blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:11:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  COVID19
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 122 123 124 125 [126] 127 128 129 130 ... 305 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 353867 times)
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1423


View Profile
« Reply #1875 on: April 29, 2020, 10:55:41 PM »

... so it’s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...


Evidently.

That would be the raw data mentioned.

The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc

It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.

They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic, they said this decision was supported by scientific evidence. The scientific community, even now, is in agreement that we don’t have the necessary evidence to make this assessment. I think that’s the closest I’ve come to a decent explanation, I’ve made a dogs dinner of explaining it for sure, it’s been a long day by lockdown standards. As I say, I’ll look again at the model and put my hands up if I think I’m wrong.

Don’t be too hard on yourself. It’s really difficult to explain stuff that you don’t understand.
Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1876 on: April 29, 2020, 11:15:27 PM »

... so it’s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...


Evidently.

That would be the raw data mentioned.

The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc

It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.

They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic, they said this decision was supported by scientific evidence. The scientific community, even now, is in agreement that we don’t have the necessary evidence to make this assessment. I think that’s the closest I’ve come to a decent explanation, I’ve made a dogs dinner of explaining it for sure, it’s been a long day by lockdown standards. As I say, I’ll look again at the model and put my hands up if I think I’m wrong.

Don’t be too hard on yourself. It’s really difficult to explain stuff that you don’t understand.

That might of been a decent, maybe even funny (a stretch) post earlier 😊. The last explanation is a decent one though. We wanted to be exceptional, so we claimed to have evidence for something that we didn’t. The rest of the world knew they didn’t have robust science around the efficacy of school closures, so they closed their schools.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1877 on: April 30, 2020, 05:33:22 AM »

... so it’s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...


Evidently.

That would be the raw data mentioned.

The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc

It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.

They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic, they said this decision was supported by scientific evidence. The scientific community, even now, is in agreement that we don’t have the necessary evidence to make this assessment. I think that’s the closest I’ve come to a decent explanation, I’ve made a dogs dinner of explaining it for sure, it’s been a long day by lockdown standards. As I say, I’ll look again at the model and put my hands up if I think I’m wrong.

Don’t be too hard on yourself. It’s really difficult to explain stuff that you don’t understand.

That might of been a decent, maybe even funny (a stretch) post earlier 😊. The last explanation is a decent one though. We wanted to be exceptional, so we claimed to have evidence for something that we didn’t. The rest of the world knew they didn’t have robust science around the efficacy of school closures, so they closed their schools.

We did not have as much evidence as we do now. But the conclusion they came to at the time was the same as what others are coming to now.

And you make it sound like countries recorded their first coronavirus deaths and closed the schools.

France, Germany and Spain all had over a month between their first cases and closing schools (for example), Italy had a few weeks. These might be earlier than the UK, but the tone of your posts make it sound like the UK waited until everyone was dead when everyone else snap shut their schools ASAP.

"They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic,... "
That is the issue. You agree with people who say this so you want to provide evidence to support that idea. That has been your approach all along (the bias) - except in this case what you've provided so far doesn't even support your bias.

If you want to criticise the government's response to closing schools you have to focus on another part of the process completely.

Then I'll post something very similar to what I posted at the time to explain why what you've said is just different, and not actually a negative.

Short version: the idea that you can stop every transmission of the virus is what is at the heart of the criticism of government strategy. Once you have community spread of an infection you are not trying to stop anyone catching it, you are trying to stop as many catching it. And this is a strategy that will encompass months, not days. This might not be the stated aim of the critics but the implicit idea behind their criticism does seem to be that if you do the "right" thing then nobody will catch the virus.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1878 on: April 30, 2020, 06:09:09 AM »

Less of a discussion point and more for if people want a bit of a catchup on an overview of COVID19

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/

It's quite long, but it's a pretty thorough overview and it's well written.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1879 on: April 30, 2020, 06:15:09 AM »

... so it’s not easy to see what relevant data they would have had to feed in to the IC model,...


Evidently.

That would be the raw data mentioned.

The infections, the hospitalizations, the geography, the demographics etc

It would involve inferring information from indirect sources. It might result in inferences that are wrong when more evidence becomes available. But nothing you've shown so far contradicts the conclusions made by the IC team.

They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic, they said this decision was supported by scientific evidence. The scientific community, even now, is in agreement that we don’t have the necessary evidence to make this assessment. I think that’s the closest I’ve come to a decent explanation, I’ve made a dogs dinner of explaining it for sure, it’s been a long day by lockdown standards. As I say, I’ll look again at the model and put my hands up if I think I’m wrong.

Don’t be too hard on yourself. It’s really difficult to explain stuff that you don’t understand.

That might of been a decent, maybe even funny (a stretch) post earlier 😊. The last explanation is a decent one though. We wanted to be exceptional, so we claimed to have evidence for something that we didn’t. The rest of the world knew they didn’t have robust science around the efficacy of school closures, so they closed their schools.

We did not have as much evidence as we do now. But the conclusion they came to at the time was the same as what others are coming to now.

And you make it sound like countries recorded their first coronavirus deaths and closed the schools.

France, Germany and Spain all had over a month between their first cases and closing schools (for example), Italy had a few weeks. These might be earlier than the UK, but the tone of your posts make it sound like the UK waited until everyone was dead when everyone else snap shut their schools ASAP.

"They were pursuing a high risk strategy by leaving schools open in an established Covid19 epidemic,... "
That is the issue. You agree with people who say this so you want to provide evidence to support that idea. That has been your approach all along (the bias) - except in this case what you've provided so far doesn't even support your bias.

If you want to criticise the government's response to closing schools you have to focus on another part of the process completely.

Then I'll post something very similar to what I posted at the time to explain why what you've said is just different, and not actually a negative.

Short version: the idea that you can stop every transmission of the virus is what is at the heart of the criticism of government strategy. Once you have community spread of an infection you are not trying to stop anyone catching it, you are trying to stop as many catching it. And this is a strategy that will encompass months, not days. This might not be the stated aim of the critics but the implicit idea behind their criticism does seem to be that if you do the "right" thing then nobody will catch the virus.

Good morning

The last paragraph is just strange. You’ve allowed yourself a huge assumption and over simplification, that just happens to suit your own bias. (We should probably, because it is more accurate as you pointed out, use the word perspective, rather than bias). Nobody has ever said anything remotely near to “if you do the right thing, then nobody will catch the virus”. Might suit your argument to pretend someone (even me) did but it’s not reality.

Best to deal in facts rather than what you think you remember of the lockdowns. Let’s at least look at how many deaths each country had when they shut their schools and then try and make an appropriate judgement as to what benefit the U.K. had but didn’t use by having it’s epidemic later than, Italy, France, Spain etc. I’ll get a list together later of number of deaths in the countries with big outbreaks at the point they shut the schools. The decisions taken in all countries are ultimately political (Chris Whitty was very keen to emphasise this point in his evidence to the health select committee), not scientific, each time our science seems different to the rest of the world, it’s highly likely the publicly given view is politically influenced, same goes for the Donald and his encouraging lockdown protests (as one example).
« Last Edit: April 30, 2020, 06:26:13 AM by kukushkin88 » Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1880 on: April 30, 2020, 06:57:48 AM »

Less of a discussion point and more for if people want a bit of a catchup on an overview of COVID19

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/

It's quite long, but it's a pretty thorough overview and it's well written.


Agreed it’s an interesting read, thanks for linking it. I used to read The Atlantic a lot, mainly when Christopher Hitchens was still around. I’ll put it back on the reading list.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1881 on: April 30, 2020, 07:23:33 AM »


This is definitely good news if correct:

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200429000724
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1882 on: April 30, 2020, 07:45:57 AM »

...
Best to deal in facts rather than what you think you remember of the lockdowns. ...

I looked up the first case and the date school's closed in every country that I mentioned (the few weeks for Italy was schools closed regionally rather than nationally but that seemed a more accurate representation).

You can look up when the first death occurs, but obviously the decision overall is based on a multitude of factors.

As you still haven't mentioned it I'll repeat that the Imperial Study stated: "......We predict that school and university closure will have an impact on the epidemic,...", but it also said that it was unknown what effect school closures would have on hospital staffing levels.

Given the whole government strategy has been based on the concept that the worst case scenario is if the hospitals get overwhelmed how difficult do you think the decision was to keep schools open until they work out a way to avoid it affecting NHS staffing levels?
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1883 on: April 30, 2020, 07:49:35 AM »

In terms of the other point: when critics use phrasing like the virus being "allowed" to "run wild" - even just using the word "allowed" by itself even - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

When people insist there should be travel bans and thermal scanning - despite all previous epidemic evidence suggesting that doesn't stop a disease entering your country - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

The words themselves might not be used but the implication of a lot of the criticism is that the virus can just be 'stopped' rather than 'contained'.

(obviously it can be stopped eventually, but the criticism is about what has happened to this point not what will happen in the future).
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1884 on: April 30, 2020, 08:31:55 AM »

In terms of the other point: when critics use phrasing like the virus being "allowed" to "run wild" - even just using the word "allowed" by itself even - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

When people insist there should be travel bans and thermal scanning - despite all previous epidemic evidence suggesting that doesn't stop a disease entering your country - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

The words themselves might not be used but the implication of a lot of the criticism is that the virus can just be 'stopped' rather than 'contained'.

(obviously it can be stopped eventually, but the criticism is about what has happened to this point not what will happen in the future).

Lots of good points, I’d confess I had forgotten the dynamic of school closures impacting staffing, this clearly isn’t and wasn’t an insoluble problem though.

We know it makes no sense to measure from first death. It appears something like 10th or 20th would be more appropriate, I’ll look in to it.

The problem with our recent discussion is that you seem to think that because I have strong (negative) views on populism, nationalism, austerity and Brexit, that I understood this subject less well.

I think your mistaken on the use of the perjorative looking word ‘alllowed’. They mean (I think), the governments that have wilfully shied away from lockdown, thinking they were protecting economic interests and therefore being loyal to their brand of politics (see The Telegraph for endless examples of this), an idea that seems to be backfiring.  See Brazil, USA, UK as examples.

It doesn’t tell the whole story in terms of progression of the epidemic in each nation, so we’ll treat it with scepticism but it does a job:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747
(We’ve mostly seen it before I guess)
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1885 on: April 30, 2020, 08:40:13 AM »

In terms of the other point: when critics use phrasing like the virus being "allowed" to "run wild" - even just using the word "allowed" by itself even - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

When people insist there should be travel bans and thermal scanning - despite all previous epidemic evidence suggesting that doesn't stop a disease entering your country - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

The words themselves might not be used but the implication of a lot of the criticism is that the virus can just be 'stopped' rather than 'contained'.

(obviously it can be stopped eventually, but the criticism is about what has happened to this point not what will happen in the future).

Lots of good points, I’d confess I had forgotten the dynamic of school closures impacting staffing, this clearly isn’t and wasn’t an insoluble problem though.

We know it makes no sense to measure from first death. It appears something like 10th or 20th would be more appropriate, I’ll look in to it.

The problem with our recent discussion is that you seem to think that because I have strong (negative) views on populism, nationalism, austerity and Brexit, that I understood this subject less well.

I think your mistaken on the use of the perjorative looking word ‘alllowed’. They mean (I think), the governments that have wilfully shied away from lockdown, thinking they were protecting economic interests and therefore being loyal to their brand of politics (see The Telegraph for endless examples of this), an idea that seems to be backfiring.  See Brazil, USA, UK as examples.

It doesn’t tell the whole story in terms of progression of the epidemic in each nation, so we’ll treat it with scepticism but it does a job:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747
(We’ve mostly seen it before I guess)

On reflection, I’m probably wrong about the appropriate number of deaths to measure from, lots of nations were locking down well before the 20 death threshold.
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1886 on: April 30, 2020, 08:42:43 AM »

In terms of the other point: when critics use phrasing like the virus being "allowed" to "run wild" - even just using the word "allowed" by itself even - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

When people insist there should be travel bans and thermal scanning - despite all previous epidemic evidence suggesting that doesn't stop a disease entering your country - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

The words themselves might not be used but the implication of a lot of the criticism is that the virus can just be 'stopped' rather than 'contained'.

(obviously it can be stopped eventually, but the criticism is about what has happened to this point not what will happen in the future).

Lots of good points, I’d confess I had forgotten the dynamic of school closures impacting staffing, this clearly isn’t and wasn’t an insoluble problem though.

We know it makes no sense to measure from first death. It appears something like 10th or 20th would be more appropriate, I’ll look in to it.

The problem with our recent discussion is that you seem to think that because I have strong (negative) views on populism, nationalism, austerity and Brexit, that I understood this subject less well.

I think your mistaken on the use of the perjorative looking word ‘alllowed’. They mean (I think), the governments that have wilfully shied away from lockdown, thinking they were protecting economic interests and therefore being loyal to their brand of politics (see The Telegraph for endless examples of this), an idea that seems to be backfiring.  See Brazil, USA, UK as examples.

It doesn’t tell the whole story in terms of progression of the epidemic in each nation, so we’ll treat it with scepticism but it does a job:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747
(We’ve mostly seen it before I guess)

On reflection, I’m probably wrong about the appropriate number of deaths to measure from, lots of nations were locking down well before the 20 death threshold.

Or alternatively - number of deaths isn't a key criteria at all?
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1887 on: April 30, 2020, 08:52:24 AM »

In terms of the other point: when critics use phrasing like the virus being "allowed" to "run wild" - even just using the word "allowed" by itself even - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

When people insist there should be travel bans and thermal scanning - despite all previous epidemic evidence suggesting that doesn't stop a disease entering your country - that implies they think every case can be stopped.

The words themselves might not be used but the implication of a lot of the criticism is that the virus can just be 'stopped' rather than 'contained'.

(obviously it can be stopped eventually, but the criticism is about what has happened to this point not what will happen in the future).

Lots of good points, I’d confess I had forgotten the dynamic of school closures impacting staffing, this clearly isn’t and wasn’t an insoluble problem though.

We know it makes no sense to measure from first death. It appears something like 10th or 20th would be more appropriate, I’ll look in to it.

The problem with our recent discussion is that you seem to think that because I have strong (negative) views on populism, nationalism, austerity and Brexit, that I understood this subject less well.

I think your mistaken on the use of the perjorative looking word ‘alllowed’. They mean (I think), the governments that have wilfully shied away from lockdown, thinking they were protecting economic interests and therefore being loyal to their brand of politics (see The Telegraph for endless examples of this), an idea that seems to be backfiring.  See Brazil, USA, UK as examples.

It doesn’t tell the whole story in terms of progression of the epidemic in each nation, so we’ll treat it with scepticism but it does a job:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747
(We’ve mostly seen it before I guess)

On reflection, I’m probably wrong about the appropriate number of deaths to measure from, lots of nations were locking down well before the 20 death threshold.

Or alternatively - number of deaths isn't a key criteria at all?

Possibly, lots of unknowns for years yet. If history ever comes to look favourably on how the right wing populists handled this, then we’ll all (bar one) have been fortunate to have benefited from their foresight and judgement.
Logged
Chompy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11852


Expert


View Profile
« Reply #1888 on: April 30, 2020, 10:14:33 AM »

‘Lockdown lingo’_ - are you fully conversant with the new terminology? Here are a few terms to get you in the groove:
 
Coronacoaster
The ups and downs of your mood during the pandemic. You’re loving lockdown one minute but suddenly weepy with anxiety the next. It truly is “an emotional coronacoaster”.

Quarantinis
Experimental cocktails mixed from whatever random ingredients you have left in the house. The boozy equivalent of a store cupboard supper. Southern Comfort and Ribena quarantini with a glacé cherry garnish, anyone? These are sipped at “locktail hour”, ie. wine o’clock during lockdown, which seems to be creeping earlier with each passing week.

Blue Skype thinking
A work brainstorming session which takes place over a videoconferencing app. Such meetings might also be termed a “Zoomposium”. Naturally, they are to be avoided if at all possible.

Le Creuset wrist
It’s the new “avocado hand” - an aching arm after taking one’s best saucepan outside to bang during the weekly ‘Clap For Carers.’ It might be heavy but you’re keen to impress the neighbours with your high-quality kitchenware.

Coronials
As opposed to millennials, this refers to the future generation of babies conceived or born during coronavirus quarantine. They might also become known as “Generation C” or, more spookily, “Children of the Quarn”.

Furlough Merlot
Wine consumed in an attempt to relieve the frustration of not working. Also known as “bored-eaux” or “cabernet tedium”.

Coronadose
An overdose of bad news from consuming too much media during a time of crisis. Can result in a “panicdemic.

The elephant in the Zoom
The glaring issue during a videoconferencing call that nobody feels able to mention. E.g. one participant has dramatically put on weight, suddenly sprouted terrible facial hair or has a worryingly messy house visible in the background.

Quentin Quarantino
An attention-seeker using their time in lockdown to make amateur films which they’re convinced are funnier and cleverer than they actually are.

Covidiot
One who ignores public health advice or behaves with reckless disregard for the safety of others can be said to display “covidiocy” or be “covidiotic”. Also called a “lockclown” or even a “Wuhan-ker”.

Goutbreak
The sudden fear that you’ve consumed so much wine, cheese, home-made cake and Easter chocolate in lockdown that your ankles are swelling up like a medieval king’s.

Antisocial distancing
Using health precautions as an excuse for snubbing neighbours and generally ignoring people you find irritating.

Coughin’ dodger
Someone so alarmed by an innocuous splutter or throat-clear that they back away in terror.

Mask-ara
Extra make-up applied to "make one's eyes pop" before venturing out in public wearing a face mask.

Covid-10
The 10lbs in weight that we’re all gaining from comfort-eating and comfort-drinking. Also known as “fattening the curve”.
Logged

"I know we must all worship at the Church of Chomps, but statements like this are just plain ridic. He says he can't get a bet on, but we all know he can."
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1889 on: April 30, 2020, 11:02:12 AM »

‘Lockdown lingo’_ - are you fully conversant with the new terminology? Here are a few terms to get you in the groove:
 
Coronacoaster
The ups and downs of your mood during the pandemic. You’re loving lockdown one minute but suddenly weepy with anxiety the next. It truly is “an emotional coronacoaster”.

Quarantinis
Experimental cocktails mixed from whatever random ingredients you have left in the house. The boozy equivalent of a store cupboard supper. Southern Comfort and Ribena quarantini with a glacé cherry garnish, anyone? These are sipped at “locktail hour”, ie. wine o’clock during lockdown, which seems to be creeping earlier with each passing week.

Blue Skype thinking
A work brainstorming session which takes place over a videoconferencing app. Such meetings might also be termed a “Zoomposium”. Naturally, they are to be avoided if at all possible.

Le Creuset wrist
It’s the new “avocado hand” - an aching arm after taking one’s best saucepan outside to bang during the weekly ‘Clap For Carers.’ It might be heavy but you’re keen to impress the neighbours with your high-quality kitchenware.

Coronials
As opposed to millennials, this refers to the future generation of babies conceived or born during coronavirus quarantine. They might also become known as “Generation C” or, more spookily, “Children of the Quarn”.

Furlough Merlot
Wine consumed in an attempt to relieve the frustration of not working. Also known as “bored-eaux” or “cabernet tedium”.

Coronadose
An overdose of bad news from consuming too much media during a time of crisis. Can result in a “panicdemic.

The elephant in the Zoom
The glaring issue during a videoconferencing call that nobody feels able to mention. E.g. one participant has dramatically put on weight, suddenly sprouted terrible facial hair or has a worryingly messy house visible in the background.

Quentin Quarantino
An attention-seeker using their time in lockdown to make amateur films which they’re convinced are funnier and cleverer than they actually are.

Covidiot
One who ignores public health advice or behaves with reckless disregard for the safety of others can be said to display “covidiocy” or be “covidiotic”. Also called a “lockclown” or even a “Wuhan-ker”.

Goutbreak
The sudden fear that you’ve consumed so much wine, cheese, home-made cake and Easter chocolate in lockdown that your ankles are swelling up like a medieval king’s.

Antisocial distancing
Using health precautions as an excuse for snubbing neighbours and generally ignoring people you find irritating.

Coughin’ dodger
Someone so alarmed by an innocuous splutter or throat-clear that they back away in terror.

Mask-ara
Extra make-up applied to "make one's eyes pop" before venturing out in public wearing a face mask.

Covid-10
The 10lbs in weight that we’re all gaining from comfort-eating and comfort-drinking. Also known as “fattening the curve”.

I don’t usually like a pun but some of these are great. ‘fattening the curve’, ‘coughin dodger’ and all the wine ones are top notch 😊.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 122 123 124 125 [126] 127 128 129 130 ... 305 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.426 seconds with 21 queries.