Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[AJSki2fly]

A learned and alternative take on the current situation, and one I'm increasingly beginning to have more sympathy with: https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/05/2...ka-s-lockdown/

There's a source for you on another matter, Adrian. When I'm able to provide such things, I will. The key is saving the links while you remember!

Marco.

Sorry It doesn’t get much credit from me it’s speculation and a Professor stating ranges off 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10000 in a relatively flippant manner when talking about people dying just about says it all.

I think the last reply to it sums it up well

“What have I missed here? The article states at the outset that half of the population have already contracted the virus. That is over 30M last count. And records are showing just over 5M worldwide have caught it. Or is he just speculating half the country have caught it but just don't know about it. So how does he get to these figures to be able to "speculate"?????????????????? Just asking”

[Macca]

Sorry It doesn’t get much credit from me it’s speculation and a Professor stating ranges off 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10000 in a relatively flippant manner when talking about people dying just about says it all.

I think the last reply to it sums it up well

“What have I missed here? The article states at the outset that half of the population have already contracted the virus. That is over 30M last count. And records are showing just over 5M worldwide have caught it. Or is he just speculating half the country have caught it but just don't know about it. So how does he get to these figures to be able to "speculate"?????????????????? Just asking”

He is a she. Notice the last line of the article 'Whilst accepting it hard to prove on current evidence, Prof Gupta said there was a "strong possibility" the UK could return to normal without great risk.'

Problem is there is nothing like enough data to make a decision that might end up killing another 100,000 people or more so we err on the side of caution.

Some of what is said makes no sense, like this "Effectively we used to live in a state approximating lockdown 100 years ago, and that was what created the conditions for the Spanish Flu to come in and kill 50m people."

Well no. At the time of the Spanish Flu Europe was fighting the First World War. Millions of troops moving all over, from continent to continent, going home on leave and so forth. The opposite to lockdown and widely agreed to be the reason the virus spread so rapidly around the world. Many cities in America did lock down and several came out of lockdown too early and had high re-infection rates.

the article is no more than a puff piece. I'd like to see a more in depth interview with the prof where these questions could be asked and answers given with some more detail. I suspect the contradictions are the result of poor journalism rather than a Professor of Epidemiology talking rubbish. The problem is that it makes it useless as a source of information.

[AJSki2fly]

He is a she. .

the article is no more than a puff piece. I'd like to see a more in depth interview with the prof where these questions could be asked and answers given with some more detail. I suspect the contradictions are the result of poor journalism rather than a Professor of Epidemiology talking rubbish. The problem is that it makes it useless as a source of information.

Well said Martin, this why I am very careful when reading and quoting articles, unless backed up with corroborated evidence generally in public domain. Too many reporters/journalists go for sensationalism to get copy and in some cases make their own view, without due consideration as to its impact on the general public or keeping to the truth of the matter, generally known today as fake news.

[Joe]

Is a "conspiracy theory", instead of simply deriving from being facilitated by a fundamental human condition, also that which challenges the 'accepted norm', or those with an opposing view's rather stubbornly-held beliefs, inducing discomfort in them, as it conflicts with what they would instead rather believe is true?

Or the result of successfully being able to think 'outside of the box', when others are conversely trapped and held back by their insular thinking and propensity to conform to orthodoxy - or perhaps a combination of all four?

It's not an either/or thing, really. Clearly some events are the result of conspiracy, which may only come to light any years later. Some events are what they appear to be. The problem is that conspiracy theories generally develop when there's an absence of provable fact, with the result that individuals develop theories to suit their own prejudices/beliefs. Thus, the Great Fire of London, almost certainly the result of an accidental fire that got out of control, was at the time blamed by many on the Catholics, who were the scapegoats for anything untoward. The current pandemic is blamed by different conspiracy theorists on the Chinese, who are supposed to have developed the virus as a biological weapon; Muslims (because they are a current 'hate' group); the Jews (who have often been scapegoated in the past); and 'the global elite' (whoever they may be). Not all of those theories can be correct, and it's quite likely that none of them are, but they are attractive to different people for more or less the same reason. The reason being that it's more comforting to believe that someone, however ill-intentioned, is actually in control of what's happening, because the alternative option is a world governed by chance, in which anything can happen, and over which we have little, if any control.

The other problem with conspiracy theories is, where do you stop with 'alternative explanations'? Were the moon landings faked? Was 9/11 an 'inside job'? Is the earth flat, or hollow? Were the Pyramids built by aliens? You might say that the flatness of the earth has been comprehensively disproved by photos taken from space, but the flat-earthers will have an explanation ready: the photos were faked, for example.

The answer is to have a genuinely open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. I've found that in almost all circumstances, cock-up wins over conspiracy as the explanation.

PS It's also worth noting that scare stories around vaccines have existed ever since vaccination was invented. Because the smallpox vaccine came from a variant infection affecting cows (hence the name 'vaccine' from the Latin word for cow), there were fears that those inoculated would turn into cows.

[Joe]

Changing the subject slightly, is there any way Dominic Cummings can avoid resigning, having broken lockdown regulations when (supposedly) self-isolating?

[struth]

depends how much dirt he has on those above i guess... we all know they do it, its just that this time he has been caught.. sure his excuses will be good enough tho

[Macca]

Changing the subject slightly, is there any way Dominic Cummings can avoid resigning, having broken lockdown regulations when (supposedly) self-isolating?

Talking about evidence the only evidence so far is that some bloke claims he saw him. It's not really enough is it?

[Marco]

Sorry It doesn’t get much credit from me it’s speculation and a Professor stating ranges off 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10000 in a relatively flippant manner when talking about people dying just about says it all.

That's fine. It was more her attitude to lockdown that I was referring to, which I do have some sympathy with.

I'll get to the rest, folks, after breakfast and shopping!

Marco.

[struth]

Talking about evidence the only evidence so far is that some bloke claims he saw him. It's not really enough is it?

he has admitted it

[Joe]

Talking about evidence the only evidence so far is that some bloke claims he saw him. It's not really enough is it?

I thought he'd admitted to doing so:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52780561

'Mr Cummings and his wife, who was also unwell, stayed at his parents' home while self-isolating.

[...]

A source close to Mr Cummings denied a breach of the coronavirus rules, saying the couple needed childcare help.
They told the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg that the couple had stayed in a separate building at the property.'

The point being that, under lockdown rules, anyone self-isolating should not leave home for any reason. Or is it one rule for 'us', another rule for 'them'?