I agree that much that I bought one last year. Not the V5 version though. That would just be nuts.
Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I agree that much that I bought one last year. Not the V5 version though. That would just be nuts.
The major issue are those people that refuse to comply with social distancing and won't wear masks. Had one racist idiot on a cycle abuse my wife and her brother for wearing masks a couple of days ago (I was 5m behind and gave him a mouthful of abuse and the shock of his life). Those are the people that make opening up risky ... if everyone complied with precautionary measures then I'm sure opening up would happen earlier ... but Govts know a high percentage of their population are fucking idiots and have to cater to them (not sure how that is going to work in the USA when they are led by one).
Last edited:
It's a really nice car but I can't help thinking I'd feel like a tosser driving one round. I'd probably get a Focus RS instead tbh, similar money but much faster and more fun.
But huge tax bills are a major disincentive to future investment and that doesn't have to mean just for MNCs it could just be little guys too (I have had 3 businesses - UK, Austria and China - and unless there was a way to mitigate the tax bill - that is by hiding sales - then it frankly wasn't worth the risk (anywhere, not just in the UK). If tax was reduced to a more reasonable rate then further investment & effort would undoubtedly follow (and this goes for something as basic as doing more overtime too).
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/...k6SKRzic6vfghTxHt58CEeVqV39bu68l_jVlVyFP1YJRQ
Coronavirus found in mink farm in the Netherlands
Coronavirus found in mink farm in the Netherlands
I think she means pregnancy.
South Korea have already had quite a number reinfected, 91 last time I saw a figure mentioned - weeks ago.
I'd wrap myself around a pole in the RS. Or lose my licence within 3 months.
I'll settle for feeling like a tosser
Well, considering our government advises specifically NOT to wear masks (despite the fact that they're proven to restrict exposure & help contain the viral load at the very least) then we're not exactly in a great fucking place.
Nah you'd be fine. You get used to it.
That's not what I've been hearing when UK doctors and scientists are interviewed on radio or TV. Overall I've been surprised by how variable scientific advice has been throughout all this but, on the question of face masks, the ones I've heard all seem to be saying that in their view the evidence that they help just isn't there. On the contrary, if you don't (a) have the right type of mask - which you shouldn't have because the medics need them and there's a worldwide shortage - and (b) handle them in the right way, they can actually harbour the virus and increase the risk to you and others.
The reason some people shouldn't wear a mask is that they are either too thick or too ignorant and don't know how to handle them. This is a failing of the Govt. in not using the media to educate.
The evidence is pretty clear from multiple sources (inc. the CDC, which has changed it's mind from its earlier stance. As in they will protect against large droplets and spray from coughing or sneezing, especially important when considering the large pool of asymptomatics) and the theory is backed up as one of the methods used in the success of Asian nations in fighting the virus (BTW in Japan they will wear masks in public when they have a cold or flu to prevent infecting other people and Japan has a remarkably, and notable, low rate of flu infection).
The science of the mask is indisputable, even if it's clearly not a 100% failsafe it is also clearly a risk reduction factor. One must assume that the mask harbours any virus collected, especially around the mouth/nose area, and should be handled and disposed of correctly. That is the failing for most people, not that masks in themselves can't considerably reduce the chance of infection.
The vote against facemasks comes from this assumption (The Guardian) :
We can’t automatically assume that because face masks work in hospitals, they will work everywhere. The reason masks are effective in hospitals is partly because they are changed often and correctly fitted, and partly because health workers know how to remove the mask without becoming infected from their outer surface, which could harbour viruses.
But of course that’s no reason not to ask the question. We’ve recently seen scientists putting forward hypotheses based on lab experiments which simulate coughs and sneezes and measure droplet spread. These studies suggest it may be possible for droplets to travel farther than was previously thought, which may indicate that the distance recommended for physical distancing should be reassessed. Crucially, this was not a real-life experiment, so we can’t be sure how much this artificial setting represents an accurate picture of reality.
BBC
The UK government is not currently advising most people to wear masks, but has said it will consider what its scientific advisers say.
However, the cabinet did not discuss the subject at its meeting on Thursday morning.
At the weekend, more than 100 doctors wrote a letter to The Times saying they were "alarmed at official inaction over the need for the public to wear homemade face masks".
They said it was "illogical" to advise people to wear masks if they are showing symptoms, but not if they appear symptom-free.
However
Quote : CNN 23rd April
In the coming weeks, if they have not already, your government is likely to begin advising you to wear a face mask to protect against coronavirus.
For those living in Asia, such announcements will be a vindication of a tactic that has been adopted across much of the region since the beginning of the crisis and appears to have been borne out by lower rates of infection and faster containment of outbreaks.
On Monday, Redfield said told NPR that the CDC was reviewing its guidelines and may recommend general mask use to guard against community infection. It's likely only a matter of time before other mask holdouts, most prominently the World Health Organization (WHO), follow suit.
Adrien Burch, an expert in microbiology at the University of California, Berkeley, noted that "despite hearing that face masks 'don't work,' you probably haven't seen any strong evidence to support that claim. That's because it doesn't exist."
I've seen not one, not two, not three, but four people wearing a mask while driving without wearing their seatbelt. Greeks are mad.
Interesting but a great deal of that is very equivocal when you read it in detail. If the science had been indisputable there'd have been no dispute, because there'd have been no reason for one. Let me be clear: I'm not saying one definitely shouldn't, still less that I won't, wear a mask. What I am saying (based on what a large majority of doctors and scientists in this country seem to be saying, that letter to "The Times" notwithstanding) is that the case for face masks is far from a slam dunk.
Last edited:
Don't hold your breath on the scientists figuring this one out. It's a complex process involving lots of engineering and fluid mechanics which medical researchers have no idea about. They don't even have an idea of medicine.
My assumption would be that wearing a mask will lower the spread of the disease, because when people cough it contains the spread of droplets. However, if you don't have the disease, then my assumption would be that wearing a mask is dumb. Your nostrils and mouth has a relatively small surface area (even smaller if you have lots of nasal hair and keep your god damn mouth shut, poor the harry kane may god rest his soul), so the odds are on your side of walking through the open air and not inhaling a dangerous concentration of the virus. But if you slap a great big absorbent bit of cloth over your nose and mouth, well you've increased the surface area for capturing droplets. Then you start breathing through that porous as fuck mask and the rest is history. If you work in a confined place with lots of sick people, then the surface area argument goes out the window, you need the mask to protect yourself. Outdoors, it's better to let others wear masks to contain their coughs and hoover up the droplets for you. Whilst you look out for number one and go commando.
Very much so. I never want to change my car again
Do you not think CEOs board members etc. would just hoard even more profits and bonuses.
Personally I see the reason the Govt. have not advocated their use is that they simply don't have the reserves required to meet demand, or even close to it, and the public outcry would be deafening. I would put money on that changing once the required stocks are met.
Fair and understandable points, but the Govt.would have had to corral an awful lot of medics and scientists to support their message, not all of whom by any means would have been easily amenable to such tactics. I guess we'll find out one way or the other before too long.
Stay safe, mate.
Stay safe, mate.
Yes, in part. However there would now be obvious benefits to increased investment (even higher profits and bonuses). However as it stands the small businesses are taxed to the hilt and the MNCs can cover their asses by using whatever nefarious means are available to those with the money.
Here's some quick UK stats I just Googled :
5.82 million businesses were small (0 to 49 employees)
35,600 businesses were medium-sized (50 to 249 employees)
7,700 businesses were large (250 or more employees)
----
- there were estimated to be 5.9 million UK private sector businesses
- 1.4 million of these had employees and 4.5 million had no employees
- therefore, 76% of businesses did not employ anyone aside from the owner(s)
- there were 5.82 million small businesses (with 0 to 49 employees), 99.3% of the total business population
- there were 35,600 medium-sized businesses (with 50 to 249 employees), 0.6% of the total business population
- a further 7,700 businesses were large businesses (with 250 or more employees), 0.1% of the total business population
Although the MNCs' turnover is just over 50% of the total you can bet the tax paid by the micro and small businesses is far higher as a percentage of tax revenue collected.
You too JJ.
If you lowered tax, those 76% of businesses would actually be able to grow and start employing people, those people will in turn increase their spending, which will in turn allow other business to grow, and pretty soon the sweaty unwashed greta loving bearded youths might accept that capitalism works.
I know fuck all about fuck all with all this stuff, cos I haven't really been paying a huge amount of attention, but I find it weird that in Hong Kong which has a hugely higher population density and is much closer and more exposed to the epicentre of the outbreak, there have apparently only been 4 deaths and around 1000 cases.
Speculative, but there's deffo much more a culture of wearing masks over there, so it might have something to do with it?
If you set aside poor cognitive development, which is not entirely their fault, then it is possible to admire their spirit and willingness to stand up to more powerful enemies.
Yep. Amazing really. When people have been holding NZ up as the epitome of how to handle the virus (most of my family live over there) I point out that they have the advantages of extreme isolation, extremely low population density and the Southern Hemisphere Summer ... compare that to HK and Taiwan.
How would NZ have done if it were instead geographically located where Ireland is ? And vice versa.
What about a more progressive tax system where the smaller companies pay less and taxes on profits are tiered. I definitely agree with reducing tax on smaller business, but bigger companies would just use it to fatten the wallets of already wealthy people.