For Himmy

[Vinty]

Why do you keep posting that link?
It is irrelevant to the issue under discussion. It suggests that relatives, of all ages, are likely to contract the virus in the home, from other infected relatives. Wow, that's surprising!
I think not!
The report in your link does not address the possibility, nor the probability of older relatives increasing the spread of coronavirus within the community.
It only deals with people contracting the virus within the home. It doesn't take a special report to arrive at that conclusion.

Additionally, you are merely being abusive and not presenting any argument at all, just the same abuse, and the same irrelevant link time and time again.

Your comments are unhelpful, unexplained and downright rude.

Finally, you found the link to the article by Amy Clarke.
Vinty did not, he found a link to Amy Clarke's profile page at Leicester Uni.
Indeed, Vinty states that he could not find it:

"Thanks for posting that link, i tried earlier and couldn't find it."​

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/for-himmy.550553/page-4#ixzz6UnRQCTZq

To deny that you found it is plainly nonsense.

You are wrong again, my link to Amy Clarkes profile was in the original article, where do you think i got the link from in the first place.
I then tried to find the original article, but couldn't unfortunately.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"The proportion of over-70s in a local authority area who share a household with people of working-age is confirmed to be a significant factor in accounting for the variation in the number of Covid-19 cases across England – even when levels of local deprivation, the time since the area first recorded five cases and an additional, non-specific, “London effect” are taken into account."

That is not disputed.
It is obvious that relatives in the same household are more likely to contract the virus. But that in no way indicates that they then facilitate the spread of that virus within the community.
i.e. numbers of cases may increase, but that alone does not increase the risk of spreading the virus within the community, especially if those older relatives were not mingling within the community prior to infection, and certainly not after infection. Indeed, the older people are more likely to be symptomatic and less likely to mix socially having contracted the virus. Additionally, younger people with the virus are more likely to be asymptomatic and therefore more likely to continue spreading the virus within the community. Moreover, when older relatives are detected with the virus, the whole family would be required to self-isolate. Without the older relatives being present, contracting the virus and being detected, the younger carriers of the virus will be unaware of their potential for spreading the virus within the community.

 

[sodthisforfun]

That is not disputed.
It is obvious that relatives in the same household are more likely to contract the virus. But that in no way indicates that they then facilitate the spread of that virus within the community.

It does if they go out. Which you seem to think they don't.... You're very closed minded, not sure why you even put the original thread up - you'd already made up your mind Vinty was wrong.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It does if they go out.

Then there are the other factors, younger relatives shopping for essential supplies, wider extended family able to shop for essential supplies, older relatives more likely to be detected and the whole family self-isolating, less likely to behave irresponsibly, younger relatives as key workers more likely to be aware and practise good hygiene regimes, childcare within the home more easily accommodated if both parents work, no need to meet outside the home, etc.
But the bottom line is older relatives are less likely to mix within the wider community and behave irresponsibly than the younger, unattached, more sociable members of the community.

Indeed, it was your Australian article that indicated that it was poor hygiene regimes and irresponsible behaviour of younger people that exacerbated the spread of the virus.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

D you have to be such a complete tosspot all the time?

https://www.npi.org.uk/files/2115/8...e_variation_in_Covid_cases_across_England.pdf

You posted exactly the same link as before, with a similar message:

And received exactly the same response from me.

It is pointless to keep repeating the same comment ad infinitum, and especially when it is not accompanied by a suitable comment.
Simple insults are not acceptable suitable accompanying comments.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That is not disputed.
It is obvious that relatives in the same household are more likely to contract the virus. But that in no way indicates that they then facilitate the spread of that virus within the community.

I think you need to give us your definition of 'the community' - and if necessary tell us why the infected relatives are not part of it to whom the virus has already been spread.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I think you need to give us your definition of 'the community' - and if necessary tell us why the infected relatives are not part of it to whom the virus has already been spread.

I did note your previous comment along the same lines, I ignored it at the time.
I would consider 'the community' to be wider society who are not connected through familial ties and live in the same household, e.g. fellow passengers on public transport, other customers in bars, clubs, restaurants, shops, even colleagues at work, etc.

I discount older relatives from the wider community for all the reasons previously mentioned, i.e. they are not particularly active members of the community, can and would easily reduce any such activity during a pandemic.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That, then, is, as usual, where you are going wrong - definitions.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

That, then, is, as usual, where you are going wrong - definitions.

Because your definition is different does not mean that either definition is wrong.
(However, in your all-encompassing 'as usual', your definitions are invariably wrong and proven to be on every occasion)

I regularly used 'community' and could just as easily used 'wider community'. I did not for simplicity.

Moreover, I will perceive your comments to be purely diversionary and have no other purpose.

 

[Brigadier]

Because your definition is different does not mean that either definition is wrong.

In this case though, it means that yours is.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

In this case though, it means that yours is.

I repeat:
I regularly used 'community' and could just as easily used 'wider community'. I did not for simplicity.

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/for-himmy.550553/page-5#ixzz6UoAAV9FE

 

[Brigadier]

Because your definition is different does not mean that either definition is wrong.
(However, in your all-encompassing 'as usual', your definitions are invariably wrong and proven to be on every occasion)

I regularly used 'community' and could just as easily used 'wider community'. I did not for simplicity.

Moreover, I will perceive your comments to be purely diversionary and have no other purpose.

I repeat:
I regularly used 'community' and could just as easily used 'wider community'. I did not for simplicity.

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/for-himmy.550553/page-5#ixzz6UoAAV9FE

I don't believe for one moment that you do not "get it", nor do I believe that you didn't "get it" from the very start: I do however believe that you have an ideological position from which you will not sway, and everything you have posted has been a diversion.

 

[Deleted2797112]

It is pointless to keep repeating the same comment ad infinitum,

You mean just like you do.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Typical Himmy dominated thread. Mind numbing pages of bull and bluster interspersed with wild accusations, misconceptions, virtue signalling and anti-racist claptrap. Amongst the endless multiquotes, links and tedious paragraphs of text.

But hasn't it always been thus? Whichever alter ego he's adopting this week.

YAWN!

 

[sodthisforfun]

Yes, he certainly hasn't mastered 'less is more' when it comes to his tomes