some reputable sources for information you could recommend.

 

[anxiouswarrior]

Was it no Goebbels who said tell a lie and if that dont work tell a bigger one , all the time every day

 

[Barnfred 55]

Bitter.

And proud

Seriously though mate, I was so busy when I was at work that I didn't have time to come on GOT even if I wanted too. I honestly put in daily 10 hour shifts and still couldn't keep on top of my workload. I'm not boasting by the way. I absolutely hated my job in the end.

Ah, the good old days of placing absolutely no trust in people you employ. Those are the kind of crappy workplaces I would lose no sleep if they went out of business.

To be honest mate, although this is an anonymous forum, over the years you get an insight into what people do for a living. There are a lot of what I call 9-5ers in here, government or local government employees (and bosses) plus people like me who work for large organisations in the private sector. Some of them spend so much time on here you wonder how they actually get any proper work done. One particular person has even apologised to me for a late response because he had to attend meetings lol. You wonder if the employers had a point in blocking certain website.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

no not just like that just many stories i heard , anyway believe what you want , yep there is a virus/flu out there , but is there not something else going on

 

[WA Toffee]

The funny thing is that I do actually have a point in what I'm saying.

And I think you know that. Otherwise I'd have been met with far shorter responses.

Just because you don't agree doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

Can I ask just what exactly is your point? I have seen you post extensively about not trusting the data, but is that your point? That you don't trust the numbers, or have you shared any actual information or insight that I have missed which can be discussed?

 

[Barnfred 55]

To be honest, I'm at the point where I want to go back to the office. I find it far harder to switch off and walk away from the laptop in the evening when I'm at home.

Still not heard any possible dates for when might be able to go back properly though.

Not sure what it is you do mate but I always found the best balance for me was a mixture of working from home and in the office. You definitely need the banter and camaraderie from working in the office, but when workloads built up. I found I was twice as productive working from home.

 

[Nymzee]

And proud

Seriously though mate, I was so busy when I was at work that I didn't have time to come on GOT even if I wanted too. I honestly put in daily 10 hour shifts and still couldn't keep on top of my workload. I'm not boasting by the way. I absolutely hated my job in the end.



To be honest mate, although this is an anonymous forum, over the years you get an insight into what people do for a living. There are a lot of what I call 9-5ers in here, government or local government employees (and bosses) plus people like me who work for large organisations in the private sector. Some of them spend so much time on here you wonder how they actually get any proper work done. One particular person has even apologised to me for a late response because he had to attend meetings lol. You wonder if the employers had a point in blocking certain website.

Yeh that's not the kinda working life I'm after haha.

 

[Kenshin]

I think you may be confusing what scientists say, with what the media publish. They are very rarely aligned. If you are suggesting I shouldn't believe everything I read in newspapers or see on tv, then we would be in complete agreement. But I am still curious as to some reputable sources for information you could recommend.

Given that all those articles I shared had links to data , I'd say they were pretty reliable.

Not sure what else you want as evidence? I gave you stats and even the who website.

But as I said yesterday , didn't matter what I shared, it would be dismissed out of hand anyway so there you go.

Can I ask just what exactly is your point? I have seen you post extensively about not trusting the data, but is that your point? That you don't trust the numbers, or have you shared any actual information or insight that I have missed which can be discussed?

My point is that basing an opinion on a series of numbers without taking into account varying factors doesn't make them true. Which in that case, the information was out of date, didn't factor medical history, the point disregarded the age bracket and other external factors such as smoking.

The overall point is that just because you are told something doesn't make it true, especially when you are just repeating said data without any real context.

After all I did say the numbers were exagerated and so has scientists recently with an urgent review taking place by the government.

The point is, I challenged the data with actual logical variables. Variables that do change the narrative of the data but if variables are just disregarded now then there's no value in data.

Saying it kills men more than women without any context or reason why (which was said to me , that's not an assumption) is ridiculous. Medical history , health , age and even smoking history factor into it and change the narrative. If more men smoked for example and therefore does at an old age because of a respiratory virus then that isn't down to mast cells and more to do with medical history. Completely different story.

Except apparantly none of that matters. Noone is I retested in actually having a discussion rather than shouting you are wrong because of this list of numbers form 3 months ago.

 

[Chewbacca]

Yes the gym has been open a few days and let me tell you it's great to be back in there. And just like in most shops, noone wears a mask.

They get in the way of the changing room bj’s?

 

[Tea_drinker]

They get in the way of the changing room bj’s?

How mature. He associates a changing room with homosexuality.

 

[summerisle]

Boo !

 

[Bruce Wayne]

To be honest mate, although this is an anonymous forum, over the years you get an insight into what people do for a living. There are a lot of what I call 9-5ers in here, government or local government employees (and bosses) plus people like me who work for large organisations in the private sector. Some of them spend so much time on here you wonder how they actually get any proper work done. One particular person has even apologised to me for a late response because he had to attend meetings lol. You wonder if the employers had a point in blocking certain website.

Dunno mate. I'm sure there are some like that. For me, as a freelancer, if I don't work, I don't get paid, but GOT is a nice break for the mind as just reading research papers and that all day isn't easy, so I tend to work in bursts rather than however many hours solid. The point still stands though, that it's bizarre that you would hire someone you presumably feel is both capable and of good character, and then put a bunch of restrictions in place that says you don't trust them to behave responsibly. That's a peculiar logic.

 

[WA Toffee]

Given that all those articles I shared had links to data , I'd say they were pretty reliable.

Not sure what else you want as evidence? I gave you stats and even the who website.

But as I said yesterday , didn't matter what I shared, it would be dismissed out of hand anyway so there you go.



My point is that basing an opinion on a series of numbers without taking into account varying factors doesn't make them true. Which in that case, the information was out of date, didn't factor medical history, the point disregarded the age bracket and other external factors such as smoking.

The overall point is that just because you are told something doesn't make it true, especially when you are just repeating said data without any real context.

After all I did say the numbers were exagerated and so has scientists recently with an urgent review taking place by the government.

The point is, I challenged the data with actual logical variables. Variables that do change the narrative of the data but if variables are just disregarded now then there's no value in data.

Saying it kills men more than women without any context or reason why (which was said to me , that's not an assumption) is ridiculous. Medical history , health , age and even smoking history factor into it and change the narrative. If more men smoked for example and therefore does at an old age because of a respiratory virus then that isn't down to mast cells and more to do with medical history. Completely different story.

Except apparantly none of that matters. Noone is I retested in actually having a discussion rather than shouting you are wrong because of this list of numbers form 3 months ago.

Thanks,I didn't see you had posted them, will have a look.