The 9am figures not disclosed yet?
- Thread starter bear66
- Start date
Billy Horner
Well-known member
Today's headline analysis:
• 24,962 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 26,680
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 2.5% to 25,329 per day, following 1.1% increase yesterday (and 6th increase in the past 7 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 12.9% higher than one week ago (from 8.2% higher yesterday) and 10.0% higher than two weeks ago (from 9.7% higher yesterday and 3.8% higher 7 days ago)
• 168 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 462 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.4% to 413 per day, following 1.7% increase yesterday (and 58th increase in the past 61 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 24.2% higher than one week ago (from 23.4% higher yesterday) and 58.7% higher than two weeks ago (from 59.0% higher yesterday and 86.2% higher 7 days ago)
• 24,962 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 26,680
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 2.5% to 25,329 per day, following 1.1% increase yesterday (and 6th increase in the past 7 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 12.9% higher than one week ago (from 8.2% higher yesterday) and 10.0% higher than two weeks ago (from 9.7% higher yesterday and 3.8% higher 7 days ago)
• 168 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, down from 462 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.4% to 413 per day, following 1.7% increase yesterday (and 58th increase in the past 61 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 24.2% higher than one week ago (from 23.4% higher yesterday) and 58.7% higher than two weeks ago (from 59.0% higher yesterday and 86.2% higher 7 days ago)
Alvez_48
Well-known member
It's about choice you don't want people to have the choice, that's on you not me.
Randy
Well-known member
That's the underlying theme on this board.
Some don't want a choice as then it's on them as you say to make a decision for themselves. Not that they would ever admit.
Some also have the misconception that some on here are trying to change people's minds. That's also incorrect. People have different opinions, life would be boring if everybody agrees on one opinion, also **** all would ever get done
Laughing
Well-known member
Not really Alvez. I seem to recall you asking for everyone to carry on as normal and shielding the vulnerable. That was an argument you used against another lockdown. But you also say locking down has no effect whatsoever, so why do you suggest shielding the vulnerable? Surely you believe it has no effect, in fact you would have to believe it has no effect.
Alvez_48
Well-known member
I suggest giving them the option of shielding and if they do funding that shielding.
It doesn't matter if I think it works or not the net effect would be to give those people the power of self determination which gives them the CHOICE to do what they think is best for them.
You don't want people to have a choice, it is you who agrees with removing people's right to worship, right to assembly, right to work, right to see friends and family. I'm not the one with radical proposals.
Laughing
Well-known member
No but you are hiding a flaw in your lockdown argument behind semantics which I find interesting.
Randy
Well-known member
How is he?
What part of the word choice do you not get?
If people feel that it isn't safe to carry on with life as we all did before 2020 then provide funding for them to stay at home for a X amount of time.
Those who choose to not stay at home are able to go to work as normal, socialize with those who they choose to socialize with who aren't staying at home, play sports as normal etc.
It's a loose comparison but I know the dangers of driving a car in poor weather. It's my choice as to if I make that journey in the car or not knowing the risks involved.
Laughing
Well-known member
What? Not sure what point you are addressing Randy, certainly not the quoted comment.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Shielding is not a personal choice, not to sure how many times this has to be explained.
If lockdown doesn't work, why bother with advocating a personal lockdown?
From my point of view, all you two are doing is placing all responsibility on to those who are vulnerable to the virus, if they decide not to shield catch the virus and die, it just their fault right?
We all share a collective responsibility in combating this awful virus, unfortunately some believe this shouldn't be the case, which ironically is part of the reason we are in the current situation.
Likening this choice to driving is ludicrous.
If lockdown doesn't work, why bother with advocating a personal lockdown?
From my point of view, all you two are doing is placing all responsibility on to those who are vulnerable to the virus, if they decide not to shield catch the virus and die, it just their fault right?
We all share a collective responsibility in combating this awful virus, unfortunately some believe this shouldn't be the case, which ironically is part of the reason we are in the current situation.
Likening this choice to driving is ludicrous.
Randy
Well-known member
I thought everybody was vulnerable to the virus? Or has that narrative changed recently?
Why would it be somebody's fault if they caught the virus and died? How do you pin the blame on someone for that?
ticker_tape
Well-known member
Fairly obvious, less people in contact less chance of killing people. Thats we have locked down, plus its Flu season more pressure on hospitals.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Randy
Well-known member
You didn't answer the question.
Billy Horner
Well-known member
Today's headline analysis:
• 21,363 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 24,962
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 0.01% to 25,331 per day, following 2.50% increase yesterday (and 7th increase in the past 8 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 11.2% higher than one week ago (from 12.9% higher yesterday) and 11.4% higher than two weeks ago (from 10.0% higher yesterday and 3.9% higher 7 days ago)
• 213 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, up from 168 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.7% to 416 per day, following 0.4% increase yesterday (and 59th increase in the past 62 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 22.0% higher than one week ago (from 24.2% higher yesterday) and 56.8% higher than two weeks ago (from 58.7% higher yesterday and 87.5% higher 7 days ago)
• 21,363 new cases reported in 24-hour period, down from yesterday's 24,962
• 7-day average for new cases increases by 0.01% to 25,331 per day, following 2.50% increase yesterday (and 7th increase in the past 8 days)
• 7-day average for new cases is 11.2% higher than one week ago (from 12.9% higher yesterday) and 11.4% higher than two weeks ago (from 10.0% higher yesterday and 3.9% higher 7 days ago)
• 213 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test reported in 24-hour period, up from 168 yesterday
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test increases by 0.7% to 416 per day, following 0.4% increase yesterday (and 59th increase in the past 62 days)
• 7-day average for new deaths within 28 days of a positive test is 22.0% higher than one week ago (from 24.2% higher yesterday) and 56.8% higher than two weeks ago (from 58.7% higher yesterday and 87.5% higher 7 days ago)
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
SmallTown
Well-known member
Cases marginally dropping. Did you expect deaths to drop this early into a lockdown?Lockdown working well I see... The stupid people's faults though if only they were like us saintly folk on fmttm.