Planet Rugby Forum

Finns were tough as nails. No doubt.

But when you have swastikas on your planes? Er.... nah. I’m going for the Ruskies.

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:13 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:07 pm
Your hotels are full? Airport workers busy?

No loss of business ? Well good for that.

You're acting like a dickhead, it's obvious life in Australia during COVID-19 is far closer to normal than most of the western world, by luck or design. It's obvious no one means there is no literal difference. You literally don't have to oppose that point due to some small areas of the Oz economy which won't affect most aussies regular lives who won't stay in hotels or fly abroad.

Victoria has been in a lockdown tighter than the UK for 200 days , you fact free throbber.

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:07 pm

6.Jones wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:03 pm

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:02 pm

6.Jones wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:56 pm What's wrong with isolationism to control the disease? As long as business can still be conducted, all we lose is most personal travel. Bimbo, it seems you're anti any solution. I thought you were most concerned with the financial impact, but it seems that what concerns you the most is being controlled, and that thousands of deaths is the better alternative.

I’m not anti any solution I am very pro some solutions, even measures of lockdowns if required for control. However the blank “aren’t we doing well” while f ucking others, your own business people and removing liberties to random state decisions is always in my view going to be horrendous.

At some point they’ll be (like all other health issues and disease ) a balance found that yes believe it or not includes some people dying. We are also now “saving” covid lives at the expense of cancer and other lives.

How am I f**king others?

How are our business people being f**ked. when we're not experiencing any downturn?

Are you saying Western Australia are f**king others? That's a long bow.

Your hotels are full? Airport workers busy?

No loss of business ? Well good for that.

As Blackrock Bullet says, of course there are trade-offs. But the benefit of a strong economy combined with a low or zero infection rate means far fewer people lose their jobs. You know all this. You yourself made the point - strenuously - in the main coronavirus thread that death from the downturn might exceed the deaths from the disease.

As Blackrock Bullet says, of course there are trade-offs. But the benefit of a strong economy combined with a low or zero infection rate means far fewer people lose their jobs. You know all this. You yourself made the point - strenuously - in the main coronavirus thread that death from the downturn might exceed the deaths from the disease.

Well done Australia the recorded falls in GDP won’t affect it.


The low infection rates won’t last for ever sadly though unless you permanently close your borders.

Weird to see Brexit types against isolationism.

Floppykid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:12 pm Weird to see Brexit types against isolationism.

The UK is as committed now to the defence of Europe and NATO as it ever was. All that has happened is it's left the EU. That is not isolationism. The fact is the UK is one of the few European nations that actually fully honours it's commitment to NATO

Nato estimates for 2019 show there are now eight countries - in addition to the US - spending 2% or more of their GDP on defence.

Greece
UK
Estonia
Romania
Poland
Latvia
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Other European members spent an estimated 1% to 1.99% in 2019, with France spending 1.84% and Germany 1.38% of GDP.

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:03 pm

As Blackrock Bullet says, of course there are trade-offs. But the benefit of a strong economy combined with a low or zero infection rate means far fewer people lose their jobs. You know all this. You yourself made the point - strenuously - in the main coronavirus thread that death from the downturn might exceed the deaths from the disease.

Well done Australia the recorded falls in GDP won’t affect it.


The low infection rates won’t last for ever sadly though unless you permanently close your borders.

Our economy is dramatically outperforming the UK economy at the moment. We fell 7% in Q2 compared to the UKs 22.1%. I full appreciate that you are expecting a bounce back of potentially 15% in Q3, although with the second wave that might be at risk.
Having said that, Australia will bounce too.

Farva wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:23 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:03 pm

As Blackrock Bullet says, of course there are trade-offs. But the benefit of a strong economy combined with a low or zero infection rate means far fewer people lose their jobs. You know all this. You yourself made the point - strenuously - in the main coronavirus thread that death from the downturn might exceed the deaths from the disease.

Well done Australia the recorded falls in GDP won’t affect it.


The low infection rates won’t last for ever sadly though unless you permanently close your borders.

Our economy is dramatically outperforming the UK economy at the moment. We fell 7% in Q2 compared to the UKs 22.1%. I full appreciate that you are expecting a bounce back of potentially 15% in Q3, although with the second wave that might be at risk.
Having said that, Australia will bounce too.

Yay, who needs tourists and business visitors, just send things to China.

bimboman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:45 am

Farva wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:23 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:03 pm

As Blackrock Bullet says, of course there are trade-offs. But the benefit of a strong economy combined with a low or zero infection rate means far fewer people lose their jobs. You know all this. You yourself made the point - strenuously - in the main coronavirus thread that death from the downturn might exceed the deaths from the disease.

Well done Australia the recorded falls in GDP won’t affect it.


The low infection rates won’t last for ever sadly though unless you permanently close your borders.

Our economy is dramatically outperforming the UK economy at the moment. We fell 7% in Q2 compared to the UKs 22.1%. I full appreciate that you are expecting a bounce back of potentially 15% in Q3, although with the second wave that might be at risk.
Having said that, Australia will bounce too.

Yay, who needs tourists and business visitors, just send things to China.

And what is it that your country does?

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:17 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:45 am

Farva wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:23 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:03 pm

As Blackrock Bullet says, of course there are trade-offs. But the benefit of a strong economy combined with a low or zero infection rate means far fewer people lose their jobs. You know all this. You yourself made the point - strenuously - in the main coronavirus thread that death from the downturn might exceed the deaths from the disease.

Well done Australia the recorded falls in GDP won’t affect it.


The low infection rates won’t last for ever sadly though unless you permanently close your borders.

Our economy is dramatically outperforming the UK economy at the moment. We fell 7% in Q2 compared to the UKs 22.1%. I full appreciate that you are expecting a bounce back of potentially 15% in Q3, although with the second wave that might be at risk.
Having said that, Australia will bounce too.

Yay, who needs tourists and business visitors, just send things to China.

And what is it that your country does?

Buy things from China.

bimboman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:36 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:17 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:45 am

Farva wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:23 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:03 pm


Well done Australia the recorded falls in GDP won’t affect it.


The low infection rates won’t last for ever sadly though unless you permanently close your borders.

Our economy is dramatically outperforming the UK economy at the moment. We fell 7% in Q2 compared to the UKs 22.1%. I full appreciate that you are expecting a bounce back of potentially 15% in Q3, although with the second wave that might be at risk.
Having said that, Australia will bounce too.

Yay, who needs tourists and business visitors, just send things to China.

And what is it that your country does?

Buy things from China.

And educate your kids to emigrate to Australia. Don't forget that!

It's the circle of Life.

bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:22 pm

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:13 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:07 pm
Your hotels are full? Airport workers busy?

No loss of business ? Well good for that.

You're acting like a dickhead, it's obvious life in Australia during COVID-19 is far closer to normal than most of the western world, by luck or design. It's obvious no one means there is no literal difference. You literally don't have to oppose that point due to some small areas of the Oz economy which won't affect most aussies regular lives who won't stay in hotels or fly abroad.

Victoria has been in a lockdown tighter than the UK for 200 days , you fact free throbber.

Because that is all of Australia....

Also multiple parts of the UK have been in lockdown these past months

Floppykid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:12 pm Weird to see Brexit types against isolationism.

Bimbo is against anything that isn't a typical Tory right wing view or makes them look bad. Australia's success means Boris' approach looks bad. Otherwise there is no consistency to Bimboman's approach.

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:48 am

Floppykid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:12 pm Weird to see Brexit types against isolationism.

Bimbo is against anything that isn't a typical Tory right wing view or makes them look bad. Australia's success means Boris' approach looks bad. Otherwise there is no consistency to Bimboman's approach.

Gibberish.

bimboman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:52 am

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:48 am

Floppykid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:12 pm Weird to see Brexit types against isolationism.

Bimbo is against anything that isn't a typical Tory right wing view or makes them look bad. Australia's success means Boris' approach looks bad. Otherwise there is no consistency to Bimboman's approach.

Gibberish.

Should be easy to disprove. Show us a few links of you being overly critical of Tory party policy.

bimboman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:22 pm Victoria has been in a lockdown tighter than the UK for 200 days , you fact free throbber.

Looks like a tag-team changeover now.

Breaking News in Sweden is that the health authorities have decided to ask everyone in Stockholm, Västra Götaland and Östergötland to, "please stay at home again".

I don't know why this is breaking news, it's been the same advice they've been giving since the beginning. But I guess they're sticking to their "no hard lock-down" guns and this is the strongest action they can take without forcing it on everyone.

Damn, I had beers planned for after work tomorrow. Maybe I'll still go. I'll wait and suss out how serious this seems on the evening news.

https://www.thelocal.se/20201029/new-co ... gothenburg

Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

Yeah, and skin cancer is just a freckle with a bad attitude.

I'm taking a wild punt here and assuming you've had a nasty cold sometime in your lifetime. You may also have had influenza, in which case you'll know it's just a tad worse than a nasty cold.

When Strayan national influenza monitoring concluded last year (in early October, recognising influenza's seasonality), 812 deaths from, or associated with, the disease had been reported. (In 2020 to date, only 36 laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated deaths have been notified).

Moving right along to Covid-19, Victoria alone had c.807 deaths by early October 2020.

Nasty. Cold. My. Nasty. Arse.

Very sad to see what is happening in Sweden, with 2820 new cases in the past 24 hours.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-30/ ... c_news_web

MungoMan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:29 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

Yeah, and skin cancer is just a freckle with a bad attitude.

I'm taking a wild punt here and assuming you've had a nasty cold sometime in your lifetime. You may also have had influenza, in which case you'll know it's just a tad worse than a nasty cold.

When Strayan national influenza monitoring concluded last year (in early October, recognising influenza's seasonality), 812 deaths from, or associated with, the disease had been reported. (In 2020 to date, only 36 laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated deaths have been notified).

Moving right along to Covid-19, Victoria alone had c.807 deaths by early October 2020.

Nasty. Cold. My. Nasty. Arse.

Its a nasty cold in the same way losing an arm is a nasty scratch.

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

I dont understand why this narrative is made, it downplays the threat.

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:02 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

You are. Rhinoviruses cause the common cold, influenza is something else.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:02 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

Is this a deliberate windup? Rhinoviruses are the principal causes of the common cold, altho' some are caused by coronaviruses, but they don't cause influenza.

koroke hangareka wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:12 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:02 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

You are. Rhinoviruses cause the common cold, influenza is something else.

Hmmmm. Shit I'm going to have to eat that one. Damn, I'm sure I had that right ...

Well, I'm glad to stand corrected then, thankyou, and retract my statement obv. It's not a "nasty cold".

Still, it's not the bubonic plague either. The broad strokes of my point still remain even though I got the details mixed up.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:27 am

koroke hangareka wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:12 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:02 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm
We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

You are. Rhinoviruses cause the common cold, influenza is something else.

Hmmmm. Shit I'm going to have to eat that one. Damn, I'm sure I had that right ...

Well, I'm glad to stand corrected then, thankyou, and retract my statement obv. It's not a "nasty cold".

Still, it's not the bubonic plague either. The broad strokes of my point still remain even though I got the details mixed up.

Yeah, good on you for owning that one, but still it's yet another example of you striding manfully about the thread, proclaiming confidently on this or that without having even an educated layman's idea of what you're talking about.

koroke hangareka wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:31 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:27 am

koroke hangareka wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:12 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:02 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

You are. Rhinoviruses cause the common cold, influenza is something else.

Hmmmm. Shit I'm going to have to eat that one. Damn, I'm sure I had that right ...

Well, I'm glad to stand corrected then, thankyou, and retract my statement obv. It's not a "nasty cold".

Still, it's not the bubonic plague either. The broad strokes of my point still remain even though I got the details mixed up.

Yeah, good on you for owning that one, but still it's yet another example of you striding manfully about the thread, proclaiming confidently on this or that without having even an educated layman's idea of what you're talking about.

Settle down mate. Enjoy your goal by all means, but don't get too excited. I don't think getting some minor detail mixed up and then quickly and immediately owning it and correcting oneself counts as "striding manfully about the thread and proclaiming confidently". Some credit please.

Towny picked up on a minor detail to the point that I was making - that being that even if it tears through Sweden, it's hardly the bubonic plague. We're clearly not "all f-cked". That was the crux of the point.

MungoMan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:25 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:02 am

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:04 pm

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

A nasty cold.... you’re an ignorant mess.

So do you disagree that the coronavirus is the type of virus that causes various types of colds that we deal with each year (as opposed to rhinovirus, which causes influenza), or do you disagree that it's "nasty"? Which is it?

Who is ignorant here?

Is this a deliberate windup? Rhinoviruses are the principal causes of the common cold, altho' some are caused by coronaviruses, but they don't cause influenza.

About 25% are Coronavirus’s. This of course means we have some previous immunity.

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:48 am

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

And what is the IFR for under 70s for the flu?
And does that mean that people over 70 don’t matter?

Farva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:50 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:48 am

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

And what is the IFR for under 70s for the flu?
And does that mean that people over 70 don’t matter?

Infection Fatality Rate by age

COVID19

0-19: 0.003%
20-49: 0.02%
50-69: 0.5%
70+: 5%

Influenza

0-19: 0.01%
20-49: 0.02%
50-65: 0.5%
65+: 0.83%


Source: CDC.gov https://t.co/DSVsLI3nzR?amp=1


So a nasty dose if you are over 70 or having an existing serious condition.

But not the nasty dose portrayed for young people by some in the media and in public healthcare.

The conversation still needs to be around protecting the vulnerable and that involves a variety of options and trade-offs.

Farva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:50 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:48 am

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

And what is the IFR for under 70s for the flu?
And does that mean that people over 70 don’t matter?

I’ve made no such statement. It’s a ludicrous question.

The point regarding the IFR is valid.

Farva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:41 am

MungoMan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:29 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:43 pm

towny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:23 pm Sweden is so f*cked. Those that held it up as an example are not going to be happy.

No one cares anymore. Well, we wipe down the bars after we use them at CrossFit.

Covid is just an accepted thing. Deaths aren’t that high yet...... math doesn’t seem right. Could it be we are way better at treating it? Or is it likely that the social distancing and measures to mitigate the spread mean that the ones that do get it cop a lower viral load?

Either way, we are all going to get it soon enough.

By the way, I do CrossFit.

We will see. That infection rate sure doesn't look great.

But we're not "so f--cked". I still believe there is merit in just accepting that we have to deal with it as best we can by taking sensible precautions and putting one foot in front of the other without completely freaking out. It's not the bubonic plague ffs, it's a nasty cold.

Yeah, and skin cancer is just a freckle with a bad attitude.

I'm taking a wild punt here and assuming you've had a nasty cold sometime in your lifetime. You may also have had influenza, in which case you'll know it's just a tad worse than a nasty cold.

When Strayan national influenza monitoring concluded last year (in early October, recognising influenza's seasonality), 812 deaths from, or associated with, the disease had been reported. (In 2020 to date, only 36 laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated deaths have been notified).

Moving right along to Covid-19, Victoria alone had c.807 deaths by early October 2020.

Nasty. Cold. My. Nasty. Arse.

Its a nasty cold in the same way losing an arm is a nasty scratch.

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

I dont understand why this narrative is made, it downplays the threat.

That's ridiculous. Losing your arm ... cancer ... You guys are off the f-cking planet. Those comparisons are f-cking light-years more ridiculous than saying it's like a particularly nasty cold virus.

In the meanwhile I can't go to the pub tomorrow to watch the rugby with the rest of my mates, because I'm one of the only ones who hasn't had it and brushed it off yet. Just to put "life in disease ridden Sweden" in perspective. There is actually a few others but they don't care if they get it, I do care (I'm also the only one who wears a mask, etc.).

Those IFR statistics are not the least bit scary, especially considering that the overwhelming majority of deaths are 85+ with underlying medical conditions. I think you guys drastically underestimate the amount of stuff that can kill you. News flash guys ... if you're of advanced age with other health issues a lot of stuff can kill you.

COVID f-cking sucks, I get it, I wish it would piss off as much as everyone else, and I understand the concern for down-playing the threat, but erring on the side of over-playing the threat to such a ridiculous and hysterical degree is also unwise.

Botha Boy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:31 am

Farva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:50 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:48 am

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

And what is the IFR for under 70s for the flu?
And does that mean that people over 70 don’t matter?

Infection Fatality Rate by age

COVID19

0-19: 0.003%
20-49: 0.02%
50-69: 0.5%
70+: 5%

Influenza

0-19: 0.01%
20-49: 0.02%
50-65: 0.5%
65+: 0.83%


Source: CDC.gov https://t.co/DSVsLI3nzR?amp=1


So a nasty dose if you are over 70 or having an existing serious condition.

But not the nasty dose portrayed for young people by some in the media and in public healthcare.

The conversation still needs to be around protecting the vulnerable and that involves a variety of options and trade-offs.

What that seems to be saying to me is that unless you're in old age, it's basically the same as the flu, actually far less dangerous if you're under 20?

Losing your arm. FFS.

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:55 am

Botha Boy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:31 am

Farva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:50 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:48 am

It has an IFR of 0.5%. The flu is at worst 0.1%. This is an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

And what is the IFR for under 70s for the flu?
And does that mean that people over 70 don’t matter?

Infection Fatality Rate by age

COVID19

0-19: 0.003%
20-49: 0.02%
50-69: 0.5%
70+: 5%

Influenza

0-19: 0.01%
20-49: 0.02%
50-65: 0.5%
65+: 0.83%


Source: CDC.gov https://t.co/DSVsLI3nzR?amp=1


So a nasty dose if you are over 70 or having an existing serious condition.

But not the nasty dose portrayed for young people by some in the media and in public healthcare.

The conversation still needs to be around protecting the vulnerable and that involves a variety of options and trade-offs.

What that seems to be saying to me is that unless you're in old age, it's basically the same as the flu, actually far less dangerous if you're under 20?

Losing your arm. FFS.

It’s less dangerous if you’re under 70 according to WHO. The American figures are skewed by their relative fatness.

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:04 am

Mog The Almighty wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:55 am

Botha Boy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:31 am

Farva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:50 am

bimboman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:48 am


The latest studies are quite clear that the IFR for the under 70’s is 0.05%.



https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_fir ... 265892.pdf

And what is the IFR for under 70s for the flu?
And does that mean that people over 70 don’t matter?

Infection Fatality Rate by age

COVID19

0-19: 0.003%
20-49: 0.02%
50-69: 0.5%
70+: 5%

Influenza

0-19: 0.01%
20-49: 0.02%
50-65: 0.5%
65+: 0.83%


Source: CDC.gov https://t.co/DSVsLI3nzR?amp=1


So a nasty dose if you are over 70 or having an existing serious condition.

But not the nasty dose portrayed for young people by some in the media and in public healthcare.

The conversation still needs to be around protecting the vulnerable and that involves a variety of options and trade-offs.

What that seems to be saying to me is that unless you're in old age, it's basically the same as the flu, actually far less dangerous if you're under 20?

Losing your arm. FFS.

It’s less dangerous if you’re under 70 according to WHO. The American figures are skewed by their relative fatness.

Its like losing your arm though.

What sort of raving lunatic would compare it to a particularly nasty cold? I mean apart from the fact they both are eminently survivable respiratory viral infections with remarkably similar symptoms and may even confer some cross over immunity.

But that's a ridiculous comparison worthy of ridicule and humiliation. Losing your arm or contracting cancer however, they are perfectly rationale, non-hysterical comparisons.



Some folk are so skewed and polarized on this issue they've lost all ability for calm critical analysis and self awareness.

Mog, do you have the stats handy as to how many under 70s have to be admitted to ICU in Sweden for a bad cold?

I have those stats handy for covid so when you're ready.

CM11 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:26 am Mog, do you have the stats handy as to how many under 70s have to be admitted to ICU in Sweden for a bad cold?

I have those stats handy for covid so when you're ready.

Ffs. Do you have the statistics for hospitalizations for those diagnosed with cancer or who have limbs cut off? How do they compare?

And ffs I didn't say it was exactly the same as a common cold so fůck off with your inane strawmen. I said that comparining it to a particularly nasty cold is far, far more accurate than comparing it to having your arm amputated.

Why are you getting all huffy about that comparison but not about far more agregious comparisons that err the other way? Stop and think about that question for a second. Could it possibly be that you have a ludicrously polarized view to the extent that those things that support your ideological take dont even register, no matter how absurd they maybe? Where as perfectly reasonable minor details on the other side need to picked over with a fine toothed comb and any slight error of scale or irrelevant technicality pounced upon and ridiculed?