Reply to: More deaths than...

[vetran]

In the meantime in real world -

"Shortage of lorry drivers raises spectre of empty shelves

Chronic driver shortages are resulting in food not getting through to small businesses and supermarkets, while demand is rising

Corner shops across the country have put up signs in windows to warn customers that they are running low on stock.

At the heart of the problem is a chronic shortage of lorry drivers, which threatens to upend other industries and lead to bare shelves this summer."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...empty-shelves/

Hey there are a few threads not contaminated by the hauliers complaining no one wants to work for the crap wages they pay. Leave this one alone.

[AtW]

So temporary relaxation of worker hours and increasing training. seems reasonable, if only the hauliers had planned earlier.

So long as the wages are set at higher rate tax level to reflect the skill shortage I'm fine with it going on the shortage list.

In the meantime in real world -

"Shortage of lorry drivers raises spectre of empty shelves

Chronic driver shortages are resulting in food not getting through to small businesses and supermarkets, while demand is rising

Corner shops across the country have put up signs in windows to warn customers that they are running low on stock.

At the heart of the problem is a chronic shortage of lorry drivers, which threatens to upend other industries and lead to bare shelves this summer."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...empty-shelves/

[vetran]

Oh OK so when you said "according to the scientists" you actually meant "according to one scientist on LBC". This is like my crazy friend who is constantly passing on Facebook posts about Covid being a hoax, masks being ineffective, vaccines killing loads of people... which she has been sent by "my friend a surgeon".

I don't think the scientific community have a consensus view, is my point. Clearly at some point things have to change and I wouldn't agree with those who get vaccinated then still live in fear and want everyone to lock down because "there's still a risk". Personally I think we're on a knife edge right now. Opening up right now is basically accepting we let kids and teens achieve herd immunity and act as a colossal virus reservoir. We paused Phase 4 due to rising Delta cases, two weeks on and cases are far higher so my fear is there could be another twist coming. All it takes is a variant that evades the vaccines and we are back to 1000+ deaths a day and total lock-down which would be a death blow to the economy.

The scientific community are not known for consensus. The scientists didn't demand closing travel routes at the beginning, they didn't shout about closing care homes and other at risk places to infection. Those are standard practice for dealing with any serious virus outbreak. they didn't insist we isolate the infected in the Nightingale hospitals.

One assumes LBC checks their guests bona fides. The data about cause of death came from that well known fixer of figures the ONS.

As previously we have failed to plan easing lockdowns and haven't had all the benefits.

50% of under 30s are now vaccinated. Deaths are falling it seems we are approaching the tipping point. Testing volume is many times other countries we are looking for infections.

We could vaccinate the whole population if we wanted in next 3 months. Yes we could find a new variant but so far all the variants have responded to the vaccine. The great majority of patients hospitalised (97%) are not vaccinated. The deaths are not common among the vaccinated.

We could stay in lockdown but other health issues are soaring and the NHS backlog is immense.

It definitely time to talk about it. Maybe we restrict the non vaccinated and leave them in lockdown? Maybe we open up a little and test more?

[d000hg]

It was a virologist from one of the universities on LBC& GBnews.

so don't you think there is a transition point where the cost of lockdown does more health damage than Covid?

Its coming soon we should be planning.

Oh OK so when you said "according to the scientists" you actually meant "according to one scientist on LBC". This is like my crazy friend who is constantly passing on Facebook posts about Covid being a hoax, masks being ineffective, vaccines killing loads of people... which she has been sent by "my friend a surgeon".

I don't think the scientific community have a consensus view, is my point. Clearly at some point things have to change and I wouldn't agree with those who get vaccinated then still live in fear and want everyone to lock down because "there's still a risk". Personally I think we're on a knife edge right now. Opening up right now is basically accepting we let kids and teens achieve herd immunity and act as a colossal virus reservoir. We paused Phase 4 due to rising Delta cases, two weeks on and cases are far higher so my fear is there could be another twist coming. All it takes is a variant that evades the vaccines and we are back to 1000+ deaths a day and total lock-down which would be a death blow to the economy.

[NigelJK]

F-I-L worked at AZ

So a company this is making £B's on one product, immunising those who are already immune, thinks that it should keep pressure up as the the Treasury has a bottomless pit of money?

[vetran]

Which "the scientists" are you referring to? F-I-L worked at AZ and is still in that community, they don't seem to be of this opinion.
He was recommending this group's updates (YouTube, etc): https://www.independentsage.org/

It was a virologist from one of the universities on LBC& GBnews.

so don't you think there is a transition point where the cost of lockdown does more health damage than Covid?

Its coming soon we should be planning.

[d000hg]

Covid has gone from primary to 24th cause of death
We now should learn to live with it according to the scientists.

Which "the scientists" are you referring to? F-I-L worked at AZ and is still in that community, they don't seem to be of this opinion.
He was recommending this group's updates (YouTube, etc): https://www.independentsage.org/

[vetran]

Covid has gone from primary to 24th cause of death

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/e...s-b941441.html

In March it dropped from top spot to third place, before falling to ninth place in April and then down to 24th last month.

The ONS also said that the age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) of deaths due to Covid-19 had dropped for the fourth month in a row to 7.1 deaths per 100,000 people in England – the lowest rate since August 2020.

May was also the second consecutive month that deaths in England were below the five-year average (10.7% lower) since August 2020, the ONS said.

We now should learn to live with it according to the scientists.

[vetran]

Jesus, you and SueEllen would do great at any party...

I love when they get Fruity!

[ladymuck]

While everyone talks about the main two genes there are actually more than two genes that code for eye colour which is why you get hazel, green and grey eyes. This also means even people with the same eye colour e.g. brown eyes don't all have the same shade.

(If you talking about dominate and recessive genes main blood groups is probably a better example e.g A, B, O and AB as there are no random variations.)

Yes, that's very true. Blue/Brown is the dumbed down version of events. If the example hadn't already been bandied about, I'd probably have chosen a different one.

I suppose the only 'complication' with blood types is Rhesus positivity/negativity but you can do the blood type bit without reference to it.

When I found out my mum is O- (and so is in high demand as a universal donor), I signed up for blood donation but I turned out to be O+. So I'm a potential donor to only 50% of the population.

[ladymuck]

Jesus, you and SueEllen would do great at any party...

Yes we would! We're awesome.

[AtW]

You can work this out by drawing a punnett square.

Jesus, you and SueEllen would do great at any party...

[SueEllen]

CBA to see where this arose but that's not quite true. You can get the effect you're describing without the need for inbreeding.

Blue/Brown eye colour is used as a nice simple example to explain how dominant and recessive genes work albeit they don't explain hazel, green and other eye colours.

While everyone talks about the main two genes there are actually more than two genes that code for eye colour which is why you get hazel, green and grey eyes. This also means even people with the same eye colour e.g. brown eyes don't all have the same shade.

(If you talking about dominate and recessive genes main blood groups is probably a better example e.g A, B, O and AB as there are no random variations.)

[ladymuck]

But the answer is inbreeding - simply put if two brown eyed offspring carrying the blue gene in some of their reproductive DNA mated then there's a good chance (well there was obvs.) you get blue on blue, the rest is easy.

CBA to see where this arose but that's not quite true. You can get the effect you're describing without the need for inbreeding.

Blue/Brown eye colour is used as a nice simple example to explain how dominant and recessive genes work albeit they don't explain hazel, green and other eye colours.

The gene for Brown eye colour is dominant and the gene for Blue is recessive. Due to us having pairs of chromosomes, everyone carries two genes (alleles) for eye colour (excluding the complexities I mentioned above). You will have Brown eyes if you inherit two Brown genes (homozygous) or one Brown, one Blue gene (heterozygous). You will have Blue eyes if you inherit two Blue genes.

If your mother has Blue eyes and your dad has Brown eyes then for you to have Blue eyes, your dad will have to be heterozygous for eye colour. Somewhere back in his family history is someone who had Blue eyes and their Blue allele has been passed down. The individual chance of offspring from your parents having Blue eyes is 0% if your dad is homozygous or 50% if your dad is heterozygous. You can work this out by drawing a punnett square.

(Note I am assuming there has been no interference from the milkman)

[vetran]

I felt the need to exhibit misandry

FTFY

Gibbon explained it clearly and without condescension, if you have problems accepting explanations because of your gender please keep them to yourself.