- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2238 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 27266
Right, now that the last corona thread is over 1,700 posts long, maybe it's time for a new one.
How long do you think it will be until we're fully back to normal?
|>>|| No. 27268
Normal wasn't sane. I can't see the world going fully back to the same state.
|>>|| No. 27269
Considering the government wants us to sarcrifice ourselves for the economy again now, and people are still for some reason desperate for holidays abroad, probably at least another year.
|>>|| No. 27270
Until an effective vaccine is developed, we're all at risk. So until then, it's about risk mitigation. It's not even been a year and the process usually takes about 3 years, even with stuff fast tracked for human trails we're talking roughly 18 months if we're lucky and people aren't rational about lock down.
|>>|| No. 27272
I'm not wasting three years of my life on 'risk mitigation', if you want to stay indoors thats your prerogative.
Going abroad doesn't give you coronavirus.
|>>|| No. 27273
>Going abroad doesn't give you coronavirus.
Obviously, it encourages the spread and you know this.
|>>|| No. 27276
Not all of us have the privilege of being able to sit at home wanking for three years.
|>>|| No. 27277
From where we are standing now, I think we should have just taken the deaths on the nose, honestly. Unpopular opinion and I know that, but if it turns out a vaccine can't be developed to give reliable immunity, that's about the only choice we will have. What can we do, socially distance forever?
It's not misanthropy that drives my viewpoint here, but rather the fact that we've gone above and beyond what should have been necessary, in a sensible world, to contain the spread and people still can't even follow the rules properly. If people are wilfully ignorant or too dense to put a mask on properly, or stay two metres away from me in the queue at Morrisons, then clearly they bloody well want to die. Who am I to stop them.
We're all still going to drown in fifty year's time and we're doing absolutely bugger all about it, but we're all sick with worry in case the nasty ickle cough bumps us off before then. I reckon we would have been absolutely fine if we just let it burn itself out like a wildfire.
The response to this virus offered us a choice to look at the way we operate society, and change it for the better, in the modern age. But we didn't take it. We're now heading for a worst of both worlds nightmare future, and on balance I'd have stuck with it before, as awful as things were.
|>>|| No. 27280
>Obviously, it encourages the spread
How can somebody not realise this.
Just read an article on Spain's tourism industry at the moment. Most countries that the bulk of tourists normally come from during the summer season have now issued either travel bans or warnings. It has taken away over 70 percent of their usual earnings during the summer months. And with few regional exceptions, they earn nearly all their annual revenue between May and September, so it's a double blow and they will be unable to make up their losses this year even if all travel restrictions are lifted again by October or November. And the beginning of the next summer holiday season, if there is going to be one, is still well over six months away.
|>>|| No. 27285
I'm inclined to agree with you, this whole thing's made me lose some more faith in humanity.
It's not as if there's an example out there of a country that did everything right in setting and following restrictions, and now has just over 100 cases. Oh wait. There is. Just like cases lowering in all the other countries doing the same. Seriously how is this a debate anymore?
Don't be stupid lad.
No, mate...Restrictions are for a timebeing so that the spread of the virus is greatly reduced, and then more easily controlled and any infections more easily managed, like you know, the entire reason we put restrictions in place to begin with. Then as time goes on, restrictions can be lessened gradually. It's how New Zealand was so on it, and how they got down to 0 cases. They restricted air travel too. But much like the Spanish Flu we apparently learned nothing from, opening up too early has/will make it much worse.
|>>|| No. 27302
No one is suggesting that you have to, but maybe keep your distance from strangers in shops until we have a vaccine, yeah?
|>>|| No. 27304
>Then as time goes on, restrictions can be lessened gradually.
Nope. Covid won't become less infectious just through the passage of time. China, South Korea and New Zealand were able to end their lockdowns and return to some sort of normality because they developed very efficient test-trace-isolate systems. It's all about speed at every stage - the quicker you find and isolate people who might be infected, the fewer people they can infect. That's what keeps the R value low enough to allow things to reopen.
Our system is getting worse, not better. The number of contacts being traced is below 80% and falling and the government doesn't even have stats on how quickly contacts are being traced. In many parts of the country it's taking a week to get results back from a COVID test. We don't have any real plan for how to improve those numbers.
|>>|| No. 27308
>Covid won't become less infectious just through the passage of time.
Not less infectious, but perhaps less dangerous. I think that's why we are just able to live with other seasonal coronaviruses like colds and flu, I think I read something that they would have started as a high-death toll pandemic and then mutated into something that isn't as deadly in order for itself to survive.
|>>|| No. 27311
Herd immunity is a thing, we'll eventually reach it to some degree, with the help of a vaccine or not. One of the reasons it has spread so effectively is that it's already one of those not-very-deadly pathogens, the death toll is just adding up because of the sheer number of cases. It's still only around 5% mortality.
Best case scenario it's full protection, but that's unlikely. Realistically it's more likely to end up being something like seasonal flu- The reason it's torn a path right across the world is because it was new and we've not been exposed to it before. Worst case scenario is it's like we're starting from scratch every time it comes round, and that's really the point at which we just have to accept it's one of those things out there in nature that might kill you, and deal with it come what may.
Either way, the impact will lessen over time, if not the actual potency of the disease. There are varying reports out there about re-infection and it's kind of hard to tell what's credible and what isn't right now.
|>>|| No. 27313
We have a government that can't lead and wants to sacrifice people for the economy, and apparently there's a good percentage of the country who are outright thickos.
|>>|| No. 27314
>Herd immunity is a thing, we'll eventually reach it to some degree
That was the theory when this first started, but it would have to spread massively for this to even begin to happen, seeing as how you can easily become re-infected. It's been bullshit for a while, unless it's left to spread uncontrolled and millions get sick and many more die, it won't happen.
|>>|| No. 27315
Also people seem to have completely forgotten how badly having covid can fuck you up in the long term. For some reason the "It's just like a seasonal flu" crowd are still about.
|>>|| No. 27316
You misunderstand what herd immunity means. It's not just a term thrown around to mean "everyone is safe".
If we develop a vaccine and deploy it en masse, herd immunity is exactly what we will have. As in, the people who cannot safely take the vaccine will be protected by virtue of high enough general population immunisation that they're unlikely to come into contact with an active case.
Now, if we don't develop an effective vaccine, yes, that's when massive numbers of people need to have had it, and the same level of protection probably wouldn't be reached. But it would still reduce the overall rate of transmission.
The trouble we're going to have is anti-vax dickheads. We've had comprehensive herd immunity to things like measles and polio for the last fifty odd years and only recently has that started to erode because of tossers who think vaccines give you autism.
|>>|| No. 27317
If you can become reinfected within a year, as recent cases are suggesting, you can't have herd immunity, at least not one that is logistically possible. We'd have to be getting vaccinations constantly, or the virus could come in different strains that would make the vaccine ineffective, like we see with the seasonal flu.
|>>|| No. 27318
Assuming money and logistics were no object, we could eradicate the flu by vaccinating everyone on the planet. If it's not in transmission, it's not going to mutate.
|>>|| No. 27320
Without a vaccine, we'd need at least 60% of the population to get COVID to develop herd immunity. At a conservative 0.7% CFR, that means at least 260,000 deaths. Getting to that level of infection without totally overwhelming the NHS would take the best part of a decade.
Unless the economic impacts of social distancing get really, really bad, I think the only politically tenable option is to ride it out until a vaccine arrives. The long-term health impacts of mass unemployment might end up being worse than the impact of uncontrolled COVID, but young people will bear the brunt of that and they don't vote.
|>>|| No. 27322
>but young people will bear the brunt of that
Not wanting to turn all middle aged tutting DM reading cunt, but serves them right for thinking they were invulnerable just because they were under 30 and couldn't get sick.
|>>|| No. 27324
Or thinking that being a barista or doing media studies is a good career choice.
It's gonna hurt.
|>>|| No. 27326
Yes, literally every person now between the ages of 23-40 did media studies and then wanted to be a barista.
Are you fucking reading the posts you're making?
|>>|| No. 27327
I bet kids these days must be having a right old laugh. Imagine getting months off school in the era of high-speed internet and then for the rest of your life the media pats you on the back for 'surviving' it.
Little shits will probably get to live forever as well.
|>>|| No. 27328
What many younguns get wrong is that almost all youtube channels are and always have been shit. There is a lot of survivor bias because everybody knows a handful of youtubers in their main areas of interest who have millions of subscribers and are actually able to make a living that way. But nobody sees or hears much about all the wannabe youtubers who dabble and upload two or three poorly boshed together videos but then realise nobody watches them, because they are shit, and then give up.
You're not going to be able to earn a living from being a youtuber just because you suddenly decide that spending a few minutes a day talking into a camera suits your layabout lifestyle more than sitting at a desk in an office. Those who do succeed as youtubers often put long gruelling hours into scripting and preparing their clips and then spending several days filming and editing them.
It's not going to be your daytime job unless you treat it as one.
|>>|| No. 27329
Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID, but we're trashing their future to save the codgers. It doesn't seem particularly fair to me. If the roles were reversed, would the current generation of over-65s sacrifice their pension to save young people?
|>>|| No. 27330
Herd immunity is what makes the flu jab effective m8. Not everyone gets it but not everyone has to, just enough people to stop it spreading.
|>>|| No. 27331
>Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID
They really aren't though.
|>>|| No. 27332
Less than 0.001% of under-18s who catch COVID-19 will die. For people aged 18-49, the infection fatality rate is less than 0.01%. About 15% of over-65s who catch COVID will end up in hospital and about 5% will die.
It might be politically convenient to pretend that we're all at risk, but it's just not true. COVID is a disease that only poses a real threat to people who are close to death already - the elderly and the seriously ill. A tiny handful of young and healthy people will die of COVID, but they're practically a rounding error.
|>>|| No. 27333
>Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID
The statistical data is skewed because at the beginning of the pandemic, young people were tested less. Which in turn means it's highly likely that mild cases were overlooked more than in older adults. Whereas now, there is much more testing among younger people, which reveals that they are much more likely to contract the virus than previously thought.
There is very generally more testing now than in March or April, while the hospitalisation rate, which should serve as a mark of how serious the pandemic actually is, continues to taper off. It should mean that we are already much closer to herd immunisation than has been assumed, and that the virus as such is both less serious and that we're long past the worst bit. If we're really at the beginning of a second wave, then it certainly doesn't manifest itself in an increase in hospital admissions yet.
|>>|| No. 27334
>COVID is a disease that only poses a real threat to people who are close to death already
Middle age is going to be living hell for you.
|>>|| No. 27335
Funnily enough, my neighbour is one of those who has "made" it on youtube. She doesn't seem to be rolling in money for all the work that's involved. At least back when it was rappers they would rack up huge debts on mansions and non-disclosure agreements.
Plus she proper shit herself when I made a joke about selling her address online. It was poor taste in hindsight but who wants to live like that?
I think if it was a straight choice like that they would. They're certainly invested in making sure they pass on their wealth at any rate.
The thing is I doubt any of this matters in the long run. In a worst case scenario it's the oil crisis where we'll feel a pinch for a decade but a recession was overdue and it's not like we don't have anything to be excited about for the future. How many people seem to remember the Great Recession at this point?
|>>|| No. 27336
When people talk about young people surviving Covid or whatever they never mention post-Covid syndrome. It strikes anyone at any age. That's why I'm terrified of catching this thing. I can go through hell for a couple of weeks if that was all it was, that's temporary. The fatigue? That's for life (presumably). Fuck that, I don't want to be out of breath climbing stairs until the grave.
|>>|| No. 27337
This is what I've been struggling to explain to people - a lot of people seem to think you either get it and die, or you're perfectly fine.
There's a mounting body of evidence that in some people, there's permanent long-term damage.
|>>|| No. 27338
>the elderly and the seriously ill
Or people who are overweight or have any kind of lung condition, it would seem.
Your rounding error is still hundreds of thousands of people - that's a city or two - I think that's worth saving.
|>>|| No. 27340
I get that you want to go to back to work as your only way to socialise but it's not the time for throwing around speculation and endangering people. We know that severe flu can have long-term impacts but there's no hard evidence the coronavirus is not more dangerous or shouldn't concern young people.
If you'd bothered to do a quick think before your post you'd realise there are no long-term studies into the coronavirus because it hasn't been around that long yet.
|>>|| No. 27341
Post-viral fatigue can happen with any infection, Respiratory or otherwise, and usually gets diagnosed as chronic fatigue syndrome if it persists beyond a year. Know a lass with CFS, she has ME too and constantly gets chest infections.
I have CFS, but don't have shortness of breath. It's a horrible fugue state that descends like fog and I need to sleep or I'll get a migraine. What caused it is also post-viral fatigue, but it was a severe case of impetigo that triggered it for me.
|>>|| No. 27342
>Your rounding error is still hundreds of thousands of people - that's a city or two - I think that's worth saving.
You're off by orders of magnitude. If literally everyone under 65 caught COVID-19, we'd expect less than 10,000 of them to die. 92% of people who died of COVID were aged over 65, 69% were over 80 and 27% were over 90. This is a disease that overwhelmingly harms the elderly, presents almost no risk to the young and presents only a very small risk to middle-aged people in poor health. If it weren't for the elderly, we wouldn't have ever considered a lockdown.
|>>|| No. 27343
You've equated death with all harm. I have friends in their 30s who have what appears to be permanent lung damage from covid. That is a factor that unknown in how it will affect people long term and how many are affected.
|>>|| No. 27345
Tories raising rates on second properties is not something I thought even a pandemic could bring about. What's next, increasing the seven year rule for inheritance?
Also unrelated but does anyone want to buy a flat in Leeds? It's very nice.
|>>|| No. 27349
We (globally) seem to be getting a bit better at treating it. Dunno if that's a plus, or minus, for long term effects?
|>>|| No. 27350
>Also unrelated but does anyone want to buy a flat in Leeds? It's very nice.
Does it have a view of a playground?
|>>|| No. 27351
Sadly not, though I'd have bought are Jim's flat for sure.
It's right by the canal though, if The Pusher is still active on here.
|>>|| No. 27352
Partly that, but partly that what we saw in April-May-June was infections running amok in care homes, their staff, nurses and doctors etc. To an extent there's now plausibly a certain level of herd immunity within that small subset of the population, as well as within those settings the access to PPE is much better than it was. So now the most vulnerable people, and the people most likely to pass it on to more vulnerable people are a bit safer.
The spikes in infections we're seeing now within the UK and the rest of Europe are to a larger extent in young people who aren't getting seriously ill, which is reflected in hospital admissions not rising in step with increasing infections. The biggest threat right now is that the young people getting infected will be passing it onto older family members.
|>>|| No. 27353
I think that generally, the bulk of elderly or otherwise frail and vulnerable people already caught it and died from the virus earlier this year. As highly contagious as the virus is, it is probably more widespread now by many orders of magnitude than we have any way of knowing.
What's really making statistics unreliable is that testing capacities have been expanded. According to data.gov.uk, testing capacity is now ten times what it was in early April. Test processing has also increased at least about five-fold.
You can probably liken it to the phaenomenon of overpolicing in crime hotspots. The more police you have watching people, the higher statistical crime rates tend to become in an area. Likewise, reported covid cases are on the increase now because there are simply more of them becoming known, both due to more testing and perhaps more public awareness. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the spread of the virus is getting worse as such.
|>>|| No. 27354
I agree with you general point - that far more testing, means we have far more known cases; and from there we are identifying far more of the "less lethal" cases. But my view is that we don't then extrapolate from there and go to "this is nothing to worry about" - it just shows how wrong we probably got the testing earlier in the year.
It has been interesting to see the (old, white, right-wing) media shift tack this weekend to the "everyone go back to work" lines. Almost as if there has been some concerted spinning..
|>>|| No. 27355
> It has been interesting to see the (old, white, right-wing) media shift tack this weekend to the "everyone go back to work" lines. Almost as if there has been some concerted spinning..
The mainstream media have just been a government mouthpiece for the whole covid period. Note the almost complete lack of dissenting views early on in lockdown, loss of civil liberties, destruction of economy etc.
|>>|| No. 27356
>Note the almost complete lack of dissenting views early on in lockdown, loss of civil liberties, destruction of economy etc
There was no shortage of all that in all the edgelad Breitbartian media that people like you probably prefer in general.
And even if everybody erred on the side of caution, including mainstream media, there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that the death toll would have been far greater if we had just stuck our heads in the sand and continued with Bojo's initial herd immunity approach.
Oh, I forgot, everybody over 65 is just a waste of oxygen anyway, right?
Have a word, lad.
|>>|| No. 27357
Anyone else looking forward to the flu and covid team up in the winter and second lockdown?
|>>|| No. 27360
U wot m8. I just want a media that raises questions that I myself would have.
|>>|| No. 27361
Who knows. Media peer pressure, or maybe just the fear that even with the best intentions, you will be put in the same corner as Breitbart if you doubt received wisdom about how this pandemic has to be handled.
But the onus isn't on the mainstream media, it's on all the idiots who believe the coronavirus is spread by 5G, who think that ordering people to wear masks is totalitarianism, and who retweet podcasts of conspiracy nuts on Twitter. They are the ones who have muddied the waters so that even if you present a well thought out point that calls general wisdom into question, people will think you are one of them.
|>>|| No. 27362
Corona's never going away. It'll keep on mutating and we'll get a new deadly strain each year just like the flu.
|>>|| No. 27370
>Oh, I forgot, everybody over 65 is just a waste of oxygen anyway, right?
Well. It's not quite that they're a waste of oxygen, it's just that out of any age group, they appear to be the one least appreciative of the sacrifices everyone has had to make- For their benefit, no less.
Also, not everyone you disagree with on the internet is some befedora'd alt right autist. Jumping to that conclusion says a lot more about how you see the world than that poster.
|>>|| No. 27372
>Also, not everyone you disagree with on the internet is some befedora'd alt right autist
No, you're right, that assumption isn't universally warranted. But there are plenty of alt right people out there right now who spout a lot of the same things as otherlad. And who on the surface will appear quite reasonable at first. It can be difficult to tell otherlad apart from them.
|>>|| No. 27384
It's more likely to mutate into strains that don't end up killing the host. I'm sure any singleton at the moment could tell you how social isolation impacts reproductive success.
Or it will mutate and give us all superpowers like in X-Men. This time next year we could all be wearing spandex.
|>>|| No. 27399
>It's more likely to mutate into strains that don't end up killing the host.
Why? How does that help it reproduce?
|>>|| No. 27400
Mutation as such is aimless, it just "happens". It's just as likely that strains will evolve that kill their host rapidly as it is that more benign strains come into being. But the more benign strains then have a higher chance of reproducing and jumping from host to host and spreading. Because if somebody gets rapidly and violently sick from a bad strain, it's much more likely that that individual will be spotted and isolated before the virus can infect a greater number of people.
It's one, but not the only reason why ebola has never led to a global pandemic. Incubation time is short, less than 48 hours in most cases, and patients deteriorate so rapidly and become very gravely ill that they're easy to spot. Also though, ebola tends to break out in small rural communities that have little contact to the outside world, and you can't normally give it to somebody just by breathing on them from a metre away. Whereas scientists now think that Covid-19 can even cling to exhaled smoke particles from a cigarette. I think Spain has now banned smoking in public areas for that reason.
|>>|| No. 27402
A virus needs living cells to reproduce and a host healthy enough to infect everyone else. It serves no purpose to kill people which is why pandemics emerge when viruses cross-species and why the various strains of the common cold are so successful.
I'm pretty sure this is common sense.
|>>|| No. 27403
But the lethality of covid is only about 1% and symptoms for most people are mild. Since it's a new virus there must be many ways it could evolve to spread better and many of these could have a higher lethality. The chances of it getting more lethal are 50-50.
|>>|| No. 27404
Town high streets are pretty much finished for volume sales, city high streets inly slightly less glum. Yes the virus has hastened the inevitable but its time for government to start looking at incentives for alternative uses
I'd imagine the airline industry is going to look very different before long
|>>|| No. 27406
The airline industry will recover before "high streets" do - I don't think the government realises, at all, because it doesn't want to try and solve the problem, how successful working from home has been for so many companies.
|>>|| No. 27407
>But the lethality of covid is only about 1% and symptoms for most people are mild
That's the key reason why it has spread so successfully. The aim of all life, forgetting for a moment the controversy if a virus counts as life to begin with, is to reproduce. The more a life form reproduces, the more successful it is, because it's proof that it's fit for life in its environment. There is no point in a virus killing its host "just because".
SARS-Cov-2 has spread so vastly because it's a mild infection for over 90 percent of people, enough so that many people pass it on without even ever knowing they were infected by it, and the rest of them probably have trouble telling their own symptoms from those of a common cold.
|>>|| No. 27408
>Outsourcing firm Capita is to close over a third of its offices in the UK permanently, the BBC understands.
>The firm, which is a major government contractor, is to end its leases on almost 100 workplaces.
>Home Office staff in England could be working from home for the next year as departments limit the number of people working in their buildings to comply with coronavirus social-distancing measures, a departmental email has revealed.
>Matt Hancock has said he cares more about how well his civil servants “perform” in their jobs than whether or not they return to the office, amid pressure on Whitehall to set an example after months of lockdown.
>The health secretary said he had “absolutely no idea” what percentage of staff in his department had returned to the office amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
They know that town and city centre footfall is fucked for the foreseeable, but they just don't want to admit it. Everyone has seen the benefits of work-from-home and nobody is going to go back to the office just to save Pret and WH Smith from oblivion. If they pretend that things will be back to normal soon, they delay the political reckoning. Same with the furlough scheme - they know that a heck of a lot of those workers won't be going back to their jobs, they know that we're going to see record levels of unemployment, but they don't have a plan so they're just pretending that everything will be alright.
|>>|| No. 27412
If companies like Capita are doing it, the government really doesn't have much choice but to follow suit. They practically are the government in a lot of areas.
|>>|| No. 27413
Equally, if the government can't persuade Capita not to do it then they sure as hell can't persuade anyone else.
|>>|| No. 27414
Yes - it also seems a bit rich to say to people "you're all going to get outsourced if you don't return to the office" when companies such as Capita and Serco have so much government outsourcing business.
|>>|| No. 27417
When the economy is destroyed and the globo homo digital serfitude system is up and running. The slave of the future shall be willing
|>>|| No. 27446
Is there something wrong with me? I've only just now noticed that coughing emoji isn't actually coughing.
|>>|| No. 27474
>consider wearing a mask when having sex
Just what the plastic surgery consultant told me while sadly shaking her head.
|>>|| No. 27481
From the very first frame you can see he is up for a fight. His body language gives him away. As for "panic attacks" FFS.
|>>|| No. 27482
Laddo has been coughing at people and spitting on the floor beforehand. The Nutters are trying to pin this as MUZZLE REFUSER GETS ATTACKED! Ignoring the first bit.
|>>|| No. 27483
"Medical condition". These are the same people who are "souverign citizens", believing magical incantations will save them.
|>>|| No. 27484
They're just lunatics - there is a brilliant legal judgement somewhere on the interwebs, by a Canadian judge, which dissects and destroys all the "legal" basis for those sovereign citizens - is a good read.
|>>|| No. 27487
Train Bobbies don't just turn up from a report of someone not wearing a mask - there needs to at least be a credible threat to other passengers.
Two Fridays ago at Hamilton Square, there was a squiffy Lad getting in everybody's face trying to scav a train ticket off them. Spent about a minute staring at my Walrus Card before offering to buy it for £20. BTP were already on the train ready to drag him away at James Street.
Also, the comments on those videos are distressingly loopy.
|>>|| No. 27513
I love it when right-wingers make cracks like this because they think they're satirising something but actually they just expose how clueless they are.
|>>|| No. 27518
Wealthy individuals are selling off investment portfolios and second homes in fear of massive tax increases rumoured to be in the Chancellor’s autumn Budget. Others are piling as much money as possible into their pension pots as their advisers are telling them to take advantage of tax breaks and the relatively low rates on offer now, before they go up dramatically.
It is all in anticipation of Rishi Sunak’s next Budget, to be announced before the end of the year. HM Treasury officials are understood to be contemplating sweeping tax reforms to pay for coronavirus and plug what is predicted to be a £322bn deficit, with total Government debt now outweighing the entire economy.
Tory donors have reacted with fury to reports of a 'soak the rich' plan by Rishi Sunak to help pay for the cost of Covid. They have privately warned the party that they will 'turn off the funding taps' if the Chancellor decides to go ahead with the controversial plan.
The plans were branded as Mr Sunak's fightback against the soaring cost of the pandemic, which has seen the national debt top £2trillion for the first time. But last night, party benefactors with close links to the City of London were particularly incensed at a proposal to hike corporation tax from 19 per cent to 24 per cent – a move that would raise £12billion next year alone.
|>>|| No. 27519
And this is why we should have closed the borders back in February and kept them closed. Let's see them rich cockroach bastards try and flee when Are Rishi, People's Chancellor, brings us back to a socialist utopia not seen since Tony Benn by seizing all their assets directly. .
|>>|| No. 27522
>Wealthy individuals are selling off investment portfolios and second homes
Does it say what and where they're planning on selling off? As someone looking to buy a home in the near future I'm licking my lips over a housing collapse and some undervalued investments sounds like a cherry on the top.
Saying that it's probably just be bollocks to scare him. Try to sell a home before Christmas, with everyone knowing what you're doing, and you're just pulling your own pants down.
|>>|| No. 27523
If you're on about second homes then it mentions passing them on to children rather than selling them.
Property prices are at about record highs now and a lot of lenders have withdrawn mortgage products with relatively high LTV rates. If prices do fall then don't be surprised if first time buyers are largely shit out of the market.
|>>|| No. 27525
>If prices do fall then don't be surprised if first time buyers are largely shit out of the market.
Exactly. Loads of first time buyers the last few years took advantage of low interest rates that enabled them to buy £300K family homes with next to no money of their own. If house prices ever go down again in a kind of way like they did after the 2007/08 Financial Crisis, then loads of young buyers just a few years into their mortgage will slip into negative equity, at which point many banks will pull a loan and force you to sell.
It'll depend on your living circumstances though. If the bank thinks your job is at risk during a concomitant economic downturn, they'll pull the rug from under you sooner than later. But banks also know that if they start pulling mortgages willy-nilly, it will only drive the property market down further and put even more people into negative equity.
|>>|| No. 27526
>young buyers just a few years into their mortgage will slip into negative equity, at which point many banks will pull a loan and force you to sell.
|>>|| No. 27527
Negative equity is when the market value of your house goes below what you still owe the bank.
In the 2008 property market crash, a number of mortgages were terminated when people had negative equity and no collateral to bridge the gap.
|>>|| No. 27528
This is why the property market just needs burning to the ground and starting again, fuck. Prices are dropping making it more affordable for people to step onto the ladder? SHUT IT DOWN, DON'T GIVE THEM LOANS. Prices start rising so the people who did get loans are going to get a better return on their investment? SHUT IT DOWN, DON'T LET THE BASTARDS HAVE THE MONEY WE WERE MEANT TO MAKE.
|>>|| No. 27529
Like most economic phenomena, it going up or down isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it changing drastically is.
|>>|| No. 27530
Forgive my ignorance, but why does the current value of the property matter as long as you're still capable of meeting the monthly mortgage payments and thus the loan is still getting repaid? Why would the bank care?
|>>|| No. 27531
Because a mortgage is essentially a big loan secured against the house you bought with it. If you can still make the repayments right now that's all well and good, but if you lose your job you might default, and in that case the bank's security is selling the house. So it's not as much of a problem if it goes up, but if it goes down, you're fucked, because they won't get the full amount they lent you back.
In a sane world that would be the bank's risk but it's not, it's your problem.
|>>|| No. 27532
Why not just have them go into negative equity, sell the house, have the prices crash through the floor, then have them take out a new mortgage on the same house?
The only major issue I can imagine is credit ratings, and frankly if your credit rating can be holed by the bank forcing you off a mortgage you were paying just fine then the whole credit rating system is fucked.
I would say that house prices consistently rising above wage increases is essentially always necessarily a bad thing. It's not like the price of tulips where you can just buy another flower.
|>>|| No. 27533
Negative equity doesn't mean that you lose your mortgage instantly over night. But the bank will be keeping an eye on how you are doing financially, and if there's a probability that you could lose your job as an economic downturn worsens. That economic downturn will be a key reason why house prices will have gone down in the first place, so it's all connected.
What's really going to bite people in the arse though is when the BoE someday starts raising interest rates to levels anywhere near what we had right before the Financial Crisis, i.e. 5 percent and more. We're at .1 percent now, and it means that a lot of people with very little money of their own can afford to mortgage proper mansions (or two-bedroom homes in Greater London). They can only hope that rising interest rates are so far off that they will have repaid a big chunk of their mortgage by then.
|>>|| No. 27534
It's good for landlords, and the numbers we use to determine the strength of our economy or productivity etc don't particularly care if people own their homes or just rent them for more than the price of a mortgage on the same property.
Since it's all credit the price of the overall property is near enough immaterial to anyone above the baseline income or buying as a couple (which I realise plenty of people aren't, but still), what's really harmful is the obstacle of raising a deposit. You used to be able to get full value mortgages. Nowadays people are wasting valuable years they could be paying towards their mortgage paying some cretin landlord's interest only mortgage instead while they scrape together for the deposit on their own.
Whole system is bent inside out honestly and if there's one thing I could change overnight about this country, the property investment market would be it. Don't care about imgrunts, don't care about jobs, don't care bout the bennies. Just let people have a fucking house for fuck's sake.
|>>|| No. 27536
Honestly it seems bonkers to me that we don't regulate the creation of credit more strongly than we do. My understanding is that we did until about the early 1970s, but the whole thing was a bit of a faff so we moved over to increasingly letting the banks do whatever they think will make them money and regulating that with interest rates. But in a situation like the late 1980s it seems utterly ridiculous to penalize productive industry with punitive lending rates just because there's a housing bubble, rather than just forcing banks to overcharge for mortgages and undercharge to industry. (To say nothing of forcing banks to underprice the risk of building a new house even if it means overpricing the risk of an old one.)
I know proper economists loathe these sort of games with the money supply, but until one draws up a nice scheme of tax credits that would have the same effect they can shut up.
|>>|| No. 27541
> But in a situation like the late 1980s it seems utterly ridiculous to penalize productive industry with punitive lending rates just because there's a housing bubble, rather than just forcing banks to overcharge for mortgages and undercharge to industry
Business loans for a company looking to expand its production capacity are usually cheaper than the interest you pay on a private mortgage. But this is largely due to bank policy, which attributes a lower risk to business loans for a well respected company than it does to private mortgages. There is also less overhead cost for a bank in managing big commercial loans than there is in managing mortgages. So there is already a divide between commercial and private loans.
A key reason for fluctuating interest rates on the whole over time is that it's a way of steering and controlling private investment during different phases of the economic cycle. At least traditionally. Making loans more expensive during boom phases means you are dissuading commercial companies from expanding their production capacities even further, which would then soon be unused once the economy cools off again. Likewise, it has usually slowed down housing bubbles during boom phases where more and more people were able to afford a mortgage, but then maybe put off their decision to buy a house until interest rates went down again a bit.
What we've seen the last couple of years since the 2008/09 housing market crash, at leat until earlier this year, is that we have had low interest rates despite a persistent increase in economic activity and prosperity. Interest rates no longer curbed economic expansion and prevented it from overheating. Which has led to a housing bubble unlike anything we've seen before.
The bigger problem with low interest rates is that it means dirt cheap money for investment banks and other speculators who can gamble the stock market at almost no risk. If you only have to pay 0.1% interest on money you borrow for financial market transactions, then even a return of 0.11 percent is enough to make a profit. It makes high risk transactions on the order of tens of millions per trade attractive, but it also causes extreme volatility of financial markets, which in turn affects many retail investors, but also things like life insurance policies, because insurance companies are finding it increasingly difficult to generate profit for their clients due to the unpredictability of markets. Which then hurts the average person who is hoping to put away retirement money. About the same is true for many pension funds. That's why I always say that there should be split interest rates depending on whether you invest money, either in a company or a mortgage, or if you just go and gamble with it. Money that is borrowed by investment banks to gamble the stock market should always have an interest rate about two percent above the general BoE lending rate. It will curb the most risky kinds of speculation and make big investors shift back to long-term investments, and the ensuing calming of financial markets will be beneficial to all of us.
|>>|| No. 27542
>lower risk to business loans for a well respected company than it does to private mortgages
But it's obvious why this is - the financial "habits" of a business are much better known than an individual, the directors (multiple people) have a legal duty not to spunk all the money on beer/hookers/gambling, there are usually better sources of collateral should the loan go badly wrong and all their accounts, history and performance is publicly available to everyone - none of those things happen with individuals.
>Money that is borrowed by investment banks to gamble the stock market should always have an interest rate about two percent above the general BoE lending rate.
Most investment banks aren't "gambling on the stock market". Even within a bank, the number of people who are allowed to proprietary trade like that are tiny, even in the biggest banks, single figures of people. You're thinking of hedge funds perhaps.
Banks are some of the most regulated institutions around - your level of understanding on what they do and how they operate is juvenile at best.
|>>|| No. 27556
>But it's obvious why this is - the financial "habits" of a business are much better known than an individual
You, or somebody was complaining further up in this thread that raising BoE interest rates to slow down the housing bubble would be unfair to businesses applying for a loan. My point was simply that large commercial companies tend to get better loans than a person applying for a mortgage no matter how high or low rates are. For all the reasons you and I have now stated.
>Even within a bank, the number of people who are allowed to proprietary trade like that are tiny, even in the biggest banks, single figures of people.
A lot of that money is no longer being moved back and forth by actual people, as I am sure you know, but by high frequency and algorithmic trading computers. They're the ones moving the markets. On some low-volume trading days, they already make up nearly 70 to 80 percent of all trading transactions. But they wouldn't be able to do much of that without all the cheap and almost free cash that can be borrowed for around 0.1% interest.
|>>|| No. 27557
The yute are the primary infected at the moment, plus we are getting better at treating it.
|>>|| No. 27559
>The yute are the primary infected at the moment
The only rational thing to do is lock up everyone under 30 and conscript pensioners into work teams to handle things like customer service (don't worry, they're experts at waiting tables). Everyone else can do whatever we want.
|>>|| No. 27560
The virus is only spiking because reckless young people are doing what the government told them to do, but not in a COVID-secure way, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
Don't kill your nan GO BACK TO WORK stay alert GO TO THE PUB control the virus GO TO SCHOOL save lives SAVE PRET A MANGER.
|>>|| No. 27561
>My point was simply that large commercial companies tend to get better loans than a person applying for a mortgage no matter how high or low rates are
I'm not sure that's helpful though. Say that house prices are going up by 15% per year, consumer prices are going up by 2% a year, industrial output is stagnant, wages are stagnant, and unemployment is slowly eeking upwards.
In those circumstances if you raise rates to temper the housing bubble you'll put businesses off from borrowing. Say you increase interest rates from 5% to 10%, which leads banks to charge industry 11% and mortgagees 15%. If the best return on investment industry can find is 9% then it's no longer profitable for them to borrow to invest, even if they are getting a lower rate than people looking for a mortgage.
We're dealing with the opposite side of the coin at the moment: Trying to keep the moribund real economy going even if it royally screws up the housing and share markets. Raising rates in response to a house-price-house-fire seems to have been more of a thing when RPI was the standard measure of inflation and interest rates weren't always preceded by a 0 and a period.
|>>|| No. 27562
I've seen quite a few people announce on Facebook that they're homeschooling their kids until at least January because of coronavirus. Not entirely sure why they felt the need to declare it.
|>>|| No. 27564
>Not entirely sure why they felt the need to declare it.
Would that not apply to 400% of everything posted on Facebook?
|>>|| No. 27568
I for one, do not even have 6 friends.
I'll be mildly annoyed if we can't travel again though as I've saved up a years worth of holiday that might turn into sitting in my house all December. I say mildly as that also sounds pretty tits.
|>>|| No. 27569
I have far too much holiday to take, for the same reason. I'm supposed to take two weeks in a whole block too, but I just can't be fucked.
|>>|| No. 27570
A couple of friends of mine I think of as being quite sensible are strangely being taken in by some "Great Reset" narrative (whatever that is) surrounding CV-19. Occam's Razor has left the building.
|>>|| No. 27571
It's been going on for long enough that they're all coming out of the woodwork now - have noticed this myself the past couple of weeks.
I would like to think people are just a combination of bored/scared - but as you say, Occam says they're probably just thick as mince.
|>>|| No. 27573
So Lockdown 2.0 sounds like it is about to be delivered - although it is curious they're giving us until next Monday.
And the AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine has had a hiccup in testing and one of the test subjects has had some kind of serious side-effect.
Not a great day for COVID19-recovery. Still in lockdown by Xmas do you think?
|>>|| No. 27574
>Not a great day for COVID19-recovery. Still in lockdown by Xmas do you think?
If we plan on keeping the schools open, expect to see stricter measures for most of the winter. I think it's more likely than not that we'll have to close pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops again before the end of October.
If we can't get test, trace and isolate working properly in a serious hurry, the second wave could well be worse than the first.
|>>|| No. 27576
Still miles off, and besides we don't know how much/how long antibodies give immunity yet. Anybody's guess.
|>>|| No. 27578
>So Lockdown 2.0 sounds like it is about to be delivered - although it is curious they're giving us until next Monday.
It'll be one of those "if you don't start behaving we'll have no choice but to start imposing lockdown measures. Look what you're making us do."
|>>|| No. 27579
I wonder how many white van men who regularly complain about "benefits cheats" were ineligible for the SEISS grants due to incomplete bookwork and tax irregularities.
|>>|| No. 27582
Nobody has really moaned about benefits cheats for about ten years now lad, that was pre-Cameron stuff. Besides I suspect it goes a lot higher up the self employed ladder than just white van men.
There was a couple of weeks of complaining by middle class people who had to sign on for the first time, though, and suddenly found out how pitiably little they'd get. That was pretty cathartic for a while. They were doing things like phoning in to Radio 4's afternoon show saying they deserve more than that because after all, they've paid into the system their whole lives.
Imagine that eh.
|>>|| No. 27584
From what I could tell they weren't too shocked by how little the average person would get in benefits; it was more resentment that they'd worked hard all their lives and were only eligible for a pittance whereas people squeezing out loads of kids and choosing benefits as a lifestyle choice knew how to milk the system for loads.
|>>|| No. 27587
There's nothing stopping them squeezing out a few kids of their own, but unsurprisingly, they're just not willing to put in that kind of effort are they? They want it all handing to them on a plate without putting in the graft, typical.
Point is, it goes to show the disconnect between the reality of benefits, and the tabloid bullshit people had hungrily lapped up without a second thought beforehand. It was indignance because they thought it was their turn to live the life of all expenses paid benefit luxury that turned out not to exist. It suddenly mattered when it concerned them.
|>>|| No. 27588
About five years ago there was an incident on Question Time where a Tory voter started crying about tax credit cuts, with the inference that the cuts were only supposed to affect scroungers rather than people like her. I'm pretty sure the Mail did a couple of hit pieces on her business and her private life to make it come across that she's actually part of the underseving poor so she had got what was coming to her. She's now a Labour councillor.
|>>|| No. 27605
Got nothing to do with the fact they're the ones being forced to go out and risk their fucking lives stacking the shelves in Tesco and pull people's pints in fucking Wetherspoons has it.
I honestly have no words.
|>>|| No. 27606
>Go back to school and uni and your shit low wage jobs!
>NO! NOT LIKE THAT!
Let's just Jokerfy the Mail offices already.
|>>|| No. 27609
If they're too thick or ugly to get on OnlyFans, that's their problem.
|>>|| No. 27611
At this point they would be better off just telling the truth. We're all fucked until a vaccine arrives.
Calling it "moon-shot" is ridiculous.
|>>|| No. 27617
I really, really don't understand. The PM, a man I'm told goes by the absurd nom de plume "Boris Johnson", is saying everyone needs to get tested and he's going to spend one-hundred-billion-pounds to make it happen, a figure he surely announced while holding his pinky against his face like Dr Evil. However, there's this weird, pervy looking bloke who's supposedly the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and he's saying no fucker needs a test and thinking about giving nurses sticks to beat back anyone who asks. This second chap goes by "Matt Hancock", something of a carpet-bagger de plume, if you ask me.
|>>|| No. 27618
A rare case of the worldfilter fucking up a decent joke there, my condolences.
|>>|| No. 27635
Isn't that more or less the same thing in a market where house prices grow faster than wages? (which in Britain, is to say: "Grow")
|>>|| No. 27643
The current housing 'boom' is driven by homes with gardens as preferences change due to lockdown and we're looking at a release of pent-up demand. Those cost more money.
>the lower end of the market is drying up and first time buyers are being squeezed out
No, it's a pretty good time to be looking for a home if you're interested in a small flat in an urban area. Even better times are ahead if you can wait a few months.
|>>|| No. 27644
>it's a pretty good time to be looking for a home if you're interested in a small flat in an urban area
It's a really terrible time to get a mortgage as a first-time buyer.
|>>|| No. 27646
No. The boom is being driven by those with a lot of equity in their properties who don't need a relatively high mortgage to trade up, particularly due to the stamp duty holiday that's in place until next March. The number of sales agreed for £1million+ properties in August 2020 was 228% higher than in August 2019, primarily people moving from London to the Home Counties but there's people moving from cities to commuter towns across the board.
Lenders are pulling riskier mortgages and raising rates for ones still left. It's not a brilliant time to be a first time buyer unless you have a large deposit or a wealthy family.
|>>|| No. 27651
Not taking the piss lad, but I do have a large deposit. Well, like £50k (absolute max about £70k) and I'm looking for a £120k house up north.
Prices are higher than ever though, I feel like holding off until next year?
|>>|| No. 27652
The north is supposed to be some kind of haven of affordable houses, according to southerners, but it's still overpriced as fuck for anywhere within sensible reach of the main cities (Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, etc). People just have their perspective skewed by the That London market.
You can still find a bargain in Castleford or what have you, but you're still paying the sort of money that, in a sensible world, should allow you to live somewhere less reminiscent of the film Threads.
|>>|| No. 27655
I'm in Newcastle which is even cheaper still, but like you say, that still doesn't mean you're getting a good deal right now, you'd only be overpaying no matter where you bought at the minute.
Saying that, I have a flat in Leeds if you want to buy that. I'll give you .gs discount, I don't even care. Being a landlord is fucking soul crushing. To further illustrate the point, however, here is an identical unit on the market right now - look at the fucking price of the cunt.
|>>|| No. 27657
I'll give you £800, a CD/DVD drive and a I'll let you choose two of my shiny Pokemon cards and eight non-shinies for the flat.
|>>|| No. 27664
Yes, even Little Beeston is overpriced. Wakefield and Calder in general is a slowly gentrifying commuter hub for Leeds these days. Full o' blood offcome'duns who don't even remember buying Es from a scally in Players on a Friday night.
Of course, nobody has told the existing residents this.
|>>|| No. 27665
Is it true that the new coronavirus rules mean that the rozzers can force their way into your property without a warrant if they 'suspect' there's more than six non-residents there?
|>>|| No. 27666
> force their way into your property without a warrant
I wouldn't be surprised and totally fair enough.
Also, they need a warrant far less often than you think for a lot of crimes.
|>>|| No. 27667
I met 12 people today for a BBQ. There were kids and old people there too (extended relatives). I hope it was alright.
Will find out in a couple of weeks... I guess... Would be nice to have that app now...
|>>|| No. 27694
>The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals
Sounds like typical alt-right nonsense. Just because an "alternative" opinion is ruled as unlikely by the rest of the scientific community, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to suppress it.
The HIV virus, when it was first discovered and described outside sub-Saharan Africa, was also rumoured by some to be the result of genetic bioengineering, because it had some quite unusual characteristics, which also made it very difficult to cure or at least effectively suppress until fairly recently. Does that mean the virus was engineered? No, probably not. And that's not even addressing the fact that the technology just didn't exist in the 1970s. It's just testament to evolution being able to come up with quite astonishing designs, and that is probably also true for SARS-CoV-2, even if some tinfoil hats think it was created in a lab.
|>>|| No. 27695
Fact is, if you COULD bi-engineer a virus like this, you'd have a Nobel prize and be richer than Elon Musk, with every government and research company on the planet fighting to get their hands on you. Biological warfare is highly illegal by international law, so it's not even that- Some shady contractor might want to debble in it but they're not going to be able to pay what a medical company can to get you looking in to bacteriophages to combat anti-microbial resistance or what have you.
|>>|| No. 27696
Also, in the case of AIDS, the first accounts of it as a mysterious wasting disease long before it even got its name was from white explorers in the 1930s who ventured into the African jungles. It was noted as a peculiar terminal illness that was known to occasionally affect people who were hunting apes and monkeys for food. They probably got it from cutting themselves while handling the raw meat. At that time, the understanding of DNA and its biochemistry was rudimentary at best, and there was quite definitely no technology in existence to engineer the virus artificially.
There's a lot you can do nowadays in that area. Genetic engineering and the modification of naturally occurrnig DNA has come a long way. But again, there is no need for a government to secretly develop a nasty virus, because evolution has shown many times that it is capable of doing it all on its own. If you also look at organisms like yersinia pestis or clostridium botulinum, two of the most deadly bacteria known to man, they just randomly came into being, and centuries ago. So it's entirely probable that SARS-CoV-2 just one day suddenly evolved, most likely in a population of wild bats that were then sold for food at a Chinese wet market.
|>>|| No. 27697
Yes but the important thing is to focus on who is to blame, rather than doing anything about it.
|>>|| No. 27700
I don't recommend Jim Davidson's YouTube channel.
|>>|| No. 27717
Lockdown 2.0 starting in the "North East" from midnight Thursday.
ITZ HERE LADS. ACQUIRE BOG ROLLS. AGAIN.
|>>|| No. 27718
Ade Edmondson is guilt free in all of this shit.
What a load of utter bollocks though. Generation Game? I wonder what generation he's gaming.
|>>|| No. 27720
>Young people are bearing the brunt of rising unemployment, with 16-24 year olds losing more jobs than any other age group. Radio 1 Newsbeat has been speaking to some of them about how it feels when you're made redundant in a pandemic.
I don't know how to even react to this quote:
>"It's quite degrading, knowing I have to find a job for money, which I feel might bring me down a little bit but I'm going to try and keep positive," she says.
The full video is worse. If the new head of the BBC wants more right-wing comedians expect Davidson to get an entire series.
|>>|| No. 27721
>I don't know how to even react to this quote
It's almost like that quote was cherrypicked in order to distract from the legitimate point that younger people are facing a hard situation.
|>>|| No. 27722
They always do this, they pick the most spoiled middle class twits to misrepresent the whole age group as clueless entitled tossers.
|>>|| No. 27723
He knows the dog whistle he is blowing.
What blows my mind is he almost was out of fashion/business/a dinosaur - the Brexit discourse has made him seem relevant.
I loathe cancel culture, partly because it usually gets the wrong people - he deserves every bit of it. How the fuck is he still able to publish that bullshit on YouTube?
|>>|| No. 27724
I work for an NHS lab. We were already understaffed and underfunded, keeping the show running by some kind of miracle, and now we're being asked to somehow divide our staff by mitosis and cover a night shift so we can shoulder some of the work the private labs, in a turn of events that has surprised literally fucking nobody, can't keep on top of. Of course we're not getting more resources or equipment.
How much money has the government wasted on pisstake private contractors when they could have just expanded NHS lab capacity, with the benefit that we've been doing this shit for decades and know what the fuck we're doing.
Livid honestly lads.
|>>|| No. 27725
Even in a pandemic the Tories still don't give a shit about the NHS, even when it saved the prime ministers life. That should tell us all we need.
|>>|| No. 27727
>How the fuck is he still able to publish that bullshit on YouTube?
Because people watch it? His last few videos have all had 100k views and he's only been doing it for a month or so; there's clearly a market for it.
|>>|| No. 27728
I can sympathise. Fuck work and struggling to find even a call centre job during the Great Recession was double shit.
>Rather than look for a new job, he's going to take the redundancy cash and use it to go travelling around South East Asia.
Not entirely sure he's thought this one through.
|>>|| No. 27729
>I loathe cancel culture, partly because it usually gets the wrong people - he deserves every bit of it. How the fuck is he still able to publish that bullshit on YouTube?
Because some massive fanny has yet to report him for no-no thoughts.
|>>|| No. 27730
Various right-wing groups organise mass-reporting of left wing accounts on social media.
|>>|| No. 27731
I'm not a leftie in the slightest, but happy to join any mass reporting of him. I thought the lefties were usually more organised with this sort of thing? He fucking deserves it.
|>>|| No. 27733
>I thought the lefties were usually more organised
Ha, you really aren't a left-winger.
|>>|| No. 27734
Keep taking the knee and crying about dead Yank criminals you lefty melts, the overwhelming majority of the British public couldn't give a shit.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 27737
Stop idolizing violent meth-head Yank scumbag criminals and bringing US grievances over here to demonize our police who don't even carry guns. Thank god the Birmingham stabby cunt wasn't shot by armed police, or you lot would have burned the whole city down by now.
|>>|| No. 27740
I find it really weird. I mean, who would read those chans and think YEAH I CAN USE THIS IN THE UK AND NOBODY WILL NOTICE. >>27737 is scared of something.
|>>|| No. 27741
He must actually be a seppo, surely nobody from this country would spell 'idolising' with a z?
|>>|| No. 27744
Stop taking the bait on identity politics bullshit, you absolutely myopic bellends.
|>>|| No. 27746
Am I hallucinating the last dozen posts flipping out about some low grade /pol/ troll then?
You lot should know better.
|>>|| No. 27748
Nobody in this country follows the Concise Oxford English Dictionary? That's quite the claim.
|>>|| No. 27751
We weren't talking about identity politics or any of the lunacy that lad was going on about at all. Someone made an incredibly stupid post and were treated aptly.
|>>|| No. 27752
This post had better be some sort of reverse psychology meta-troll. Otherwise have a word with yourself.
|>>|| No. 27754
A clever scientist on the radio has just said that although covid hasn't died out in the summer like other similar viruses, there's evidence that there's a 10-15% difference in mortality in seasonal conditions.
I missed the bit about if that's higher in summer or winter, but I'm guessing the latter. Pack your rice lads.
|>>|| No. 27755
It feels like everyone is a bit too preoccupied with mortality rates. There should be more attention on how, even if you only have mild symptoms, it can damage your respiratory system.
|>>|| No. 27756
There really needs to be more of a focus on this and I think the lack thereof is why there's a decent percentage of those in their teens/early 20's walking around thinking they're untouchable, and if they do get sick, think they'll just recover and be fine. This thing can fuck you for years, regardless of your age.
|>>|| No. 27758
The big story of 2021 will be the outbreak of WWIII, but I get your point.
|>>|| No. 27759
Didn't we already go through this, alarmist-lads? A bad illness can damage your body but the odds are fairly insignificant. Hence why we don't care about the long-term effects of flu. We currently have no long-term data on Covid but it's not magic.
|>>|| No. 27760
> Hence why we don't care about the long-term effects of flu
Once again, this is not the flu and it's not alarmist, this has been downplayed enough and currently there is a huge undertaking to try and understand and mitigate these ongoing symptoms and lasting damage people are getting from covid.
They've already been tracking people for a few months now who had it and recovered, and the data coming out isn't resassuring. The best guess at the moment is the probability of developing ongoing symptoms/issues and taking longer to recover in general is 10% or a bit under, but given that there's at least 29 million cases right now, that's potentially a good 2900000 people, and the outcome for those people will be varied. On top of this we have evidence from previous corona strain outbreaks, such as SARS, that show the damage done can last for years. I really shouldn't have to point out the knock on effect this can have on health services too.
At any rate it is a valid concern that is being researched because you're right, it isn't magic, it's science.
|>>|| No. 27761
>A bad illness can damage your body but the odds are fairly insignificant. Hence why we don't care about the long-term effects of flu. We currently have no long-term data on Covid but it's not magic.
Young people who experience mild symptoms probably aren't going to experience significant long-term effects, but there are serious concerns about middle-aged people who suffer serious but non-life-threatening illness.
After the SARS outbreak, we saw serious long-term respiratory scarring in the majority of patients, with some people still suffering with substantially reduced lung function after a decade.
The big unknown with Covid-19 is the neurological effects. We're not sure whether it's due to hypoxia, inflammation or some combination, but a significant proportion of patients experience major neurological problems. Loss of smell and taste is common enough to be listed as a sign that you need a test, but we're also seeing patients suffer sight loss, neuralgia, muscle weakness and seizures.
We're also seeing a lot of patients with muscle damage (again, possibly hypoxia or inflammation) which can do massive damage to your kidneys via rhabdomyolysis.
We shouldn't be alarmist, nobody who feels fine now is suddenly going to keel over with Covid after-effects, but the fact that someone survived doesn't mean that they survived unscathed. Spending a couple of days in hospital with a bad bout of the 'rona might well come back to haunt you in old age if you ended up with a scarred heart and lungs.
|>>|| No. 27763
Stop scaring me lads. I think I might have a flu/cold. I have the sniffles, blocked nose, minor cough from smoking a lot, and just aches and pains... It feels like a cold/flu.
Every now and again, I keep taking my temperature, and spraying different deodorants on myself to see if I can smell it. I bought shit loads of sweets, to see if I can taste it as I go through it slowly.
So far, I can smell, taste, breathe normally, and have no fever. It's only day four. I hope it doesn't get worse.
In other news - it is close to impossible to book a Covid test. I kept trying yesterday and today, every hour. Nothing. Just a shitty message telling me there is nothing available.
Britain is being run like a useless local government council.
|>>|| No. 27764
It's totally normal for this time of year though - my kids went back to school a couple of weeks ago, and I've spent two days this week having the same kind of cold - happens most years. 100% sure I haven't got the 'rona but I can see why many people have been panicked into getting a test.
I actually had a sore throat, heightened sense of smell, many symptoms back at the start of August - got the test from gov.uk (delivered via Amazon), sent it in the post, results back next day - it was extremely efficient. It blows my mind in the space of a month they have fucked it all up completely, it was utterly predictable and typical of us as a nation.
I'm sure you're fine lad.
|>>|| No. 27765
I developed Fibromyalgia and live with chronic post-viral fatigue because of pneumonia. I was told this is fairly common with viral pneumonia.
Covid just so happens to cause pneumonia at a far higher rate than the the flu does.
|>>|| No. 27767
But what about Pret a Manger? That's what the UK economy is held up by, or so the media tells us.
|>>|| No. 27768
>In other news - it is close to impossible to book a Covid test. I kept trying yesterday and today, every hour. Nothing. Just a shitty message telling me there is nothing available.
Look, I insist that our testing system is the best in the world, despite any evidence otherwise. Will you povvos just stop carping on about it?
|>>|| No. 27770
I think the current advice on comparing the flu/a cold to covid is that you rarely sneeze and have a runny nose with covid, you're more likely to develop a harsher continous cough or keep having coughing fits and I think the loss of taste/smell is rather sudden too. As the other lad says, you're probably fine, sounds more like a cold.
|>>|| No. 27771
Someone I work with had it and the only side effect is that they feel a bit funny if they go down the chilled aisles in a supermarket.
|>>|| No. 27773
Eerily predictable full-lockdown coming.
Should I go and buy some more pasta?
|>>|| No. 27774
God. He is so annoying. Why do people vote for him? I don't understand any more.
I don't feel too bad. I haven't self isolated because I think it is a cold. Although, when I woke up this morning, my ability to smell has somewhat been dulled.
|>>|| No. 27776
The Telegraph - the letter K in their house typeface (Austin New) is very distinctive.
|>>|| No. 27778
>NHS is overwhelmed and hospitals are full
We've been in lockdown since 1948?
|>>|| No. 27779
That was before the discovery mid-May or so, that we actually need the economy more than we had previously thought in order to avoid running out of money, and thereby becoming poor (a fate worse than death.)
We are also governed by a farcical set of Spitting Image caricatures so delusional, they thought we'd be treated fairly by the fucking USA of all places, post-Brexit.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]