OV9

Rich B wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:01 am

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:50 am If you click into the link there's a caption on the image, it's not a real mask it just looks like one.

what a bizarre concept!

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:50 am If you click into the link there's a caption on the image, it's not a real mask it just looks like one.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:50 am If you click into the link there's a caption on the image, it's not a real mask it just looks like one.

Beany wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:42 pm Ah, a link to the daily mail. I'm sure it will be objective to a fault and absolutely not editorialised to a level that Goebbels would tip his hat to.

Beany wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:03 pm Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:07 pm

Beany wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:03 pm Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

Jobbo wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:20 am

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:07 pm

Beany wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:03 pm Daily Mail and 'facts' are going to require far more research to back up than I'm comfortable doing at 10pm on a Friday night after s bottle of cheap red.

Best in mind the DM is owned by people who want the sell the NHS off, then consider that story in a more cynical light, eh?

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

Broccers wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:51 am

Jobbo wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:20 am

Broccers wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:07 pm

The source is SAGE, experts apparently in everything related so must be true

Enjoy your cheap vino, probably good for keeping away nasty bugs

The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

Thanks for looking. My posts hint at disbelief from all parties. Don't believe any of the spin these days as it's not completely factual or balanced.

Jobbo wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:24 am

Broccers wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:51 am

Jobbo wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:20 am
The source is the Daily Mail, since that’s what you’ve linked to. I can’t find the SAGE report they refer to. I am sure some sort of report exists, but the Mail put their own spin on everything and are quite often simply wrong. That’s the problem with cutting journalists and focussing on the Hello/OK market.

ETA: found it - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_wave.pdf

What is scandalous about analysing what was known last year based on what is known now? That’s just scientific method. That ‘40%’ figure quoted by the Mail is utterly misleading. Towards the end the report states:
“the complete prevention of nosocomial transmission would have led to approximately 1% impact on the number of infections in the English epidemic overall.”

Thanks for looking. My posts hint at disbelief from all parties. Don't believe any of the spin these days as it's not completely factual or balanced.

Spin? You posted a Daily Mail link, I posted the scientific report. Only one of those contains spin.

Your posts hint at credulity

KiwiDave wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:21 am

dinny_g wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:00 am Past Year - "Look at New Zealand, look how well their doing on COVID. Just shows how inept our Political leaders are"

UK introduces 5% of New Zealand's measures - OUTRAGOUS!!!!!

Genuine LOL.

Also Victoria in Aussie are back into a 5day Lvl4 lockdown tonight - zero fucking about. I don't get how people can still think the full on measures are a bad idea.