The Precautionary Principle...... OR

25 Apr 2010

Quote by awayman
only wondered as daughter was told over the phone
and had no different a symptom than normal flu she was also a high risk :asthma

And? Expert on remote diagnostics are you? Or epidemiology? It was a pandemic. The worst consequences were prevented by careful planning and hard work by lots of experienced medical professionals. But along the way, some people died, and lots of people were affected.
not sure on phone diagnosis although aware of problems sending out for samples etc only asked the question???
and i am no expert only my own experiences can i quote
as i see no difference between that or any other flu she had suffered (yearly )
as for remote diagnosis then yes i am expected to diagnose certain matters over the phone but not regards medical problems no so yes and no
i asked a simple question maybe too simple :dunno:

25 Apr 2010

Quote by GnV
I stated many times, on this forum also that the Swine flu pandemic was a load of rubbish.
I was proved right. They paid more attention to that than road deaths or MRSA, all of which take far greater lives.
The problems often lie with the so called " experts ", who are usually appointment by the Government. Do they say what they think or what they think the Government want them to say?
The Ash problem it seems has been blown ( no pun intended ) out of all proportion.
Planes were flying through British air space from Europe, either going to the USA or coming from the USA. How crazy that planes were flying through our air space from other countries, but British planes were not allowed to fly. That sort of sums up some of the madness.
Global warming theories will rumble on forever, as the great thing for Governments is that whatever proof is put on the table that it does not exist, they will come up with another set of theories. When really it is all about money and getting as much out of the population as possible.
How long before another one comes along? Not long if you believe the experts.

Yes, but hadn't the height at which they could keep at got something to do with that?
Plim
Well, yes. Above 20,000 feet it was ok but below that it was not.
But tell me, how the f*ck do aircraft get to 20,000 feet except by flying initially below that level There was also a whole fleet of commercial prop aircraft grounded when they were saying that it was only jets afftected by the ash :confused:
Why in the name of common sense did they dispatch a warship to Santander when they could have used military prop aircraft (which were not subject to the ban) to repatriate "our boys" from the Rifles after spending 6 harrowing months in Afghanistan :huh:
Sheer unadulterated incompetence.
Just as well they didn't appoint Adonis as Education Minister, he can't say his r's and he is sure as hell useless in a crisis - as has been found before!
GB's no better.. he tells the nation that there are 100 coaches in Madrid to bring people home when the real number is 5!! No wonder we got in a financial mess if the ex-chancellor can't understand the difference between these two numbers :embarrased:
I think the orig point was that they were flying THROUGH our airspace - how they got to that height before arriving and how they are going to get down later is not relevant in the context of the point. Thanks
Plim