There are other better qualified to answer that, but I think it is a very dangerous statement that could get you banned from this forum.
3 Likes
I thought the same. I think someone has an agenda
3 Likes
Hi Mike, Eddie, I have no ‘hidden agenda’. I’m just a free thinker, simply airing my views because I was asked to give them.
My apologies if I’ve done something wrong 
and offended you.
Louise,
You haven’t offended anyone. But you seem to be encouraging others to break the social distancing rules.
Your “common sense” views may not stand up to scientific examination.
2 Likes
I suggest that this is not the case. Almost unanimously amongst infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists and microbiologists there is a consensus on the virulence, ease of transmission, and morbidity of the disease, based on sound evidence, data gathered internationally not just in UK, but also by scientists and clinicians fully engaged on the front line of the pandemic.
Your implied reasoning that masks offer complete protection is IMO unsound. The virus can be transmitted by fomites, articles to which the virus has become attached as aerosol droplets, or by fingers contaminated by face-touching, or by handling contaminated items, or touching surfaces.
My own experience of infectious disesse derives from 6 years working as a nurse in an infectious diseases hospital in the Midlands, where most patients had tuberculosis. TB is bacterial not viral, and is not especially infectious, but it is virulent when it gains access to susceptible people causes widespread tissue damage, and is hard to eradicate when it has taken hold. I have also seen the ravages of communicable diseases during my years in Africa, diseases that only rigorously applied public health measures keep widespread death at bay.
Not enough is yet known about this virus but there is enough evidence to show that it is highly dangerous, can not be dismissed, and must be contained. A stitch in time saves nine. Beware of those who protest that the cure may be worse than the disease. It is not only communists who have an agenda and seek to anaesthetise the gullible into buying an easy way out of a difficult situation.
4 Likes
He unfortunately passed away some years ago.
2 Likes
I think this representation of the steps taken to limit the spread of a disease for which there is no cure is wholly reprehensible. It may be a legitimate point of view, but nonetheless I find it dangerously subversive to suggest that infection control has been applied in order to brainwash people, to deprive them of pleasure, or leisure, or to take away their liberty.
This is not promoting debate. It is IMO odious extremist propaganda.
3 Likes
Hi Mike, I’m not sure where everyone lives whilst writing this.
All I can say is in my defence, that during the past 2 months 70% of people who I’ve had contact with have been living relatively ‘normally’ anyway and with no fatal conséquences. Whether it be pensioners sneaking out over their back garden fence to take a coffee with friends, youngsters meeting in isolated places /each other’s homes or families having their Easter lunch together.
As someone interested in the English language, my post was actually about the way in which media are trying to make this normal human behaviour seem dangerous by way of language so I just wrote examples of what I’ve been told.
IMO, eldery or dying people in the last years or weeks of their lives shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about wanting to have fun and socialize.
1 Like
Blimey…!
Nip Super U come back and find threats to Louise of being banned from the forum and accused of having an agenda and promoting odious extremist propaganda…!
There is nothing in what she said that isn’t being discussed by lots of doctors scientists Microbiologists and also politicians in parliaments all over the world…
1 Like
Louise,
You are just digging yourself a deeper hole.
Peter is eminently qualified and knows what he is talking about.
What are your qualifications to voice an opinion asbout this, apart from your limited personal experience?
If you are sensible you will delete your offending posts and say no more on this subject.
I suspect that Louise is not a doctor, scientist or microbiologist, or even a politician.
The government has a near impossible task of balancing damaging to the economy against imperiling the health of the people. They have set out rules that they hope will result in the least damage to the population as a whole.
They and we don’t need anarchic dissenters at this hazardous moment.
1 Like
Louise, you have a very affable and disarmingly innocent “What, me guv?” way of communicating as an ordinary down-home Jill, but you are also a very canny, sophisticated and artful propagandist IMO, and you play fast and loose with facts.
Instance your statement above. You seem ignorant of the possibility indeed the strong likelihood that à significant number of those of your acquaintance who mingled normally may have been infected with the Covid 19 virus during their relaxed social intercourse with others, and may thus have infected others. If you don’t believe in the fact of asymptomatic or incubating carriers, or ignorant of it, or simply don’t care, I don’t know.
But I think a person of your obvious intelligence should at least have some regard for innocent others who may have been infected by your convivial 70% who, as yet, have shown no signs of infection, but some of whom may now be gravely ill, having passed on the illness to others in the process.
I hope your prédiction of ‘no fatal consequences’ is sound, but I expect you won’t be dilatory in following up potential contacts, and reassuring yourself that no harm was done in the formulation of your breezy anecdote
3 Likes
There’s nowt wrong with discussion, Helen (long time no see:hugs:
) but people in discussion must expect to be challenged robustly when they make what appear to be seriously ill-informed statements on a matter of grave global concern.
I’m not calling for Louise to be bumped out, and I wouldn’t but I will call her out, and if she writes like an immoderate propagandist with an agenda to disrupt essential public health measures which à large majority of world citizens have adopted at much hardship, and with concern for the greater good, she will have a good-natured fight on her hands. I think she will respect it
’
6 Likes
Hi there, and as usual thanks for contributing to the post, 
I am indeed extremely flippant. 
and my apologies if my candid approach to life is considered subversive. That’s kind of me…Can’t change that.
I did indeed remove ‘the offending post’ as suggested by Mike.
As for propagandist., not really. More of a realist and simply honest or honestly simple . I’ve shared my own personal experience on a very small scale. I don’t speak for anyone else or on behalf of anyone else.
If sharing my personal experience of the last 2 months could be considered as propaganda, then my profound fears which led me to write the post are perhaps well founded.
Anyone that knows me well, can vouch for the fact that I’m about as subversive as your average fluffy bunny 
!!flippant yes, insouciant - very much so. To add to that, a huge fan of Monty Python, Woody Allen, Cary Grant, Bobe Hope, Spike Milligan…. 
2 Likes
Calling that galaxy of stars in aid of your bona fides has saved your bacon chez moi Louise and my plan to turn your fluffy bunny into a pair of mittens is on hold for the time being… 
I wasn’t offended by any of your posts, you’re too artful to give offence, but let’s say you accelerated my rate of grass-cutting and weed-pulling by about 20%…so mustn’t grumble 
2 Likes
Thanks Peter 
1 Like
Who made a threat?
2 Likes
You are welcome, Louise
The threat of being banned from the forum for making a “dangerous statement”…???
That particular comment came from Mike…
I don’t see that Louise has said anything that justifies what I feel was an over the top response…
And neither are the vast majority of us under lockdown doctors scientists or microbiologists but there are an increasing number of all of the above speaking out against it…
Are we to label those people anarchic dissenters too…???