Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Metro)   Londoners decide drinking and partying is more important than living   (metro.co.uk) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

4161 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2020 at 4:21 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



115 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-10-19 6:26:11 AM  
Sorry Aussie friends, My map doesn't show current coding down there...  I've heard of spikes and drops a few times.  And we aren't even going to talk about New Zealand.  Teacher's pets...
 
2020-10-19 6:32:18 AM  

duncan_bayne: LiberalConservative: makerofbadjokes: LiberalConservative: middlewaytao: [Fark user image image 470x217]

Americans western culture

Hey, don't lump us responsible countries that are having good success at limiting covid. More likely it's a whole of humanity thing, anyhow.

*Watching cases spike all across Europe*  Which "western" countries would those be...?

Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, or Norway?

Cause the rest of Europe is throwing down some hard Second Wave numbers... and the US?  They can hardly tell the second wave started because they were riding the first wave like a surfing champion...

Australia. Doing well... relatively. Borders are still mostly closed, including state borders. I've been covid tested five times by my main client as a precaution (though the test does hurt). The only real problem is other countries farking it up and allowing this bastard covid to thrive.

Australian here too. We're doing well in terms of COVID case numbers but have made a bonfire of personal wellbeing and the economy, especially here in Victoria.

The repercussions of this will be felt for years or decades to come, especially if our Muppet of a Premier continues to chase elimination, and doubly so if an effective vaccine is late or never eventuates.


WA here. Different state, different lens being viewed through, I guess. Those hard controls in VIC are saving similar explosions in other states. But yes, there is a cost.
 
2020-10-19 8:06:32 AM  

Jeebus Saves: Animatronik: If you feel like partying or protesting, google a few stories about ectremely fit people 25 to 35 who either died or wound up feeble and sick months after getting infected.

That'll sober you up right quick.

And if you google it, you'll only find a few stories.  It's no wonder a bunch of fat, old farkers who drink too much and think exercise is something douche bags do are so worried.


There are more than a few stories.
Also, the most important stories are people over 40, who werent esoecially fat, who got very suck very quickly.

The cost of wearing a mask and keepung the right distance is small.  The cost of skipping indoor parties is small.
 
2020-10-19 8:16:29 AM  
We are starting to get to the point where people are saying the risk of contracting covid is outweighed by the absence of normalcy.

I honestly can't blame people.
 
2020-10-19 8:24:58 AM  

sprgrss: We are starting to get to the point where people are saying the risk of contracting covid is outweighed by the absence of normalcy.

I honestly can't blame people.


I blame people for being stupid.
You should do everything you can to avoid contracting and spreading this disease.
By the time we find out herd immunity had no chance of working, more than a million will be dead.
If you think this will only hurt people who were fat or had the wrong politics or were sickly and taxing the health care system, that is simply not borne out by the facts.
 
2020-10-19 10:40:58 AM  

LordBeavis: How did these sots ever have an empire the sun never set on?


Fark user imageView Full Size


They brought a flag
 
2020-10-19 11:11:26 AM  
People in another part of the world doing the same ignorant petulant child act we're doing.
Yep, they're our cousins alright.
 
2020-10-19 12:00:42 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Malenfant: soupafi: But protests are ok still right?

Protests are still necessary. It's unfortunate that awful people use them as an excuse to behave inexcusably.

I think you and I might have different definitions of necessary.


So far they haven't really been necessary for straight white employed men.
Then of course they haven't been, have they? Wonder why that is?
 
2020-10-19 12:26:26 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: My unscientific guess is that today's testing is discovering more asymptomatic infections that would have gone undetected during the first wave, which would mean that in the spring there were actually 5-10 times more cases than there are today.


BarryJV: They increased the number of tests twenty fold between the two waves. Divide the case numbers by twenty to get equivalence.


Both of you seem to have missed where I said:

dready zim: Either that or it is a lot less deadly than previously thought.


If 5-10 times, then the lethality of the virus is 0.3-0.6%

if 20 times then it is 0.15-0.2%

This range (0.15%-0.6%) fits in with ranges some official bodies are saying

"the CDC in its "Pandemic Planning Scenarios" document estimated the death rate was about 0.26%, a number calculated by combining the CDC estimates for the death rate for symptomatic cases and the number of infected people who have no symptoms."

But that number lies within a range of estimates. Saying the CDC has "confirmed" that as the death rate paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change.

It is interesting however that as testing improves and becomes more widespread, the ratio of cases to deaths favours lower estimates for how deadly the virus is.
 
2020-10-19 12:53:45 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: LordBeavis: How did these sots ever have an empire the sun never set on?

[Fark user image image 395x505]

They brought a flag


No flag, no country. You can't have one!

One of the best, if not the best comedy specials ever. I need to watch it again.
 
2020-10-19 1:11:32 PM  

dready zim: Cornelius Dribble: My unscientific guess is that today's testing is discovering more asymptomatic infections that would have gone undetected during the first wave, which would mean that in the spring there were actually 5-10 times more cases than there are today.

BarryJV: They increased the number of tests twenty fold between the two waves. Divide the case numbers by twenty to get equivalence.

Both of you seem to have missed where I said:

dready zim: Either that or it is a lot less deadly than previously thought.

If 5-10 times, then the lethality of the virus is 0.3-0.6%

if 20 times then it is 0.15-0.2%

This range (0.15%-0.6%) fits in with ranges some official bodies are saying

"the CDC in its "Pandemic Planning Scenarios" document estimated the death rate was about 0.26%, a number calculated by combining the CDC estimates for the death rate for symptomatic cases and the number of infected people who have no symptoms."

But that number lies within a range of estimates. Saying the CDC has "confirmed" that as the death rate paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change.

It is interesting however that as testing improves and becomes more widespread, the ratio of cases to deaths favours lower estimates for how deadly the virus is.


i didn't miss what you said, I just kind of skipped over it. Sorry about that. It seemed to me there were two possibilities: either the virus has become less lethal during the course of the year, or it has always been less lethal than we thought (this is your opinion, I believe), but today we have more complete data.

If the second interpretation is true, that's troubling, because most countries are still basing their policy on the intial,overblown (?) Imperial College fatality estimates. Also, trying to curb the spread of a virus that has already spread pretty much everywhere strikes me as not a little bit quixotic.
 
2020-10-19 1:24:36 PM  

rewind2846: Fark_Guy_Rob: Malenfant: soupafi: But protests are ok still right?

Protests are still necessary. It's unfortunate that awful people use them as an excuse to behave inexcusably.

I think you and I might have different definitions of necessary.

So far they haven't really been necessary for straight white employed men.
Then of course they haven't been, have they? Wonder why that is?


But they have been necessary for gay white employed men (pride) and straight white unemployed men (Jarrow march). Straight white employed men who are employed by Amazon, for example, would think it necessary to protest against their working conditions if they were not fully occupied trying to just pay their rent and keep their job (anyway they would get fired if they complained).

It does look as if it is pretty much just middle class and upwards, straight, white, employed, men who are in the group you are talking about. In fact, people on that sort of money whatever their colour, gender, or sexuality, don't have much to complain about.

How about we just call them the rich? It is their only common defining characteristic if we are fair.

They do seem to be the common denominator in most protests, and of course their hired attack dogs, the police.

The rich really have done an amazing job in turning poor people of all types against each other when they are the real enemy in all this. If you look at history, there was a time when black and white poor people started to be united against the rich and rightly so. This worried the rich employers and landowners so they decided to treat poor black people worse than poor white people creating an artificial two-tier system. This (again rightly so) got black people angry at white people because white people got better treatment, and it got white people scared that if black people got fair treatment, that the little that was spared by the rich would be taken from them. This divided the poor and got them fighting each other instead of the rich.

It was amazingly effective and still works to this day.

Love them or hate them, you have to hand them that. It is literally institutional and very deliberate, but the institutions are only put in place by the rich, not everyone.

But don't play their game, they have engineered it so only they win. The only winning move is not to play.

Instead, see that the true enemies are the rich and the police and that the rich use the police as a stick to enforce the rules of their game. They use their stick unfairly so you complain about how unfairly the rules of the game are administered, instead of seeing that it is the maker of the game who is to blame. The one thing they do not want is for the hate to be directed at the rich, that should be the only goal of almost any protest against the injustice of societal structures.

Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-19 1:28:13 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: It seemed to me there were two possibilities: either the virus has become less lethal during the course of the year, or it has always been less lethal than we thought (this is your opinion, I believe), but today we have more complete data.


Both possibilities are quite likely. A virus will evolve to be less deadly and to infect more people before the host notices symptoms, and when early testing is patchy, cases that do not require treatment or are asymptomatic will be missed meaning a rise in cases when effective testing is widespread.
 
2020-10-19 3:08:05 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: [Fark user image 425x619][Fark user image 360x450]

Both of these guys agree subby


Related?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-19 4:40:43 PM  

dready zim: Cornelius Dribble: My unscientific guess is that today's testing is discovering more asymptomatic infections that would have gone undetected during the first wave, which would mean that in the spring there were actually 5-10 times more cases than there are today.

BarryJV: They increased the number of tests twenty fold between the two waves. Divide the case numbers by twenty to get equivalence.

Both of you seem to have missed where I said:

dready zim: Either that or it is a lot less deadly than previously thought.

If 5-10 times, then the lethality of the virus is 0.3-0.6%

if 20 times then it is 0.15-0.2%

This range (0.15%-0.6%) fits in with ranges some official bodies are saying

"the CDC in its "Pandemic Planning Scenarios" document estimated the death rate was about 0.26%, a number calculated by combining the CDC estimates for the death rate for symptomatic cases and the number of infected people who have no symptoms."

But that number lies within a range of estimates. Saying the CDC has "confirmed" that as the death rate paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change.

It is interesting however that as testing improves and becomes more widespread, the ratio of cases to deaths favours lower estimates for how deadly the virus is.


Maybe someday we'll know more of the real story.  I hear anecdotes by one friend that I will just file back in my mind and see if someday they get confirmed.
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.