Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Just wondering what ailment you have which does not have a proven cure from modern medicine but for which Chinese "medicine" does.
Mac is the secretive one, not me.

[McLaren]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

:picard: You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

I didn't look for it. The article was retweeted by I think Andrew Neill (or another political commentator) and thought it was worth sharing. And of course taking a little dig at the SRs.

[super_realist]

And it didnt work Mac because the article wasn't clear in explaining anything.

[McLaren]

Super

It was pretty easy to understand. It was based on latest ons excess death figures.

[super_realist]

Super

It was pretty easy to understand. It was based on latest ons excess death figures.

Excess deaths don't mean deaths by Covid. If you look at January to March there were already a large number of death in excess of normal attributed to a particularly bad flu/pneumonia year. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[McLaren]

Apparently march, April and May had even worse flu seasons.

[dynamark]

Smoking theres an idea.I wonder if we will get any stats about how many victims are or were smokers.With asbestos related disease(lung inflammation issues usually)I pretty sure its 54 out 55 are or were smokers.Certainly a number in that area staggering stat-damage already done to the tissue in the lungs from the Woodbines.
Maybe we should ban smoking

[Soul Requiem]

Apparently march, April and May had even worse flu seasons.

Potentially, a bit silly and unscientific to attribute all excess deaths to Covid-19.

[super_realist]

Smoking theres an idea.I wonder if we will get any stats about how many victims are or were smokers.With asbestos related disease(lung inflammation issues usually)I pretty sure its 54 out 55 are or were smokers.Certainly a number in that area staggering stat-damage already done to the tissue in the lungs from the Woodbines.
Maybe we should ban smoking

We shouldn't ban smoking, but we should make cigarettes £50 a packet. There's no excuse to continue smoking.

[dynamark]

That's fair SR _ I found it on U GOV smokers 14 times more likely to develop severe respiratory disease
based on Chinese data .That's seems a good enough reason to make cigs very expensive and let me go back to work and not have to walk past the skiving smokers on the wayin and out.
I don't know if it would be legal to make the workplace smoke free suspect not .

[super_realist]

I don't think smokers should get free breaks just because they have low willpower. If you want to smoke you should do it on your own free time, not during work hours.
Australia massively hiked the cost of their cigs and I think it did the trick.
In the UK I think a packet of cigarettes is at least £13. Why would anyone want to pay that?, triple it, then you see how much will power these losers have, all of a sudden they'll have loads.

[dynamark]

Annoys me back in the day in the building trade to see
a joiner working with one hand cos he had a tab in the other.
Anyway I think we may have cracked it through a combination of expertise ,blind faith and
skill as a country we ban smoking for all(not sure if vaping would be OK) and make everyone play golf at least once week.Covid damage is minimised HNS has bags of capacity everyone fit and well course packed.
I'm thinking a question to the PM

[super_realist]

Annoys me back in the day in the building trade to see
a joiner working with one hand cos he had a tab in the other.
Anyway I think we may have cracked it through a combination of expertise ,blind faith and
skill as a country we ban smoking for all(not sure if vaping would be OK) and make everyone play golf at least once week.Covid damage is minimised HNS has bags of capacity everyone fit and well course packed.
I'm thinking a question to the PM

I think obesity is far more pressing issue to be honest. Smokers contribute more than the cost of their care to the exchequer, fat people contribute nothing to the NHS through the habit and laziness that put them there, this has knock on effects to cancers, mental illness, dementia, diabetes etc for which the NHS receives nothing in a way that smokers fund it, or at least put money into the exchequer through the taxation.

Lots of unhealthy food doesn't even pay VAT, like Milkshakes

[JAS]

Apparently there was a line being floated a few weeks ago that Nicotine was actually beneficial in preventing a person catching covid, something weirdly technical about receptors in the alveoli of the lungs....but and the big but...if the disease did manage to get a grip then a smokers ability to fight is is hugely diminished. The story was probably sponsored by a nicotine gum manufacturer.

[super_realist]

There's an ongoing theme of vitamin d deficiency having an effect too, not sure about the veracity of this but there might be something in it.
There's certainly a load of tosh going about though.

[dynamark]

Not dissing the obesity issue which is huge(get it)another area to deal with - SR spot on Australia and NZ less than 15% smoke whereas China 80% plus Indian sub continent very high also US high.Cant help thinking your average NZ is a sight healthier than your average brit including Asian origin groups.There has to be underlying reasons why people get into trouble with the virus when you get it you get it - and then its up to your system how it progresses in your lungs and if they are weak its going to be a problem you are in the hospital and others are not.

[JAS]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

Any discussions around deaths at the moment are premature, you have to consider age and long term health issues. What happens for instance if in 3/4 months the death rate drops massively below average which it could well do, how do we use that information?

I kind of get the cold logic of the point you're trying to make here but I suspect the friends and families of 33000+ would quite emotively disagree. I do think you are correct though that if a significant amount of elderly and infirm (underlying health conditions where the prognosis isnt good) are effectively "checking out" a few months early (i.e. now) then they will not be there to be counted later when they would normally be expected to go.

Bottom line though, the amount of deaths caused by or related to this pandemic is shocking and we cannot dress it up any way other than our response, however well intentioned in places has been shocking. EVERY country has made mistakes sure, but the way our lot are obfuscating some of their (admittedly easy to see with hindsight) errors of judgement is even more shocking.

I'd go as far as to say they won't want an enquiry into the whole debacle and if they are forced into it they'll lie through through their teeth....A bit like Blair and Chilcott really!!

If the number of deaths was only down to the speed of response then death rates would be steady and similar in every region of the UK, but it isn't, so there's clearly more to it than that.
I don't doubt it plays a part but there are some glaringly obvious reasons as to why the UK or any other country has the rates they do.

Interesting that you jump straight to "speed of response" and try to start to defend from there. I'd say the speed of a decisive response is by FAR the biggest factor. At the start of the curve EVERY day is precious in terms of getting on top of what could be (if completely unchecked) an exponential climb in infection (and a commensurately proportionate death rate a few weeks later). As I said over 33000 is shocking and I know it's hypothetical hindsight but just ask yourself what the death rate would have been had lockdown started on the 9th March (those 2 weeks of extra "freedom" probably caused 90% of the figure we now have).

Everything else is secondary in terms of influencing the death count, yes sending elderlies from covid wards back to care homes was also significant but it was secondary to the primary mistake of the lack of proactive response at an early stage. The lack of PPE whilst immensely frustrating for those who needed it probably wasn't a huge factor in the overall death count. Another big secondary factor is your favourite (lifestyle choices i.e. smoking & obesity).

Did anyone else watch the CH4 documentary last night about South Korea's response?

[JAS]

The other pattern that's beginning to emerge is that right wing populist governments are pi55 poor at steering a course through this i.e. UK, USA & Brazil the latter 2 having a much more potent anti-lockdown insurgency than we do. Bolsonaro and Trump really are 2 peas in a pod when it comes to idiocy of the highest order as they encourage anti-lockdown. I'm not quite sure if Boris is more subtle about it or he genuinely doesn't think we should be dragging the populace back to work to keep lining the pockets of the elite.
However, it would appear that Johnson isn't the issue here and neither is Corbyns whacky brother and his tinpot anti lockdown protest, Much more sinisterly guess who's pushing the Freedom Movement and anti lockdown protests and demos (a few scheduled for this weekend apparently), yep Britain First's wannabe Fascist moll, Jayda Franzen. It does make you wonder if they actually WANT a more thorough spread because it hits the BAME community harder.

[super_realist]

Going back to work is not being done to line the pockets of the elite. Jesus imaginary Christ, change the record.

[super_realist]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

Any discussions around deaths at the moment are premature, you have to consider age and long term health issues. What happens for instance if in 3/4 months the death rate drops massively below average which it could well do, how do we use that information?

I kind of get the cold logic of the point you're trying to make here but I suspect the friends and families of 33000+ would quite emotively disagree. I do think you are correct though that if a significant amount of elderly and infirm (underlying health conditions where the prognosis isnt good) are effectively "checking out" a few months early (i.e. now) then they will not be there to be counted later when they would normally be expected to go.

Bottom line though, the amount of deaths caused by or related to this pandemic is shocking and we cannot dress it up any way other than our response, however well intentioned in places has been shocking. EVERY country has made mistakes sure, but the way our lot are obfuscating some of their (admittedly easy to see with hindsight) errors of judgement is even more shocking.

I'd go as far as to say they won't want an enquiry into the whole debacle and if they are forced into it they'll lie through through their teeth....A bit like Blair and Chilcott really!!

If the number of deaths was only down to the speed of response then death rates would be steady and similar in every region of the UK, but it isn't, so there's clearly more to it than that.
I don't doubt it plays a part but there are some glaringly obvious reasons as to why the UK or any other country has the rates they do.

Interesting that you jump straight to "speed of response" and try to start to defend from there. I'd say the speed of a decisive response is by FAR the biggest factor. At the start of the curve EVERY day is precious in terms of getting on top of what could be (if completely unchecked) an exponential climb in infection (and a commensurately proportionate death rate a few weeks later). As I said over 33000 is shocking and I know it's hypothetical hindsight but just ask yourself what the death rate would have been had lockdown started on the 9th March (those 2 weeks of extra "freedom" probably caused 90% of the figure we now have).

Everything else is secondary in terms of influencing the death count, yes sending elderlies from covid wards back to care homes was also significant but it was secondary to the primary mistake of the lack of proactive response at an early stage. The lack of PPE whilst immensely frustrating for those who needed it probably wasn't a huge factor in the overall death count. Another big secondary factor is your favourite (lifestyle choices i.e. smoking & obesity).

Did anyone else watch the CH4 documentary last night about South Korea's response?

You're just surmising it's the biggest reason, neither of us know if it is or not.

[dynamark]

We do not have the access but no doubt there would have been a massive effort to clear bedspace in the ossy.However at that time folk who had been in there for a while would probably not been positive.Marginal stuff matter of a few days but may have without intention put infection into care settings

[westisbest]

As a non smoker, I was glad when the no smoking in pubs rule came in.

I do like the odd cigar. Probably have 2 a year.

Super realist, I take it then you don’t have any mates that are smokers?

[super_realist]

As a non smoker, I was glad when the no smoking in pubs rule came in.

I do like the odd cigar. Probably have 2 a year.

Super realist, I take it then you don’t have any mates that are smokers?

Not many, can't think of many people I know who smoke, it's a habit very much in the minority, but even if I did, so what? Wouldn't change the fact that it's a filthy habit which you ought to give up.
It should also come with a carbon tax, but see how that goes down with the roll up smoking deadbeat in doomsday cults like Extinction Rebellion.

[westisbest]

Only asking as you called them losers, if I read it correctly.

Each to their own I guess.

O know some folks who are inside having a chat with me, then, 5 minutes later, back in a bit, going for a smoke.

Wouldn’t like that.

[super_realist]

Only asking as you called them losers, if I read it correctly.

Each to their own I guess.

O know some folks who are inside having a chat with me, then, 5 minutes later, back in a bit, going for a smoke.

Wouldn’t like that.

Would you describe a person who was wilfully damaging their health and wealth by smoking as being a winner on that count?
Just being a smoker doesn't mean their whole life can be described as that of a "loser", but on that particular point they certainly are.
I could pick aspects of my life where that description could also apply, as I'm sure you could about yours.

[westisbest]

If people want to smoke, well that’s up to them. Wouldn’t say they were losers. Wouldn’t say they were winners all the same.

Going on your analogy, I would be a loser for liking a drink. Just me maybe, but find that a strange.


I’ve never actually looked at somebody who smokes and thought what a loser for doing that.

One thing I will say about you, obviously just going on this board, is that you seem to like to have a pop on occasion at people who do things you don’t like, or things that you don’t do.

Your certainly an interesting individual. You say what you think. No bu11sh1t.

[super_realist]

If people want to smoke, well that’s up to them. Wouldn’t say they were losers. Wouldn’t say they were winners all the same.

Going on your analogy, I would be a loser for liking a drink. Just me maybe, but find that a strange.



I’ve never actually looked at somebody who smokes and thought what a loser for doing that.

One thing I will say about you, obviously just going on this board, is that you seem to like to have a pop on occasion at people who do things you don’t like, or things that you don’t do.

Your certainly an interesting individual. You say what you think. No bu11sh1t.

Having a drink doesn't have to make you a loser because it doesn't have to be harmful to your health. Smoking is always harmful to your health.

[navyblueshorts]

Unsurprisingly, my point has been twisted away from what it was. I think it looks bad, I only ever said looks bad. And I think that Mps shouldn't be allowed to act as consultants/ lobbyists. On this case its a tory case. Show me a similar labour case and I'll give an answer on that.

I still think it looks bad though.

Do people have no issue with MPs being paid lobbyists?

Agree w/ this. That said, what about paying them salaries commensurate w/ running a nation > 65m people? pay peanuts, get monkeys and all that. Decent wage == no excuse.

The majority of MP's aren't running the country though, they are simply representing their constituencies and will say virtually nothing in Parliament as back bench MP's and no make no  real influence. . 82k plus expenses, allowances, gold plated pension  as well as other benefits seems pretty good compensation for that.

If you had them being paid more then the tinpot MP's from the devolved parts of the country would also demand more.

Afraid I disagree. ~£82k for that alleged responsibility is pants, especially for MPs representing constituencies nowhere near London. Most of Parliament isn't conducted in the Commons. Still, we deserve what we get.

A lot of MP's aren't doing a great deal though. Many are not much more than glorified councillors and have pretty much zero input to the HOP.
Many of the SNP MP's simply exist to be cantankerous it would seem.
82k is plenty for a job where no actual skill or qualification is required, also proven by the fact many seats are so safe it wouldn't matter who you put up. Anyone can be elected an MP as demonstrated by plenty of examples and paying them more doesn't mean you'd get better qualified people or people who would work harder.
The majority of constituents have absolutely no contact with their MP's and no need to ever call upon them and other than being a representative of a party their existence is largely irrelevant other than for the purpose of a general election.

If you say so, having first-hand insight and all that. We can't have it both ways - decent salary and no excuses or scheisse salary and excuses/graft.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

Any discussions around deaths at the moment are premature, you have to consider age and long term health issues. What happens for instance if in 3/4 months the death rate drops massively below average which it could well do, how do we use that information?

I kind of get the cold logic of the point you're trying to make here but I suspect the friends and families of 33000+ would quite emotively disagree. I do think you are correct though that if a significant amount of elderly and infirm (underlying health conditions where the prognosis isnt good) are effectively "checking out" a few months early (i.e. now) then they will not be there to be counted later when they would normally be expected to go.

Bottom line though, the amount of deaths caused by or related to this pandemic is shocking and we cannot dress it up any way other than our response, however well intentioned in places has been shocking. EVERY country has made mistakes sure, but the way our lot are obfuscating some of their (admittedly easy to see with hindsight) errors of judgement is even more shocking.

I'd go as far as to say they won't want an enquiry into the whole debacle and if they are forced into it they'll lie through through their teeth....A bit like Blair and Chilcott really!!

Here's a thought, especially re. care home deaths. I wonder if it reflects on how we treat our older relatives just a bit? You know - can't be bothered to have granny/grandad at home, so parcel them off to a care home. Far too busy to look after them in their later life; I mean, they only brought us up after all. Wonder how care home usage cf. extended family at home compares in UK to, say, Italy? Yes, I'm tarring all the same in treatment of granny/grandad, but you get the gist.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

I didn't look for it. The article was retweeted by I think Andrew Neill (or another political commentator) and thought it was worth sharing. And of course taking a little dig at the SRs.

So what? You thought it was great so posted it here to substantiate your pre-formed thoughts on the matter.

[super_realist]

We can't have it both ways, but paying more doesn't guarantee a better candidate, nor does it guarantee that there will be no excuses. You'll always get some good people and some bad people because we don't really pick the MP on the basis of who they are and how good at the job they will be, we pick mostly on the basis of the party they represent, and as stated in many constituencies it doesn't matter who you put up because they'll get picked.

[navyblueshorts]

Smoking theres an idea.I wonder if we will get any stats about how many victims are or were smokers.With asbestos related disease(lung inflammation issues usually)I pretty sure its 54 out 55 are or were smokers.Certainly a number in that area staggering stat-damage already done to the tissue in the lungs from the Woodbines.
Maybe we should ban smoking

Hah. Believe I'm correct in that there's data to correlate smoking with a protective effect re. covid, but reasons aren't understood as yet.

[navyblueshorts]

If people want to smoke, well that’s up to them. Wouldn’t say they were losers. Wouldn’t say they were winners all the same.

Going on your analogy, I would be a loser for liking a drink. Just me maybe, but find that a strange.



I’ve never actually looked at somebody who smokes and thought what a loser for doing that.

One thing I will say about you, obviously just going on this board, is that you seem to like to have a pop on occasion at people who do things you don’t like, or things that you don’t do.

Your certainly an interesting individual. You say what you think. No bu11sh1t.

Having a drink doesn't have to make you a loser because it doesn't have to be harmful to your health. Smoking is always harmful to your health.  

Sorry. Ethanol is a toxin.

You go on and be some aesthetic hermit if you want - sounds like fun; others might like a burger, drink, smoke. Who gives a ****? I'm taxed on booze and smokers are on fags.

[super_realist]

Ethanol is not a toxin in moderate amounts.

[McLaren]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

:picard: You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

I didn't look for it. The article was retweeted by I think Andrew Neill (or another political commentator) and thought it was worth sharing. And of course taking a little dig at the SRs.

So what? You thought it was great so posted it here to substantiate your pre-formed thoughts on the matter.

My preformed thoughts or the stats of the ONS?

[Be_the_ball]

Fair play to Harry Kane, very decent gesture.

[navyblueshorts]

Ethanol is not a toxin in moderate amounts.

Says the biochemist. It's a de facto toxin, by definition.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Excess death figures come from the ONS. Not sure I understand your confirmation bias accusation?

You, Mac. You look for anything that you think confirms what you already believe and then present that. Don't worry about it though, you're nowhere near alone.

I didn't look for it. The article was retweeted by I think Andrew Neill (or another political commentator) and thought it was worth sharing. And of course taking a little dig at the SRs.

So what? You thought it was great so posted it here to substantiate your pre-formed thoughts on the matter.

My preformed thoughts or the stats of the ONS?

FFS. You posted it here because you think it supports your pre-formed opinions on Boris et al. Whatever.

[navyblueshorts]

Who was it posted recently about Vitamin D and Covid? Who cares. Anyway:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v3

Pre-print, not peer reviewed as yet, but interesting.

Wonder if anyone's looked at Vit D vs. sub-sections of populations...

[super_realist]

Who was it posted recently about Vitamin D and Covid? Who cares. Anyway:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v3

Pre-print, not peer reviewed as yet, but interesting.

Wonder if anyone's looked at Vit D vs. sub-sections of populations...

I get Vitamn D tests through work and was fairly low last time I got tested. I think I read somewhere that everyone North of Bristol (or somewhere on a similar latitude) is likely to be Vitamn D deficient, which isn't really surprising. This will be even more true now considering how little time people are outdoors.
Surprised there hasn't been a rush on supplements, like there has been on toilet roll, tinfoil etc.

[super_realist]

Ethanol is not a toxin in moderate amounts.

Says the biochemist. It's a de facto toxin, by definition.

If you want to be a pedant, but it is not toxic in moderate amounts.

[beninho]

A few weeks back, my sister said something was coming out about vitamin d. Do we stocked up on a daily tablet.

[super_realist]

A few weeks back, my sister said something was coming out about vitamin d. Do we stocked up on a daily tablet.

Even without Covid, you should probably take it.

[beninho]

A few weeks back, my sister said something was coming out about vitamin d. Do we stocked up on a daily tablet.

Even without Covid, you should probably take it.

I usually stick with beroca and zinc. Never really thought of vit d.

[dynamark]

Navy Ive heard that one but if smoking proves to be good for you in any way Ill run naked around Tesco.Its a killer directly and indirectly I'm sure it is contributing to current level of serious illness.
However its legal

[super_realist]

A few weeks back, my sister said something was coming out about vitamin d. Do we stocked up on a daily tablet.

Even without Covid, you should probably take it.

I usually stick with beroca and zinc. Never really thought of vit d.

The funny thing about Berocca is the luminous urine a couple of hours after drinking it.

[navyblueshorts]

Who was it posted recently about Vitamin D and Covid? Who cares. Anyway:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v3

Pre-print, not peer reviewed as yet, but interesting.

Wonder if anyone's looked at Vit D vs. sub-sections of populations...

I get Vitamn D tests through work and was fairly low last time I got tested. I think I read somewhere that everyone North of Bristol (or somewhere on a similar latitude) is likely to be Vitamn D deficient, which isn't really surprising. This will be even more true now considering how little time people are outdoors.
Surprised there hasn't been a rush  on supplements, like there has been on toilet roll, tinfoil etc.

There has been a rush on supplements, esp. vit D itself. 20° north seems to be delineating latitude.

[navyblueshorts]

Ethanol is not a toxin in moderate amounts.

Says the biochemist. It's a de facto toxin, by definition.

If you want to be a pedant, but it is not toxic in moderate amounts.

Call it hair-splitting if you like, but it is a toxin. Sure, our bodies have ways of dealing w/ moderate amounts, but they do for moderate amounts of cigarette tar constituents.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy Ive heard that one but if smoking proves to be good for you in any way Ill run naked around Tesco.Its a killer directly and indirectly I'm sure it is contributing to current level of serious illness.
However its legal

Data is data and pretty sure there's a -ve correlation between smoking and Covid severity. That's not the same as saying smoking is good for you though. Gird your loins to run naked round Tesco...

Not clear yet, but:

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/04/20/13993003.01116-2020

[super_realist]

Ethanol is not a toxin in moderate amounts.

Says the biochemist. It's a de facto toxin, by definition.

If you want to be a pedant, but it is not toxic in moderate amounts.

Call it hair-splitting if you like, but it is a toxin. Sure, our bodies have ways of dealing w/ moderate amounts, but they do for moderate amounts of cigarette tar constituents.

Fair enough, it it's still wrong to compare the harm of cigarettes with the potential harm of alcohol.

[super_realist]

Who was it posted recently about Vitamin D and Covid? Who cares. Anyway:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v3

Pre-print, not peer reviewed as yet, but interesting.

Wonder if anyone's looked at Vit D vs. sub-sections of populations...

I get Vitamn D tests through work and was fairly low last time I got tested. I think I read somewhere that everyone North of Bristol (or somewhere on a similar latitude) is likely to be Vitamn D deficient, which isn't really surprising. This will be even more true now considering how little time people are outdoors.
Surprised there hasn't been a rush  on supplements, like there has been on toilet roll, tinfoil etc.

There has been a rush on supplements, esp. vit D itself. 20° north seems to be delineating latitude.

20 degrees? Are you sure? That means anyone North of Sudan needs supplements? Can't be right. Don't you mean 50?

[Sponsored content]