• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

Parklaner81 said:
Didn't China (or the WHO, can't remember the details) only announce the virus publicly on 31st Dec? Therefore, 4 days after this apparent case in France?

Can't imagine this will do their case much good if true.
Click to expand...

Maybe why WHO are starting to change tact
 
Why have they kept a sample for that long?

And it would be key to try and contact trace that person to see if there is any Wuhan related interactions for them, then we have a story. Otherwise the viability of one test from December sample doesn't yet give us a story IMO.
 
Legohamster said:
That is massive if true.

That means millions and millions would have had it if it’s as infectious as claimed.
Click to expand...
And perhaps in a lot of places Dec and Jan deaths were registered as (quite often they are especially for old people) pneumonia, with covid not really considered at that point and I assume some of the symptoms (ie lung complications) would be similar.

It's is an interesting point though as if the virus arrival date in various countries is back dated that does have an affect on initial projections and those going forward. Plus the rate and number already.infected.
 
The other half has just come back from her cleaning job at a manufacturing company that’s been open during lock down.

The office she works in has told furlough staff they are expected back next week.

Some of the staff asked to be furloughed again and the company refused and they said they needed everyone back to ramp everything back up.

Some of the staff said they didn’t feel safe, the company said if they didn’t turn up they would go down as AWOL and will go down the disciplinary route.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
SO I guess you think that these clowns have done a wonderful job. Deluded or what? I wonder who you voted for?
Click to expand...

Guess again.
I didn't think there were only two options.

As with so many things, it's more nuanced and grey.


Un-related, I noticed someone put up a link from John O'Connell a page back. Isn't he the 'journalist' who put out a scare-quote purporting to be from the UK-USA trade agreement in which the NHS was going to be sold off? Turns out he made the whole thing up.
 
They should go back to work if their employer can ensure they follow the correct safety and protection standards. If not then they well within their rights to refuse. Everyone in this country has the right to work in a safe environment.
 
LutonSpurs said:
They should go back to work if their employer can ensure they follow the correct safety and protection standards. If not then they well within their rights to refuse. Everyone in this country has the right to work in a safe environment.
Click to expand...
They can refuse if they like.

There's a fudgepile of people looking for work right now, they'll be replaced soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back