I don't think I would use Woodstock as an example of something run either smoothly or very well or with any hint of health and safety.
Fans to return...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I don't think I would use Woodstock as an example of something run either smoothly or very well or with any hint of health and safety.
I'll just have to take up grouse shooting
Correct, it’s not about the infection rate, it’s about the rate it is rising.
Lincoln Tiger
Well-Known Member
Plus Quill, they had vaccine after 4 months of the initial Chinese/Hong Kong outbreak! (pre Woodstock). I seem to remember one or two members of my family getting the slightly nastier return of this flu around 1970ish
Will all football stadia be closed come the winter when scores die of the flu?
I got it 1968/1969. Really badly, don't think I could cope with it now. After going through that always gave a hollow when we were told on a Monday someone wouldn't be in at work but would be back on Thursday as they had flu.
Doesn't take many quadruplings to give cause for concern.
Shrewsbury are hosting a pilot game this weekend, there Covid rate is 14 in 100,000 compared to Hull's rate of 15 in 100,000. National average is 16 in 100,000.
Current Covid 19 rates for comparison purposes - Sunderland has 103 per 100,000, South Tyneside 93.4 per 100,000 and Gateshead 83.6 per 100,000.
Current Covid 19 rates for comparison purposes - Sunderland has 103 per 100,000, South Tyneside 93.4 per 100,000 and Gateshead 83.6 per 100,000.
But it’s only increasing because we are testing more.... the number of cases is still the same, we are just finding more. Same risk
Actually, that's wrong as the number of cases per 100 tests has risen sharply.
but isn’t that proportionate to the number of tests in the area? That’s what they are not telling us - the number of positives, but not the number of tests in a particular area.
It’s a farce
What is?
To repeat. The number of cases (positive) per 100 tests has risen. It doesn't matter how many tests were done; the infection rate is rising.
no - the metric reported Is cases per 100k population.
can you share the % per tests data? I honesty haven’t seen that
i think the most vulnerable have already died (RIP) leaving behind only us superhuman types
infection rates will be up but deaths will never reach the heights they did at its peak
the first few months of lockdown in the uk testing was hit an miss with test kits unreliable and a lot of tests not carried out correctly re inadequate nasal swab insertion
a lot of people attributed to covid deaths were actually killed during testing
the coronavirus has been around for years and will continue to do so
we as humans must evolve and by selective breeding try and become a super race
lets start by say two or three women to each male?
Hard to say at this point. Deaths tended to be a number of weeks later. Also you would need to understand the age breakdown of those tested given the different level of morbidity based on age.
Because younger people are getting it..if I get it I'm fcuked
- Status