Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Empty It]

Glad to see we're back to Covid has spiked all over just as countries have re opened the schools but it's just a coincidence because looking after your own children is an inconvenience.

[Dee Man]

18 minutes ago, Empty It said:

Glad to see we're back to Covid has spiked all over just as countries have re opened the schools but it's just a coincidence because looking after your own children is an inconvenience.

This line has been trotted out throughout this thread particularly in recent times and particularly by non-parents who seem to have an unhealthy disdain for those people with kids. 

Clearly there should be no sympathy for 'full-time stay at home mummys' who just want their sprogs out from under their feet so they can sit on Facebook all day, but to be fair to working parents who are finding themselves more than inconvenienced, they will have planned their lives around having their kids in pre-school and full-time education so will be having their lives massively disrupted. 

Anyone missing the point and ready to respond with the, "but, but, but teachers aren't babysitters" line shouldn't waste their time. 

Thank you. 

[renton]

7 hours ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

Bear in mind also that this study came to this conclusion using data from when India was under lockdown and schools were closed, which is even more concerning.

The conclusions in the paper were slightly more circumspect than in the headline. It said that there was a more symptomatic significant spread amongst children (i.e. to pass it on within the same age group) than had previously been thought by some studies.

Yet it also confirmed that symptomatic cases amongst 0-17 year olds made up less than 10% of case loads and further, that when comparing index case to infected contact, that while adults in the 20-45 range were highly likely to be the index case across a wide range of infected contact age ranges, it also presented data that suggested 0-17 year olds were not a significant cohort as index cases for people in other age cohorts. Indeed, it suggests that kids are something like 4 or 5 times more likely to get symptoms of the virus from an adult than they are to give it to an adult

[dirty dingus]

16 minutes ago, renton said:

The conclusions in the paper were slightly more circumspect than in the headline. It said that there was a more symptomatic significant spread amongst children (i.e. to pass it on within the same age group) than had previously been thought by some studies.

Yet it also confirmed that symptomatic cases amongst 0-17 year olds made up less than 10% of case loads and further, that when comparing index case to infected contact, that while adults in the 20-45 range were highly likely to be the index case across a wide range of infected contact age ranges, it also presented data that suggested 0-17 year olds were not a significant cohort as index cases for people in other age cohorts. Indeed, it suggests that kids are something like 4 or 5 times more likely to get symptoms of the virus from an adult than they are to give it to an adult

Typical, I wait all week for a graph then 20 come along at once.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

Typical, I wait all week for a graph then 20 come along at once.

In my defence, the graphs are two images, that's just the way the paper presented them

[Bairnardo]

I'm getting bored of the three of them greenying each others posts and red dotting anyone who disagrees with them. It's a wee game they're playing and they probably don't believe a word of what they're arguing. 

In the case of the threads Matt Hancock (Szamo) it's pretty obvious that he doesn't even understand what he is posting, let alone actually believe it.

It is really owning folk though, spending his time rooting through twitter to find hauners for VT [emoji848]

[Honest_Man#1]

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I don't think any Governments are saying that, only that opening up schools is important for multiple reasons, and that the consequences aren't as catastrophically the big spur of growth as 2 or 3 posters on here obsessively believe. There are plenty of studies indicating that younger pupils aren't major transmitters. Anyone claiming certainty at this stage an idiot, and needs to learn how to distinguish between coinciding events and causal chains. There are a multiplicity of possible causes of the current spike, opening schools has to be a factor but its significance amongst all the other's collective contribution is as yet unknown. 

Except the Scottish one, as I posted a direct quote from Sturgeon just last week before the latest restrictions were announced which stated “we feel schools are safe”, which is clearly utter bollocks.

[parsforlife]

58 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

to be fair to working parents who are finding themselves more than inconvenienced, they will have planned their lives around having their kids in pre-school and full-time education so will be having their lives massively disrupted. 

Oh no.  Parents would need to adapt their lifestyles to account for a pandemic which wasn’t part of their original planning. That’s a shame when nobody else is needing to change how they do things...

[ICTChris]

Jonathan Van Tam also said in the data presentation from the U.K. scientists last week that there was limited evidence of transmission in schools. The president of the council of paediatric medicine (or something like this, can’t remember his exact title) said similar a couple of weeks ago.

[Aufc]

Oh no.  Parents would need to adapt their lifestyles to account for a pandemic which wasn’t part of their original planning. That’s a shame when nobody else is needing to change how they do things...

As if to prove the point....

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Oh no.  Parents would need to adapt their lifestyles to account for a pandemic which wasn’t part of their original planning. That’s a shame when nobody else is needing to change how they do things...

Point proven Dee Man.

 

[Dee Man]

4 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Oh no.  Parents would need to adapt their lifestyles to account for a pandemic which wasn’t part of their original planning. That’s a shame when nobody else is needing to change how they do things...

Congratulations on being the first one to miss the point and make a totally irrelevant point. 

You win a face mask and a bottle of hand sanitiser. 

[Marshmallo]

1 hour ago, Dee Man said:

This line has been trotted out throughout this thread particularly in recent times and particularly by non-parents who seem to have an unhealthy disdain for those people with kids. 

Clearly there should be no sympathy for 'full-time stay at home mummys' who just want their sprogs out from under their feet so they can sit on Facebook all day, but to be fair to working parents who are finding themselves more than inconvenienced, they will have planned their lives around having their kids in pre-school and full-time education so will be having their lives massively disrupted. 

Anyone missing the point and ready to respond with the, "but, but, but teachers aren't babysitters" line shouldn't waste their time. 

Thank you. 

Nice bit of "I'm morally superior" classism here, good job!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Jonathan Van Tam also said in the data presentation from the U.K. scientists last week that there was limited evidence of transmission in schools. The president of the council of paediatric medicine (or something like this, can’t remember his exact title) said similar a couple of weeks ago.

Did they not say that cases of pupil testing positive related to clusters outwith schools not to inter-pupil infection spreading?

I think it was recognised that there was a risk but that the overall risks are likely to be higher when the virus is already spreading more generally in the area around the school not in the school itself.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

13 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Oh no.  Parents would need to adapt their lifestyles to account for a pandemic which wasn’t part of their original planning. That’s a shame when nobody else is needing to change how they do things...

 

[Dee Man]

2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Nice bit of "I'm morally superior" classism here, good job!

I pre-empted stupid responses like this and had the decency to give people fair warning not to do it yet here we are with the usual suspects making a c**t of themselves. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I pre-empted stupid responses like this and had the decency to give people fair warning not to do it yet here we are with the usual suspects making a c**t of themselves. 

The Clique reacting as ever.

Utterly predictable.

[Marshmallo]

Just now, Dee Man said:

I pre-empted stupid responses like this and had the decency to give people fair warning not to do it yet here we are with the usual suspects making a c**t of themselves. 

Just to check

Mothers who don't work = "deserve no sympathy"

Parents who work = have had lives massively disrupted 

Is this correct?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Just to check
Mothers who don't work = "deserve no sympathy"
Parents who work = have had lives massively disrupted 
Is this correct?

That's not what he said - and you know it.

[Bairnardo]

That's not what he said - and you know it.

This is all Masrhmallo has left after all the humiliations. Deliberately twisting what folk say then trying to score points over it. Another poster who has absolutely nothing to say, although it's for the best in his case since it will likely lead to further action from the moderating team.