poker news
blondepedia
card room
tournament schedule
uk results
galleries
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
March 29, 2024, 03:01:51 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Search:
Advanced search
Order through Amazon and help blonde Poker
2272484
Posts in
66752
Topics by
16945
Members
Latest Member:
Zula
blonde poker forum
Community Forums
The Lounge
COVID19
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
« previous
next »
Pages:
1
...
138
139
140
141
[
142
]
143
144
145
146
...
305
Author
Topic: COVID19 (Read 354183 times)
EvilPie
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 14253
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2115 on:
May 10, 2020, 08:46:21 PM »
Quote from: arbboy on May 10, 2020, 07:26:08 PM
Can someone explain why you are fine to go back to work tomorrow but you have to wait until Wednesday to exercise in unlimited doses? Why wasn't that made immediate? Why Weds?
Just because you can doesn't mean you will. All they've done is announce that that they want people to start going back to work and now the employers have to figure out how.
For my Company nothing will change tomorrow. We are entirely dependent on a few customers most of which have stopped contractors working on site. Those customers now have a bit more rope to let out and look at getting things moving again.
Once we're allowed back on site I'll have to look at how to manage it properly but the chance of any of my guys being back next week is pretty much zero.
This has given businesses a chance to look at things a bit more practically and now that they have the backing of Government they can do so without being chastised for being irresponsible.
Logged
Motivational speeches at their best:
"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
RickBFA
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 2001
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2116 on:
May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM »
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
Logged
Doobs
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 16570
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2117 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM »
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
Logged
Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 46912
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2118 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:10:19 PM »
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
Why would R have risen if we had continued with lockdown?
Logged
The older I get, the better I was.
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2119 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:10:26 PM »
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
Of course he will get criticised. Most excess deaths, measured as a percentage increase of all mortality of any nation in Europe, is in ‘take it to the bank territory’ and we’re well placed now to be amongst the leaders in the G20 for economic contraction in 2020. It should be near impossible to top both of those tables but the Dipshit Double is well and truly on (the e/w part, a near formality).
I’m happy to take advice on whether those are the two best/fairest measures, I think they probably are.
Logged
youthnkzR
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 2406
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2120 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:23:29 PM »
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
Why would R have increased with a 2 week extension on lockdown? Surely R continues to fall whilst people are staying home.
Logged
RickBFA
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 2001
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2121 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM »
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Logged
nirvana
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 7804
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2122 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:34:38 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 09:10:26 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
Of course he will get criticised. Most excess deaths, measured as a percentage increase of all mortality of any nation in Europe, is in ‘take it to the bank territory’ and we’re well placed now to be amongst the leaders in the G20 for economic contraction in 2020. It should be near impossible to top both of those tables but the Dipshit Double is well and truly on (the e/w part, a near formality).
I’m happy to take advice on whether those are the two best/fairest measures, I think they probably are.
Cold comfort I guess that Corbyn could have achieved one of those without a pandemic,
Logged
sola virtus nobilitat
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2123 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:46:06 PM »
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Professor John Edmunds indicated in his evidence to the Select Committee that it was already on the way back up, this was mainly due to care homes and hospitals, they are also a source of continued community spread. Then we had what Boris said at PMQs and the press being briefed about today, leading to the ‘Freedom’ headlines. There’s no doubt the lockdown has been less stringent since. There’s a chance the community R0 was pretty much as low as it was going to get on lockdown lite.
https://twitter.com/commonsstc/status/1258441468110270464?s=21
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/
«
Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 09:54:18 PM by kukushkin88
»
Logged
RickBFA
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 2001
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2124 on:
May 10, 2020, 09:56:39 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 09:46:06 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Professor John Edmunds indicated in his evidence to the Select Committee that it was already on the way back up, this was mainly due to care homes and hospitals, they are also a source of continued community spread (care homes are 0.75% of the population, so they couldn’t influence the overall R0 substantially). Then we had what Boris said at PMQs and the press being briefed about today, leading to the ‘Freedom’ headlines. There’s no doubt the lockdown has been less stringent since. There’s a chance the community R0 was pretty much as low as it was going to get on lockdown lite.
https://twitter.com/commonsstc/status/1258441468110270464?s=21
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/
I get the point about care homes adding to the R but surely as testing etc improves, the rate of infection starts to drop. Maybe that would take longer than 2 weeks.
One other quick point, if as you say community R was pretty much as low as it is going to get, then there is no ideal time to start reducing lockdown. By that logic, now is as good a time as any to start loosening it or do we wait another week, month, year whilst the economy gets trashed even more?
(It’s a question not a statement).
«
Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 10:03:11 PM by RickBFA
»
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2125 on:
May 10, 2020, 10:01:10 PM »
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 09:46:06 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Professor John Edmunds indicated in his evidence to the Select Committee that it was already on the way back up, this was mainly due to care homes and hospitals, they are also a source of continued community spread (care homes are 0.75% of the population, so they couldn’t influence the overall R0 substantially). Then we had what Boris said at PMQs and the press being briefed about today, leading to the ‘Freedom’ headlines. There’s no doubt the lockdown has been less stringent since. There’s a chance the community R0 was pretty much as low as it was going to get on lockdown lite.
https://twitter.com/commonsstc/status/1258441468110270464?s=21
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/
I get the point about care homes adding to the R but surely as testing etc improves, the rate of infection starts to drop. Maybe that would take longer than 2 weeks.
My understanding is that with the level of lockdown we have, the community spread R0 has pretty much bottomed out. It will be contract tracing that is needed to drive it down further.
Slightly off on a tangent, this thread is pretty incredible:
https://twitter.com/michaelvkim/status/1258987354934538248?s=21
Logged
RickBFA
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 2001
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2126 on:
May 10, 2020, 10:04:12 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 10:01:10 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 09:46:06 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Professor John Edmunds indicated in his evidence to the Select Committee that it was already on the way back up, this was mainly due to care homes and hospitals, they are also a source of continued community spread (care homes are 0.75% of the population, so they couldn’t influence the overall R0 substantially). Then we had what Boris said at PMQs and the press being briefed about today, leading to the ‘Freedom’ headlines. There’s no doubt the lockdown has been less stringent since. There’s a chance the community R0 was pretty much as low as it was going to get on lockdown lite.
https://twitter.com/commonsstc/status/1258441468110270464?s=21
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/
I get the point about care homes adding to the R but surely as testing etc improves, the rate of infection starts to drop. Maybe that would take longer than 2 weeks.
My understanding is that with the level of lockdown we have, the community spread R0 has pretty much bottomed out. It will be contract tracing that is needed to drive it down further.
Slightly off on a tangent, this thread is pretty incredible:
https://twitter.com/michaelvkim/status/1258987354934538248?s=21
See my edit on my last post on that issue.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 3892
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2127 on:
May 10, 2020, 10:17:27 PM »
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 09:46:06 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Professor John Edmunds indicated in his evidence to the Select Committee that it was already on the way back up, this was mainly due to care homes and hospitals, they are also a source of continued community spread (care homes are 0.75% of the population, so they couldn’t influence the overall R0 substantially). Then we had what Boris said at PMQs and the press being briefed about today, leading to the ‘Freedom’ headlines. There’s no doubt the lockdown has been less stringent since. There’s a chance the community R0 was pretty much as low as it was going to get on lockdown lite.
https://twitter.com/commonsstc/status/1258441468110270464?s=21
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/
I get the point about care homes adding to the R but surely as testing etc improves, the rate of infection starts to drop. Maybe that would take longer than 2 weeks.
One other quick point, if as you say community R was pretty much as low as it is going to get, then there is no ideal time to start reducing lockdown. By that logic, now is as good a time as any to start loosening it or do we wait another week, month, year whilst the economy gets trashed even more?
(It’s a question not a statement).
The argument would be for a far more comprehensive lockdown but that won’t happen, so what we need is a very effective contact tracing programme. I can’t see a sensible way out in the near future without a huge spike in deaths/illness/lifelong illness.
Logged
Doobs
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 16570
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2128 on:
May 10, 2020, 10:27:20 PM »
Quote from: RED-DOG on May 10, 2020, 09:10:19 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
Why would R have risen if we had continued with lockdown?
It is the rate of infection per person. Having less people infected doesn't change that. Having people wandering round does. Given more people wandering round by the week means that R was naturally increasing even if number of infected was falling
can't explain more, Sunday big poker night
Logged
Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
RickBFA
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 2001
Re: COVID19
«
Reply #2129 on:
May 10, 2020, 10:27:54 PM »
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 10:17:27 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: kukushkin88 on May 10, 2020, 09:46:06 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: Doobs on May 10, 2020, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: RickBFA on May 10, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
I would have waited another week or two before this announcement. Let the R drop a bit further.
At least those pressing Johnson for an exit strategy from this have now got a plan.
They didnt like a simple stay at home message and wanted more. Now they don’t like his plans (which are subject to change).
He will get criticised which ever route he takes.
R wouldn't have dropped in 2 weeks, it would have likely risen. I think you have misunderstood R.
My understanding is r is the rate the virus is passed to others.
Logically, if we had maintained tight lockdown conditions the known rate of infection could have dropped further over say an additional 2 week period?
Isn’t that the point of lockdown to reduce the rate of infection?
As we loosen lockdown the rate of infection may well rise. As an example, they reckon opening all schools would add 0.2 to R.
I may be misunderstanding the whole basis of lockdown.
Professor John Edmunds indicated in his evidence to the Select Committee that it was already on the way back up, this was mainly due to care homes and hospitals, they are also a source of continued community spread (care homes are 0.75% of the population, so they couldn’t influence the overall R0 substantially). Then we had what Boris said at PMQs and the press being briefed about today, leading to the ‘Freedom’ headlines. There’s no doubt the lockdown has been less stringent since. There’s a chance the community R0 was pretty much as low as it was going to get on lockdown lite.
https://twitter.com/commonsstc/status/1258441468110270464?s=21
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/dont-buy-the-lockdown-lie-this-is-a-government-of-business-as-usual/
I get the point about care homes adding to the R but surely as testing etc improves, the rate of infection starts to drop. Maybe that would take longer than 2 weeks.
One other quick point, if as you say community R was pretty much as low as it is going to get, then there is no ideal time to start reducing lockdown. By that logic, now is as good a time as any to start loosening it or do we wait another week, month, year whilst the economy gets trashed even more?
(It’s a question not a statement).
The argument would be for a far more comprehensive lockdown but that won’t happen, so what we need is a very effective contact tracing programme. I can’t see a sensible way out in the near future without a huge spike in deaths/illness/lifelong illness.
It appears therefore that any Government would be between a rock and a hard place.
Whether it’s someone you consider smart, like Sturgeon, who you have praised or your pal “Dipshit”.
Logged
Pages:
1
...
138
139
140
141
[
142
]
143
144
145
146
...
305
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Poker Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Rail
===> past blonde Bashes
===> Best of blonde
=> Diaries and Blogs
=> Live Tournament Updates
=> Live poker
===> Live Tournament Staking
=> Internet Poker
===> Online Tournament Staking
=> Poker Hand Analysis
===> Learning Centre
-----------------------------
Community Forums
-----------------------------
=> The Lounge
=> Betting Tips and Sport Discussion
Loading...