# Social distancing, .. what's that?



## transatlantic

Looking at recent photos being uploaded from Friends/Family on my Facebook wall, it seems that social distancing has now gone out the window.

I suppose it's to be expected. Us humans can't stick to the rules for very long before we get bored ... but still slightly worrying.


----------



## MikeG.

Do we really need another covid 19 thread?


----------



## AES

MikeG. said:


> Do we really need another covid 19 thread?




IMO that's a definite NO!


----------



## Blister

It is a reminder , I still take it seriously


----------



## AES

I too still take it seriously (I'm in the "right" age group, etc, etc), but do we need - another - reminder here? Personally I think not.


----------



## thetyreman

still distancing here, watch out for covidiots


----------



## Blister

AES said:


> I too still take it seriously (I'm in the "right" age group, etc, etc), but do we need - another - reminder here? Personally I think not.



I personally think it's done no harm


----------



## Rorschach

Depends who they are with in the pictures, if they are close family members why does it matter? Have you been socially distancing from your wife and kids (unless you wanted too lol).


----------



## transatlantic

Rorschach said:


> Depends who they are with in the pictures, if they are close family members why does it matter? Have you been socially distancing from your wife and kids (unless you wanted too lol).



Of course. I'm fully aware when social distancing applies.


----------



## marcros

and here we go again...


----------



## artie

Well, here we go again. Regarding Covid 19, would someone please furnish me the name of the person who isolated the virus?


----------



## MikeG.

What difference would that make to any discussion?


----------



## Blackswanwood

MikeG. said:


> Do we really need another covid 19 thread?


No


----------



## Fitzroy

As a friend of mine, who is a mental health nurse, pointed out, what we need at this time is physical distancing. We don't need social distancing, people are already feeling isolated enough.

Let's fill this thread with positivity and support for each other. I for one get a great deal of enjoyment from this place and am glad for all the input from all the members who contribute.

F.


----------



## Rorschach

Personally I am not of the opinion that we need another C19 thread, however this is an open forum and members are free to post as they wish and if you don't like it, don't get involved, pretty simple really.


----------



## artie

MikeG. said:


> What difference would that make to any discussion?


Mine was the post above you so there is a possibility that the question was for me, if not, pardon me.

The difference it would make to any discussion is, it would prove the virus has been isolated. I have searched and so have others, and no one can say who isolated the virus. 

If a virus hasn't been isolated, then?


----------



## siggy_7

In response to your question, it's been isolated many times - a few examples in this article: Scientists isolate coronavirus strain responsible for deadly Covid-19 outbreak Note also there are several strains and mutations, so if you are looking to pinpoint the achievement of isolation for whatever reason you need to qualify it with the specific strain identified.


----------



## AES

See (above) what I meant when I replied earlier that IMO we don't need another social distancing/Covid thread??? Rorschach is quite right when he says that this is an open Forum and we can all post - and read - whatever we like - WITHIN reason of course. But the post from member artie above exemplifies what I had in mind.

BUT OK, no problem for me - I shall just ignore this thread from now on - as I have done very successfully on the Hancock's Half Hour and Facemask threads (and no doubt, several others too).


----------



## artie

siggy_7 said:


> In response to your question, it's been isolated many times - a few examples in this article: Scientists isolate coronavirus strain responsible for deadly Covid-19 outbreak Note also there are several strains and mutations, so if you are looking to pinpoint the achievement of isolation for whatever reason you need to qualify it with the specific strain identified.


Thanks


----------



## Bacms

artie said:


> Mine was the post above you so there is a possibility that the question was for me, if not, pardon me.
> 
> The difference it would make to any discussion is, it would prove the virus has been isolated. I have searched and so have others, and no one can say who isolated the virus.
> 
> If a virus hasn't been isolated, then?



Not only the virus has been isolated but has mentioned above many strains of it have been sequenced. There are plenty of open-source resources that aggregate all the scientific publications on the field like this one (SARS-CoV-2 Resources) where you can find, names, institutions and email address of people that have done what you are asking. A quick google search would also give you the answer you wanted. And yes I am sorry to report that the virus is real, why people still argue about this at this stage is beyond me


----------



## MikeG.

More moderation without reporting or recording, I see. Noel, this has got to stop. When you delete a post, say you've deleted a post, and why. This high-and-mighty moderation-without-responsibility or communication is really, really poor.


----------



## artie

Bacms said:


> Not only the virus has been isolated but has mentioned above many strains of it have been sequenced. There are plenty of open-source resources that aggregate all the scientific publications on the field like this one (SARS-CoV-2 Resources) where you can find, names, institutions and email address of people that have done what you are asking. A quick google search would also give you the answer you wanted. And yes I am sorry to report that the virus is real, why people still argue about this at this stage is beyond me


Mmm, you can be quite civil when you want to. But there is no one argueing but you


----------



## transatlantic

AES said:


> See (above) what I meant when I replied earlier that IMO we don't need another social distancing/Covid thread??? Rorschach is quite right when he says that this is an open Forum and we can all post - and read - whatever we like - WITHIN reason of course. But the post from member artie above exemplifies what I had in mind.
> 
> BUT OK, no problem for me - I shall just ignore this thread from now on - as I have done very successfully on the Hancock's Half Hour and Facemask threads (and no doubt, several others too).



Why do you need to respond to a thread (several times) just to let people know you're not interested or won't be reading it?

If it doesn't interest you, just skip over the thread in the first place. Do you walk into shops you're not interested in just let the staff know you won't be shopping there as they don't sell things you like?

And not just you, but several people in this thread. For some reason there is this need to let everyone know "This thread doesn't interest me! and I must let everyone know my opinion!" 

... just move on. It's really not that difficult.


----------



## Jackbequick

I realise mike and ohers really want this stuff to go away and I agree yet I want to make some points to sort of I hope, help it finish. I'm not looking to enter into discussion,just a sort of 'that's it".

This is an era of low concentration span, disconnection and confusing freedom with licence. Every conceivable type of wit and nit wit exists and surrounds us. We, with little knowledge of what is truly 'leadership' call and elect and work for people with little skill commonly shown to generally be psychopaths, prodigious liars and narcissists if not just rotten to the core. They also exist in your bus, your school your locality your religion.

Many things trouble people in our unjust, unstable and warlike society and they are looking for something to resist and destroy..e.g. the BPM rampages of immense injustice to commerce and yet the events still happen. 

The virus and the very little actually known about its transmission, longevity and whether a vaccine can see it 'out' over many decades offers an opportunity for a whole range of reactions..and angers and absurdities, especially with 'sport'. Addiction to sport is no different from other addictions other than perhaps incurable. Sport is being used to 'calm the people' whilst the rest, the unaddicted, may wonder 'why???

Surely, and I hate wearing masks even as PPE on sites or spraying harmful chemicals, it's time we just got on with it and wore the masks, ensured the distancing and for the better or worse support each other in the processes and protocol so that we can take it step by step. 

If you are a carrier,should you just be patted on the head if somehow infecting others "oh well it's you right to do as you please". My retort is "stop the bitching, whining, faux-expertise, social media nuisance and trying to take sides...or bowing to 'leaders'in denial and that narcissistic ignoramus posturing and parodying his stupidity exhibited in hiring and firing anyone who doesn't meet his kaleidoscopic needs and let's just get on with the business and the personal frustrations will significantly lower ....as they do for incarcerated prisoners. If 80% turned out to be wasted activity but lives are saved I see that as 'well worth the pain'. Look at the task, look at the tools extant and being developed and work with those who see a serious disease issue. If you are right...well, you will be right but if you are wrong....you will be reprehensible. Theoretically all the 'refusers' could be isolated and locked away somewhere and left to fate but much as that thought has potential, it has no practicality. Can we just get on with it without having to fight people who seem to be determined to support the virus through what no one can seriously call 'safe behaviour'. Bear with us through this obligation rather than choice, to support the progress in science which may be what saves mankind...?


----------



## MikeG.

Jackbequick said:


> I realise mike and ohers really want this stuff to go away ........



Not at all. But there is already a long running corona virus thread, and I can't see any good reason to have another one. In my view, this thread should be merged with the other.


----------



## artie

MikeG. said:


> Not at all. But there is already a long running corona virus thread, and I can't see any good reason to have another one. In my view, this thread should be merged with the other.


Why do you concern yourself with what others are posting? There are hundreds of threads I never open, But, it doesn't bother me that they are there.


----------



## Fidget

@Angie, Can we have an 'ignore thread' button please


----------



## transatlantic

Fidget said:


> @Angie, Can we have an 'ignore thread' button please



So you actually responded to the thread that you want to be ignored, which will now mark you as as contributed, and show up even more for you.

Smart move!


----------



## Rorschach

Fidget said:


> @Angie, Can we have an 'ignore thread' button please



Do you need one for all the other threads you happily ignore?


----------



## Fidget

Rorschach said:


> Do you need one for all the other threads you happily ignore?


Yes please Rorschach, can you arrange it?


----------



## Fidget

transatlantic said:


> So you actually responded to the thread that you want to be ignored, which will now mark you as as contributed, and show up even more for you.
> 
> Smart move!


  

Just a joke really


----------



## AES

transatlantic said:


> Why do you need to respond to a thread (several times) just to let people know you're not interested or won't be reading it?
> 
> If it doesn't interest you, just skip over the thread in the first place. Do you walk into shops you're not interested in just let the staff know you won't be shopping there as they don't sell things you like?
> 
> And not just you, but several people in this thread. For some reason there is this need to let everyone know "This thread doesn't interest me! and I must let everyone know my opinion!"
> 
> ... just move on. It's really not that difficult.




Yes transatlantic, you're quite right! My second post on this subject (without checking I think it was only 2 in total here) was simply using a later post than my 1st here to underline why my opinion (posted in answer to a question BTW) is that we don NOT need another covid/etc/etc thread.

But yes, as said, you're correct it wasn't necessary and added little or nothing to the "discussion" in this thread.

And in answer to the above Qs about an "Ignore Thread" button, would you believe I found one (well, I assume a similar function anyway). Go all the way to the top of this page (not necessary to go right back to the beginning) and over on the top RH there's an "Unwatch" button (well there is on my screen anyway, I'm using MS Edge BTW. I'll press that as soon as I've posted this and hopefully, it will do what's required.


----------



## Rorschach

Going back to the OP, why would anyone bother to socially distance when they see the daily figures? For all intents and purposes no-one is dying from C19 at the moment, even though thousands of cases are occurring every day. The general public are not stupid, they can see this is nothing to be worried about.


----------



## Dovetail

Fidget said:


> @Angie, Can we have an 'ignore thread' button please



I'll look into it.


----------



## Blister

Rorschach said:


> Going back to the OP, why would anyone bother to socially distance when they see the daily figures? For all intents and purposes no-one is dying from C19 at the moment, even though thousands of cases are occurring every day. The general public are not stupid, they can see this is nothing to be worried about.



Yes I see you point , only 41,504 deaths so far , Nothing to worry about at all .


----------



## powertools

Well I have to say that having an ignore thread button is the most unnecessary thing I have ever heard of.
If you have no interest in a thread don,t get involved.


----------



## Dovetail

I have put in a request to get the ignore a forum or thread feature added to the add-ons for you. This may happen today or tomorrow.


----------



## Dovetail

Check this out:








New Ignore Feature


As requested there is now a way to ignore a thread or a forum. On a thread on the top bar of the 1st post. On a forum Remember to check the ones you want , and the click IGNORE button.




www.ukworkshop.co.uk


----------



## Rorschach

Blister said:


> Yes I see you point , only 41,504 deaths so far , Nothing to worry about at all .



No not really. Less than a month of natural deaths and very dubious method of counting. When we see a final excess death figure it will not be very high, certainly no higher than an average flu year.


----------



## transatlantic

Hmmmm


----------



## Droogs

Rorscharch, you really do have alzheimers. we've been here before with the published excess death figures for the first 1/4 of this year and low and behold they were rather much higher than expected. You had a big massive mong on about being pointed out to be wrong


----------



## AJB Temple

I generally keep out of this kind of thing, but I have been trying to work out whether anyone is publishing a credible set of standard deviation statistics for the uk, charting expected deaths in a normal year with flu etc, and this Covid year. I do wonder if Covid has to some extent mainly had an accelerating effect on the vulnerable, leading to skewed statistics. We won't know for another year or so, and we need to get through the winter.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> Rorscharch, you really do have alzheimers. we've been here before with the published excess death figures for the first 1/4 of this year and low and behold they were rather much higher than expected. You had a big massive mong on about being pointed out to be wrong



I've heard new information that the excess death figures are not actually that high. In 2017/18 we had 50,100 excess deaths. Winter 2019/20 was very low for winter deaths so as things stand at the moment we are not looking too bad at all and may end the year with a fairly healthy figure.


----------



## Blackswanwood

AJB Temple said:


> I generally keep out of this kind of thing, but I have been trying to work out whether anyone is publishing a credible set of standard deviation statistics for the uk, charting expected deaths in a normal year with flu etc, and this Covid year. I do wonder if Covid has to some extent mainly had an accelerating effect on the vulnerable, leading to skewed statistics. We won't know for another year or so, and we need to get through the winter.



The ONS publish age standardised mortality rates monthly or quarterly which aims to provide a meaningful basis of comparing YOY changes. The data is all downloadable in Excel so easy to manipulate/interrogate.

I am a trustee of a not insignificant pension scheme and the view of the scheme actuary (he’s an extrovert as he looks at your shoes rather than his own when talking to you) is that we just don’t know.


----------



## DrPhill

Angie said:


> Check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Ignore Feature
> 
> 
> As requested there is now a way to ignore a thread or a forum. On a thread on the top bar of the 1st post. On a forum Remember to check the ones you want , and the click IGNORE button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukworkshop.co.uk


Thanks Angie. That was quick.


----------



## Rorschach

AJB Temple said:


> I generally keep out of this kind of thing, but I have been trying to work out whether anyone is publishing a credible set of standard deviation statistics for the uk, charting expected deaths in a normal year with flu etc, and this Covid year. I do wonder if Covid has to some extent mainly had an accelerating effect on the vulnerable, leading to skewed statistics. We won't know for another year or so, and we need to get through the winter.



This is a point I have been making for months. We do know for certain that 17/18 had 50,100 excess winter deaths. What we don't know is exactly what caused those winter deaths because we don't test people. If you are old and die in the winter with some kind of respiratory illness (pretty much every old person dies with respiratory problems FWIW) then you are assumed to have flu or something similar and you become a winter death. The difference we have with C19 is that we are testing at a level never even imaginable before, but we are only testing for C19. So if you die in hospital and have tested positive for C19 in the last 28 days then you are classed as a C19 death, but they don't test for anything else. You could have flu as well as C19, but they don't know because they don't test.
We won't get a clear picture for at least a year though when we can compare the excess death figure to previous years, and even then it will be skewed as there will be lockdown related deaths as well added on. It is becoming clear however that at 45k supposed C19 deaths it is really nothing particularly unusual since we didn't even bat an eyelid about 50k winter deaths just 2 years ago.

The current trend of high case numbers (artificially inflated because we continue to increase our testing, if you test, you will find it) and tiny almost non existent deaths is showing C19 for what it really is, a very mild illness that is certainly less deadly that standard flu. For goodness sake the number 1 symptom of C19 is that it has no symptoms, 99% of people who get it don't even know they have had it.


----------



## thepeg

UK commissioner of police stated some time ago that nobody would be fined or arrested for not wearing a mask. i.e. the covid act is unenforceable; therefore every other aspect of the act is unenforceable.

NHS
High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)
Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.

Actually they recently changed this page, removing the sub-title “Common Cold”.
Wonder why? Perhaps too many people were seeing it!
The same/similar info is on the USA CDC and WHO websites, although more difficult to find.

I agree the virus is real in that it is a coronavirus, as is the common cold and flu. There are countless types of coronavirus of which we have huge numbers of different types present in our bodies every day, it’s perfectly normal. However, for any pathogen to be given a name, it must be identified, isolated and subject to the Pasteur Protocol which identifies its unique characteristics along with the unique symptoms associated with it and subsequent publication of the resultant information.
So where are those findings?
Don’t waste your time trying the non-existant.

It may be time to see this:
Plandemic 2 | INDOCTORNATION








Plandemic 2 | INDOCTORNATION (pre-order the PLANDEMIC book now - link in description)


‼️ PRE-ORDER THE BOOK NOW: https://amzn.to/2RdVsLd ‼️ --- Rate us on IMDB here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12745644/ DOWNLOAD AND SHARE : https://bit.ly/317TOfn OR https://mega.nz/file/y1JH1S5b#HUjLzIJENK3niF0L0GMvfDlpm3E1pBLscC0vjwAL7Zc…




www.bitchute.com





Others in the series here:
Plandemic Documentary Series
Official Account: Plandemic Documentary Series


----------



## thepeg

The point about testing is that these do not test for COVID19, only for a (any) coronavirus. So as everybody does many types of coronavirus in them, every test should give a positive result. However for workers in health and the police, the results are invariably negative!
Mmmmm.

I am aware of a melon and a mango having been tested both returning positive.
Also new unopened sterile kits sent off and returning positive.
Yet more Mmmmm.

The reason why there is no test for COVID19 is because the patents on COVID19 expressly forbid any form investigation whatsoever of COVID19. Therefore no test can legally be developed anyway.


----------



## Coyote

Coronavirus and influenza are completely different I'm afraid. 

And there aren't actually that many coronavirus strains that infect humans. I think it's 7 including Covid-19.


----------



## AJB Temple

Blackswanwood said:


> The ONS publish age standardised mortality rates monthly or quarterly which aims to provide a meaningful basis of comparing YOY changes. The data is all downloadable in Excel so easy to manipulate/interrogate.
> 
> I am a trustee of a not insignificant pension scheme and the view of the scheme actuary (he’s an extrovert as he looks at your shoes rather than his own when talking to you) is that we just don’t know.


Thanks BSW. I had seen the OBS site, including the weekly stats, but I cannot see any way of determining whether over the past 20 years we are really seeing a trend of increased deaths this year that can clearly be attributed to C19. As the summer progresses into autumn, a layered graph does not appear to show a massive spike reaching a higher peak this year than a layered trend from the past two decades. I just looked at it before my post above, purely out of interest, and concluded that the ONS stats tell us almost nothing useful about trends in the cause death or where unexpected deaths has changed radically by age profile. Most deaths are in the elderly and infirm whether C19 is present or not. It is impossible from the statistics to tell if a death was genuinely caused by C19 or if it was just something that was identified as being present at some point prior to death. 

Actuaries are a dying breed. Easily capable of replacement by AI software that is just as reliable as actuarial guess work about the statistical probability of history repeating itself adjusted for a variety of assumed trends. I would not wish to be an equity partner in an actuarial consultancy these days. as I watch technology replace me with absolute certainty. 

My father always used to say btw that death is usually caused by a shortage of breath. He thought it was quite funny but he had a weird sense of humour (I am asthmatic and he liked to assert it was a not a real problem and "all in the mind". We disagreed on that and indeed most things). He went on to demonstrate his shortage of breath remark by getting pneumonia, which is a common end to Parkinson's, which ruined the end of his life.


----------



## Bacms

@thepeg Can you point me to the information on in fact what on earth is the Pasteur Protocol? It may be true that in the past you needed to isolate and cultivate bacteria in order to identify them but that is rarely the case these days as you now have technologies that don't require them. I have been a data scientist/bioinformatician working with genomics and high throughput sequencing data for the last decade so I really need some more than a conspiracy documentary to believe in any of what you have just posted. 

You also mention incorrectly that they test for any corona virus which again is definitely not true, they use a PCR method that relies on unique parts of the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 which have been selected to be unique to the virus by genome comparison with other coronavirus. Here is the link for the protocol you can you are interested which also mentions the specificity of the test versus other "flu" like viruses. https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2 

@*Rorschach *can you share with us the data that supports that coronavirus is less deadly than influenza? To me, it just seems like you don't really understand the problem here. The issue here was never the death rate of the virus, which I am afraid is still higher than influenza currently estimated around 0.5-0.7%, although with the caveat that estimating accurately is difficult. Of the ones that recover from severe illness the damage done to their lugs is also going to likely affect them long term
But in any case, the problem comes from a novel virus which is highly infectious being exposed to a complete "naive" population, i.e. a population without any known resistance to it. That poses 2 main problems if you let the virus run free too many people will get infected simultaneously putting pressure on the healthcare system and more people will get the disease so more people will die. Hence lockdown measures to control the spread, that also has another advantage as we are likely much better at treating the disease now than at the beginning as more information about what works and what doesn't comes to light. 

As for excess deaths, it is difficult to compare data that far back as medicine and treatment have massively changed and improved over the last 20 years. This year does indeed shows an excess death superior to the average of the last 5 years, although has already been mentioned so did 17/18 although over a broader period. It is also pretty difficult to compare the data has this year has been a specially one due to the lockdown, but there is no denying the existence of a late peak on the winter season which correlates to the arrival of COVID-19. The lockdown itself also likely reduced the number of deaths through the normal flu, traffic accidents, injuries and so on but also likely increased deaths related to lack of treatment so it's true effect on excess deaths is difficult to measure.


----------



## Rorschach

Simple data for the death rate, we have thousands of new cases of C19 every day and have done for months, after an initial dubious high death rate, essentially taking out those who didn't die from flu in the past winter which was very mild for flu/winter deaths we are now seeing basically no deaths from C19. If you have 1 death in 1000 that is a case fatality rate of 0.1%, the rate of seasonal flu approximately (it's probably lower for reasons I have covered earlier) well we currently have a death rate far lower than 1 in 1000 as it passes through the population.


----------



## Bacms

Rorschach said:


> If you have 1 death in 1000 that is a case fatality rate of 0.1%, the rate of seasonal flu approximately (it's probably lower for reasons I have covered earlier) well we currently have a death rate far lower than 1 in 1000 as it passes through the population.



You would have to average that over the entire period rather than the last number of cases so that it balances out, in any case, 1/1000 is still false we had less than 1000 new per day until the 25th of August and the number of deaths for those numbers won't be seen for 2/3 weeks so not as simple as dividing one by the other has you always have a delay. Here are the actually estimates until the 2nd of September Mortality Analyses - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

And you did mention the cases that would likely cause the number to be lower but you also forgot to mention the ones where it would make it go higher, such as COVID-19 deaths where testing hasn't happened.

And again even if the mortality was the same, which we have no data to support it is, it would still mean that about 10% of the infected people would need to hospitalized and a huge number of deaths since contrary to flu where the number of infected per year is lower due to resistance in the population for COVID-19 we have none or very little resistance


----------



## Rorschach

Anybody who dies in hospital has had a C19 test and almost certainly tested positive as it is rife in hospitals. So there is little inflation there. What is absolutely certain though is that there are far more than 1000 new cases everyday, when 99% of people are asymptomatic then the positive tests are a fraction of the real numbers and you are forgetting all the cases that were never tested back when testing capacity was limited, tens of thousands of undiagnosed cases that have been and gone and we have no way of knowing about them because antibodies are not being produced in most people. 

This is not a serious disease for at least 99.9% of the population.


----------



## Selwyn

AJB Temple said:


> I generally keep out of this kind of thing, but I have been trying to work out whether anyone is publishing a credible set of standard deviation statistics for the uk, charting expected deaths in a normal year with flu etc, and this Covid year. I do wonder if Covid has to some extent mainly had an accelerating effect on the vulnerable, leading to skewed statistics. We won't know for another year or so, and we need to get through the winter.



Lookup Dr John Lee, Carl Heneghan, Alistair Haines etc. Statistics galore on this sort of thing. Sensible people who want the truth not emotion.

Essentially the number of people died without age against them or comorbidities is vanishingly small. We also had a couple of years of low flu deaths so essentially covid (and it may not have been covid as we'd done no post mortems and the tests were not done or are unreliable anyway) may have cleared out a long tail of 80/90 year old plus people who may previously have died from influenza/ pneumonia in the years before.

There isn't really a "normal" flu year. It ebbs and flows.


----------



## artie

Bacms said:


> You would have to average that over the entire period rather than the last number of cases so that it balances out, in any case, 1/1000 is still false we had less than 1000 new per day until the 25th of August


Just picking this one statement out of your epistle, I don't have time to dissect it all.

No one, but no one has any remote idea of how many cases we have had at any time.


----------



## Rorschach

artie said:


> No one, but no one has any remote idea of how many cases we have had at any time.



Indeed. The case numbers we can treat as a bare minimum at best and the death numbers are likely an inflated maximum.


----------



## Selwyn

artie said:


> Just picking this one statement out of your epistle, I don't have time to dissect it all.
> 
> No one, but no one has any remote idea of how many cases we have had at any time.



This is true. The cold reality is that deaths from covid with zero comorbidities appear to be the only reliable indicator. Not from 90 year olds with dementia in a care home dying of "covid" but from those who otherwise appear healthy. And that is not to say 80 year olds in care homes don't matter, they do - but equally we know life exepectancy is limited then


----------



## RogerS

Bacms said:


> @thepeg Can you point me to the information on in fact what on earth is the Pasteur Protocol? It may be true that in the past you needed to isolate and cultivate bacteria in order to identify them but that is rarely the case these days as you now have technologies that don't require them. I have been a data scientist/bioinformatician working with genomics and high throughput sequencing data for the last decade so I really need some more than a conspiracy documentary to believe in any of what you have just posted.
> 
> You also mention incorrectly that they test for any corona virus which again is definitely not true, they use a PCR method that relies on unique parts of the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 which have been selected to be unique to the virus by genome comparison with other coronavirus. Here is the link for the protocol you can you are interested which also mentions the specificity of the test versus other "flu" like viruses. https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2
> 
> @*Rorschach *can you share with us the data that supports that coronavirus is less deadly than influenza? To me, it just seems like you don't really understand the problem here. The issue here was never the death rate of the virus, which I am afraid is still higher than influenza currently estimated around 0.5-0.7%, although with the caveat that estimating accurately is difficult. Of the ones that recover from severe illness the damage done to their lugs is also going to likely affect them long term
> But in any case, the problem comes from a novel virus which is highly infectious being exposed to a complete "naive" population, i.e. a population without any known resistance to it. That poses 2 main problems if you let the virus run free too many people will get infected simultaneously putting pressure on the healthcare system and more people will get the disease so more people will die. Hence lockdown measures to control the spread, that also has another advantage as we are likely much better at treating the disease now than at the beginning as more information about what works and what doesn't comes to light.
> 
> As for excess deaths, it is difficult to compare data that far back as medicine and treatment have massively changed and improved over the last 20 years. This year does indeed shows an excess death superior to the average of the last 5 years, although has already been mentioned so did 17/18 although over a broader period. It is also pretty difficult to compare the data has this year has been a specially one due to the lockdown, but there is no denying the existence of a late peak on the winter season which correlates to the arrival of COVID-19. The lockdown itself also likely reduced the number of deaths through the normal flu, traffic accidents, injuries and so on but also likely increased deaths related to lack of treatment so it's true effect on excess deaths is difficult to measure.



Don't get sucked in Bacms....you're trying to reason with the forum Super Troll and his new apprentice 'thepeg'. Put them both on Ignore and save your sanity.


----------



## Selwyn

RogerS said:


> Don't get sucked in Bacms....you're trying to reason with the forum Super Troll and his new apprentice 'thepeg'. Put them both on Ignore and save your sanity.



You need to stay in your bedroom. You are one of those people who seem to have been waiting for years for the apocalypse. Statistics from people much cleverer than you are adding flesh to the bones of this all the time


----------



## artie

Bacms said:


> @thepeg It may be true that in the past you needed to isolate and cultivate bacteria in order to identify them but that is rarely the case these days as you now have technologies that don't require them.


Had another quick squint at your post.
Please tell us about these technologies that can prove a virus without isolating and cultivating it? and please don't try to confuse a virus with bacteria. They are two completely different things.


----------



## Rorschach

I have a bad feeling that we are squandering a good opportunity here to let the virus spread while it is doing no harm and come the winter we will regret that decision.


----------



## Bacms

artie said:


> Had another quick squint at your post.
> Please tell us about these technologies that can prove a virus without isolating and cultivating it? and please don't try to confuse a virus with bacteria. They are two completely different things.



Three main methods based on HTS are currently used for viral whole-genome sequencing: metagenomic sequencing, target enrichment sequencing and PCR amplicon sequencing, each showing benefits and drawbacks (Houldcroft et al., 2017)⁠.


----------



## siggy_7

I really despair when reading threads like this. There are tens of thousands of really bright people around the world who have spent their lives working in the relevant specialist fields working on this problem. What thought process occurs in the layman to reach the conclusion that they can possibly know better? I get that trust in government institutions is low - blame that on the clots at the top - but on committees like SAGE there are a lot of really bright people doing the best anyone possibly can to inform decision making. It's not just Covid, we see the same behavioural pattern repeated across wide ranges of topics. I genuinely think that our naivety in providing the technology and platforms to allow the type of disinformation seen here to spread will be our undoing as a species.


----------



## transatlantic




----------



## AJB Temple

I disagree. Many members of the public are perfectly intelligent. Some of us have degrees and PhDs. As scientists are making judgements and advising politicians who then impose restrictions on us, we are perfectly entitled to seek to understand the position and question it. Scientists frequently disagree and frequently are unable to provide perfect or even accurate or unambiguous diagnosis. Blind faith in scientists may well be misguided.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

thepeg said:


> The point about testing is that these do not test for COVID19, only for a (any) coronavirus. So as everybody does many types of coronavirus in them, every test should give a positive result. However for workers in health and the police, the results are invariably negative!
> Mmmmm.
> 
> I am aware of a melon and a mango having been tested both returning positive.
> Also new unopened sterile kits sent off and returning positive.
> Yet more Mmmmm.
> 
> The reason why there is no test for COVID19 is because the patents on COVID19 expressly forbid any form investigation whatsoever of COVID19. Therefore no test can legally be developed anyway.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

AJB Temple said:


> ....Blind faith in scientists may well be misguided....



I have blind faith in science - and a lot of faith in scientists. The alternatives are generally poor....


----------



## doctor Bob

siggy_7 said:


> I really despair when reading threads like this. There are tens of thousands of really bright people around the world who have spent their lives working in the relevant specialist fields working on this problem. What thought process occurs in the layman to reach the conclusion that they can possibly know better? I get that trust in government institutions is low - blame that on the clots at the top - but on committees like SAGE there are a lot of really bright people doing the best anyone possibly can to inform decision making. It's not just Covid, we see the same behavioural pattern repeated across wide ranges of topics. I genuinely think that our naivety in providing the technology and platforms to allow the type of disinformation seen here to spread will be our undoing as a species.



I get your point, therefore in theory then we should have no say and the place would run better. Why does this approach never work though?


----------



## siggy_7

AJB Temple said:


> I disagree. Many members of the public are perfectly intelligent. Some of us have degrees and PhDs. As scientists are making judgements and advising politicians who then impose restrictions on us, we are perfectly entitled to seek to understand the position and question it. Scientists frequently disagree and frequently are unable to provide perfect or even accurate or unambiguous diagnosis. Blind faith in scientists may well be misguided.



To be clear, I am not advocating a position of blindly following science. I myself am not an expert in medical science but take a keen interest in following what is going on with Covid in an attempt to further my understanding. That members of the public wish to learn and be better informed about the decisions being taken is to be commended. If nothing else, it makes for more informed choices at the ballot box. Where I take issue is with people who have limited/no scientific training or understanding of the scientific method, yet see fit to wildly misinterpret expert disagreement to fit their own, often poorly informed, opinions with wholly inappropriate levels of certainty, to the great detriment of society. See anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers et al.


----------



## AJB Temple

Woody2Shoes said:


> I have blind faith in science - and a lot of faith in scientists. The alternatives are generally poor....


The problem is, who do you believe. Scientists disagree about the best way to handle C19. There are opposing factions on climate change. People choose who they listen to and that in itself may reflect subconscious or conscious bias.


----------



## doctor Bob

I'm very sceptical of it all now.


----------



## siggy_7

doctor Bob said:


> I get your point, therefore in theory then we should have no say and the place would run better. Why does this approach never work though?



As per my post above, I'm not advocating blind submission to a higher power in some totalitarian nightmare. I am highlighting as issues an aversion to accepting expert opinion that disagrees with one's own combined with an extraordinary amount of over-confidence in the untrained individual that they must be right and the overwhelming weight of expert opinion is wrong, without solid evidence understood in its proper context to support their view.

I think a large part of the issue stems from limited education - when scientists talk about confidence and uncertainty, how many people really understand from experience what this means, for example?

Edit - corrected typos.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

AJB Temple said:


> The problem is, who do you believe. Scientists disagree about the best way to handle C19. There are opposing factions on climate change. People choose who they listen to and that in itself may reflect subconscious or conscious bias.



I think that while there is insufficient/incomplete information there will always be different ways to interpret it, but as time goes on - and more information becomes available - the number of different possible interpretations is reduced. Most of the disagreement over the short-term management of covid is between the scientists and the politicians (98% of whom genuinely don't know what they don't know).


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Funny that PPE should have been such a source of problems when so many of our cabinet have a degree in it p)...


----------



## Rorschach

Funny how a lot of the laymen on here said months and months ago that this was all blown out of proportion though and are now being proved correct.

Every opinion I have talked about has had a scientist backing it up, I posted the videos and sources of my information.


----------



## siggy_7

You're entirely missing the point. The fact that excess deaths due to Covid are in any way comparable to levels of other serious seasonal disease such as influenza strains is down to the efforts made to limit the spread of the virus. We don't have a parallel UK to trial an experiment of taking no precautions and seeing what happened compared to how we have fared, but all the models I have seen painted very grim outcomes from such a scenario. Scientists disagree on models and results - that's the nature of dealing in those fields - that doesn't make the course of action we have taken the wrong one. The consensus opinion I have seen is that we were too slow to act initially, took steps to limit the spread much later than we should and suffered the consequences, but the steps we have taken were in time to prevent an even worse outcome. We are now trying to feel our way through opening things up as much as possible whilst taking every precaution to limit transmission whilst we await development of a vaccine that will hopefully limit community transmission. Details of our strategy are being poorly handled and questioned (test and trace, for example) but the overall strategy in big picture terms is not in any significant scientific question as far as I can tell.

Analogous in some ways to the Millenium bug - remember that? Oh, how everyone laughed afterwards and said it was such a waste of money, but the point was that the precautions taken had been effective in preventing a worse outcome. Of course, expert opinions vary on just what that alternative might have looked like, but the general point is that disaster was averted by effective planning and mitigation.


----------



## siggy_7

Rorschach said:


> Every opinion I have talked about has had a scientist backing it up, I posted the videos and sources of my information.



You mean like Andrew Wakefield was cited in the context of the safety of the MMR vaccine? Beware of placing trust in individuals, no matter their qualifications. By all means listen to their arguments, but the more they are an outlier to consensus the more one should be sceptical and scrutinise their evidence and motive. The enormous success of the scientific method is in building consensus through scepticism and peer review - consensus in the scientific community should not be easily thrown aside (although not treated as sacred).


----------



## doctor Bob

siggy_7 said:


> Analogous in some ways to the Millenium bug - remember that? Oh, how everyone laughed afterwards and said it was such a waste of money, but the point was that the precautions taken had been effective in preventing a worse outcome. Of course, expert opinions vary on just what that alternative might have looked like, but the general point is that disaster was averted by effective planning and mitigation.



I don't believe you ................ I say this because my video continued to work, they said it wouldn't but it did.


----------



## Selwyn

siggy_7 said:


> I really despair when reading threads like this. There are tens of thousands of really bright people around the world who have spent their lives working in the relevant specialist fields working on this problem. What thought process occurs in the layman to reach the conclusion that they can possibly know better? I get that trust in government institutions is low - blame that on the clots at the top - but on committees like SAGE there are a lot of really bright people doing the best anyone possibly can to inform decision making. It's not just Covid, we see the same behavioural pattern repeated across wide ranges of topics. I genuinely think that our naivety in providing the technology and platforms to allow the type of disinformation seen here to spread will be our undoing as a species.



But the scientists on sage are purporting a range of views. It is the politicians who are deciding which tack to take


----------



## Selwyn

siggy_7 said:


> To be clear, I am not advocating a position of blindly following science. I myself am not an expert in medical science but take a keen interest in following what is going on with Covid in an attempt to further my understanding. That members of the public wish to learn and be better informed about the decisions being taken is to be commended. If nothing else, it makes for more informed choices at the ballot box. Where I take issue is with people who have limited/no scientific training or understanding of the scientific method, yet see fit to wildly misinterpret expert disagreement to fit their own, often poorly informed, opinions with wholly inappropriate levels of certainty, to the great detriment of society. See anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers et al.



You are also looking at this through only one eye of the telescope - preventing covid spread. Who is to say that is the great threat of the day? What about non covid deaths, job losses, economic stagnation, suicide, making ourselves poorer etc. ? As long as no one gets covid though - the "killer" virus most people are unaware theyve even had!!


----------



## Selwyn

siggy_7 said:


> You're entirely missing the point. The fact that excess deaths due to Covid are in any way comparable to levels of other serious seasonal disease such as influenza strains is down to the efforts made to limit the spread of the virus.



Yes but... did we need to lockdown the country and economy to achieve this? Swedish evidence says no. It was clear early on who were the most vulnerable yet we locked down the healthy too. There is nothing wrong with saying "we got this bit wrong and that bit right". 

And our recording of Covid deaths appears to be inaccurate


----------



## Rorschach

siggy_7 said:


> You're entirely missing the point. The fact that excess deaths due to Covid are in any way comparable to levels of other serious seasonal disease such as influenza strains is down to the efforts made to limit the spread of the virus. We don't have a parallel UK to trial an experiment of taking no precautions and seeing what happened compared to how we have fared, but all the models I have seen painted very grim outcomes from such a scenario. Scientists disagree on models and results - that's the nature of dealing in those fields - that doesn't make the course of action we have taken the wrong one. The consensus opinion I have seen is that we were too slow to act initially, took steps to limit the spread much later than we should and suffered the consequences, but the steps we have taken were in time to prevent an even worse outcome. We are now trying to feel our way through opening things up as much as possible whilst taking every precaution to limit transmission whilst we await development of a vaccine that will hopefully limit community transmission. Details of our strategy are being poorly handled and questioned (test and trace, for example) but the overall strategy in big picture terms is not in any significant scientific question as far as I can tell.
> 
> Analogous in some ways to the Millenium bug - remember that? Oh, how everyone laughed afterwards and said it was such a waste of money, but the point was that the precautions taken had been effective in preventing a worse outcome. Of course, expert opinions vary on just what that alternative might have looked like, but the general point is that disaster was averted by effective planning and mitigation.



No we have a parallel Sweden instead that shows with minimal, almost none in fact, intervention you achieve an almost identical level of mortality.


----------



## Rorschach

siggy_7 said:


> You mean like Andrew Wakefield was cited in the context of the safety of the MMR vaccine? Beware of placing trust in individuals, no matter their qualifications. By all means listen to their arguments, but the more they are an outlier to consensus the more one should be sceptical and scrutinise their evidence and motive. The enormous success of the scientific method is in building consensus through scepticism and peer review - consensus in the scientific community should not be easily thrown aside (although not treated as sacred).



Andrew Wakefield was one doctor, not a scientist, whose crackpot assertions were shut down immediately by other scientists. It was the media that was at fault there.
The scientists I have quoted are not crackpot loners and they have sound data and experience to back up their claims, some of them are quite literally in charge of their countries pandemic responses.

EDIT: At least one I quoted is a Nobel Prize winner. So please don't bring up people like Wakefield as a straw man to bolster your poor argument.


----------



## Rorschach

Something else to consider with testing, false positives.
I don't have an accuracy figure for the UK test as I wasn't able to find out what we are using but I have seen the accuracy for the German test and it is 98.2%. I have seen figures of 97% and 99% for the UK test, but I also saw a figure of only 70% accuracy.
So for the sake of argument I am going to say that our test is 98% accurate to keep the numbers simple and that is probably a fair number as well. 
The UK is currently doing approx 200k tests per day. Therefore the number of false positives per day would be around 4,000. The number of positive cases in the UK yesterday was 1,508. Draw your own conclusions from that.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Rorschach said:


> Something else to consider with testing, false positives.
> I don't have an accuracy figure for the UK test as I wasn't able to find out what we are using but I have seen the accuracy for the German test and it is 98.2%. I have seen figures of 97% and 99% for the UK test, but I also saw a figure of only 70% accuracy.
> So for the sake of argument I am going to say that our test is 98% accurate to keep the numbers simple and that is probably a fair number as well.
> The UK is currently doing approx 200k tests per day. Therefore the number of false positives per day would be around 4,000. The number of positive cases in the UK yesterday was 1,508. Draw your own conclusions from that.



I think your logic may be flawed in assuming the the 2% of inaccurate tests were false positives. They may equally well be false negatives.

If the 196000 accurate tests each day produced 1500 positives, perhaps one could assume that ~ 0.7% tests are positive - thus the "missed" positives were ~ 30 (4000 x 0.7%)


----------



## artie

All very interesting, but you don't have to be a genius or have a degree to comprehend that something, practically everything about the whole covid thing stinks. 
A illness with a 99.6% recovery rate shuts down the world.
Millions poured into developing a vaccine while many more serious afflictions are ignored.
The virus is so deadly you have to have a test to see if you have it.
It's so contagious that you must wear a face covering, but you can throw that contaminated face covering in the bin or on the ground and it's no threat.


----------



## Steve Blackdog

Have I stumbled across a meeting of the flat earth society?

I say let’s wait and see.


----------



## Rorschach

Terry - Somerset said:


> I think your logic may be flawed in assuming the the 2% of inaccurate tests were false positives. They may equally well be false negatives.
> 
> If the 196000 accurate tests each day produced 1500 positives, perhaps one could assume that ~ 0.7% tests are positive - thus the "missed" positives were ~ 30 (4000 x 0.7%)



The test has a built in control test of it's own to prevent false negatives so they are incredibly rare, statistically insignificant, less than 1 in 100,000. It is not my logic anyway, it is the logic of Carl Hennigan, someone eminently qualified to know this stuff.

We have a margin of error of between 0 and 4000, but we are basing policy on a figure of 1,500.


----------



## Rorschach

Steve Blackdog said:


> Have I stumbled across a meeting of the flat earth society?
> 
> I say let’s wait and see.



We have members all around the globe.


----------



## siggy_7

Selwyn said:


> But the scientists on sage are purporting a range of views. It is the politicians who are deciding which tack to take



It's interesting that you have information on the range of views purported by a scientific group whose membership is not publicly declared (except by those who have chosen to identify) and whose minutes are not made public. More generally though, I never implied that the scientists on SAGE had a single unified view on all matters - indeed I would be concerned if they did, particularly given the dynamic situation of a pandemic caused by a previously unknown virus about which we hadbecause that implies "group think" - but I do trust them to consider the range of views expressed by its membership and for them to then have an evidence-led debate before drawing well-reasoned conclusions and recommendations. It is the whole _process_ followed that leads to good quality recommendations being made, in combination with the talents of the members, that makes it trustworthy.



Selwyn said:


> You are also looking at this through only one eye of the telescope - preventing covid spread. Who is to say that is the great threat of the day? What about non covid deaths, job losses, economic stagnation, suicide, making ourselves poorer etc. ? As long as no one gets covid though - the "killer" virus most people are unaware theyve even had!!



Well that is a balanced decision that needs to be made by those in power. Most responsible democracies have trodden similar paths given the risks to their population and in particular the limited capacity of healthcare systems to cope with rapid, widespread transmission. You are surely aware of the initial difficulties faced in Italy when hospitals became overwhelmed with Covid patients, the modelling done by Imperial College around March-time which showed that UK excess deaths would be in the hundreds of thousands if nothing was done to prevent transmission etc.? You are of course most welcome to disagree with the decisions taken and vote out the government at the next election (in fact, please do just that), but decisions have been taken by our government in the declared interest of public safety and preventing harm and assuming you're a law-abiding citizen it's part of your contract with the state to respect these restrictions in order to protect others. Or by all means move to the USA or Brazil where they didn't follow the same path if you disagree - things are going well there, I hear.



Selwyn said:


> Yes but... did we need to lockdown the country and economy to achieve this? Swedish evidence says no. It was clear early on who were the most vulnerable yet we locked down the healthy too. There is nothing wrong with saying "we got this bit wrong and that bit right".
> 
> And our recording of Covid deaths appears to be inaccurate





Rorschach said:


> No we have a parallel Sweden instead that shows with minimal, almost none in fact, intervention you achieve an almost identical level of mortality.



Information on Sweden taken from here: Is Sweden's coronavirus strategy a cautionary tale or a success story? - firstly it's important to recognise that whilst Sweden has not had enforced compulsory lockdowns in the same way as other countries, there is plenty of evidence that there have been significant voluntary changes in their behaviour to limit community spread. Their cases of Covid per 100,000 population are also running about double ours and higher than other neighbouring countries, with much higher deaths per population compared to neighbours as well. Their economy has taken a significant hit, less than the European average but worse than some other European countries who did have compulsory lockdowns. So the evidence from Sweden compared with other European countries is mixed. Bear in mind also that Sweden has a population density less than 10% of the UK and I suggest a much more compliant population (remember the public's response here to impending lockdown was to cram into town centres and pubs on a Friday night?), I think to draw evidence from Sweden as being directly relevant to the UK should be done very cautiously. I fully support an independent public enquiry to draw out such comparisons and learn lessons. Covid deaths being inaccurate? You're not wrong - due to inadequate testing in the early stages amongst other things, the official figure is at least 20% down on the true number from analysis of ONS data on excess deaths.



Rorschach said:


> Andrew Wakefield was one doctor, not a scientist, whose crackpot assertions were shut down immediately by other scientists. It was the media that was at fault there.
> The scientists I have quoted are not crackpot loners and they have sound data and experience to back up their claims, some of them are quite literally in charge of their countries pandemic responses.
> 
> EDIT: At least one I quoted is a Nobel Prize winner. So please don't bring up people like Wakefield as a straw man to bolster your poor argument.



Forgive me, but I don't see a single quote in your posts on this thread. If I have missed any, then please highlight them. Wakefield's paper was published in the Lancet; his co-authors didn't issue a retraction until 6 years after publication. It's very easy to highlight someone as a "crackpot" after the event, but if he was always identified as such then why did a respected medical journal publish his paper? I'm sure you can find respected scientists who disagree with consensus on points - scientists are fundamentally sceptical people who question things. I'm sure I could equally find respected scientists (with or without accolades such as Nobel prizes) who generally support the measures that have been taken and probably ones who argue we have not gone far enough. The point I am repeatedly making is that, as attractive as it might be to pick out dissenting voices that agree with your viewpoint (particularly if they appear well qualified), there is a reason why the consensus view of people who know what they are talking about carries so much weight.



Rorschach said:


> Something else to consider with testing, false positives.
> I don't have an accuracy figure for the UK test as I wasn't able to find out what we are using but I have seen the accuracy for the German test and it is 98.2%. I have seen figures of 97% and 99% for the UK test, but I also saw a figure of only 70% accuracy.
> So for the sake of argument I am going to say that our test is 98% accurate to keep the numbers simple and that is probably a fair number as well.
> The UK is currently doing approx 200k tests per day. Therefore the number of false positives per day would be around 4,000. The number of positive cases in the UK yesterday was 1,508. Draw your own conclusions from that.



Here you are suffering from a logical fallacy. The accuracy of a test is determined by sensitivity (the rate of false negatives) and specificity (the rate of false positives). All the information I have seen on Covid tests is that the sensitivity is much worse than the specificity (i.e. the rate of false positives is much lower than the false negatives, which is the "accuracy" you will see commonly quoted if not qualified with which measure it is referring to). I have seen specificity figures for many of the tests developed at better than 99.8%. Furthermore, the specificity would not change with time - we see clear trends developing in our case statistics that are strongly indicative of real virus spread (clusters of cases, for example). If positive cases were mainly associated with errors in specificity, then the statistics would mainly be noise - we don't see this.



artie said:


> All very interesting, but you don't have to be a genius or have a degree to comprehend that something, practically everything about the whole covid thing stinks.
> A illness with a 99.6% recovery rate shuts down the world.
> Millions poured into developing a vaccine while many more serious afflictions are ignored.
> The virus is so deadly you have to have a test to see if you have it.
> It's so contagious that you must wear a face covering, but you can throw that contaminated face covering in the bin or on the ground and it's no threat.



So the whole world has given itself an enormous economic shock because of a conspiracy to line the pockets of vaccine developers? Or hand gel manufacturers, perhaps? You think that Trump and co. are hoping that this is doing them some favours in an election year perhaps, because it's making them look great compared to their peers? Please. This line of argument doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.



Steve Blackdog said:


> Have I stumbled across a meeting of the flat earth society?
> 
> I say let’s wait and see.



Quite possibly!



Rorschach said:


> We have members all around the globe.



Very punny.



doctor Bob said:


> I don't believe you ................ I say this because my video continued to work, they said it wouldn't but it did.



"They" weren't trying to sell you a DVD player at the time were they?


----------



## AJB Temple

The End.


----------



## artie

[QUOTE="siggy_7, post: 1381575, member: 1274

artie said:
All very interesting, but you don't have to be a genius or have a degree to comprehend that something, practically everything about the whole covid thing stinks.
A illness with a 99.6% recovery rate shuts down the world.
Millions poured into developing a vaccine while many more serious afflictions are ignored.
The virus is so deadly you have to have a test to see if you have it.
It's so contagious that you must wear a face covering, but you can throw that contaminated face covering in the bin or on the ground and it's no threat.



So the whole world has given itself an enormous economic shock because of a conspiracy to line the pockets of vaccine developers? Or hand gel manufacturers, perhaps? You think that Trump and co. are hoping that this is doing them some favours in an election year perhaps, because it's making them look great compared to their peers? Please. This line of argument doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.



[/QUOTE]

You wrote something below a quote of my post.

I have read it a few times but can't see how it relates to what I said.
I never mentioned conspiracy, hand gel, Trump, elections and I made no argument. I fail to see why you put that below my post 

I also read through the rest of your writings below quotes of other peoples posts, I notice you have a talent for saying quite a lot without really saying anything.


----------



## siggy_7

I don't really understand what you were trying to imply then when you said that "practically everything about this whole covid thing stinks". I would certainly agree that a novel virus which has so far infected in excess of 25M people and killed almost 900k (both likely underestimates) sucks, as do the drastic measures we've had to take to prevent much greater contagion and their effect on the economy etc. But to say that it stinks implies to me that you accuse either gross incompetence or conspiracy, which you go on to infer with other statements about recovery rates etc. I, apparently wrongly, assumed you inferred conspiracy, since I don't think the competence of the many thousands of scientists working on this is really in question. Apologies if I did get this wrong and you really do think you know better than all of these experts - kind of leads back to my earlier point.

Anyway, you'll probably be pleased to hear I have no interest in contributing further to this thread. I didn't intend to get drawn into debating these points, statements like yours above show this is largely a fruitless exercise and life is too short for me to waste my time with it.


----------



## doctor Bob

I think the competence of the scientists needs to be questioned, not the direct science, i.e. working for a vaccine but the direction we take (lockdown, masks, distancing, quarantines) has been extremely muddled and un coordinated not just from politicians but scientists as well.


----------



## FatmanG

Droogs said:


> Rorscharch, you really do have alzheimers. we've been here before with the published excess death figures for the first 1/4 of this year and low and behold they were rather much higher than expected. You had a big massive mong on about being pointed out to be wrong


Mmm excess deaths could sending all the elderly out of hospital into care homes or elsewhere and isolation where we watched many of them die and the ceasing of cancer treatments and other serious conditions halted now we have the wearing of masks which stops you getting rid of the carbon dioxide and reduces oxygen intake lowering the bodies immune system and financial ruin. Maybe just maybe those are the reason for the very slight increase in the death total. People you need to wake up your rights are being eroded big tech are censoring censuring professional people from speaking out. Google, Facebook etc are only letting you see what fits the agenda. Bill gates and his vaccination agenda is set to earn him trillions and it will cause more damage. Wake up a vaccine takes up to 20 years to produce safely and now they are not placebo tested is a scam and you are blindly walking into a disaster for humanity.


----------



## Droogs

A plandemisist. Really! All controlled by the Illuminati who have managed to hide 1000 years of human history in the Dark Ages and been in total world control since then steering us to be well behaved pets. But oops, something went wrong and the pets got out of control and managed to overbreed and take over. Get real


----------



## FatmanG

siggy_7 said:


> I really despair when reading threads like this. There are tens of thousands of really bright people around the world who have spent their lives working in the relevant specialist fields working on this problem. What thought process occurs in the layman to reach the conclusion that they can possibly know better? I get that trust in government institutions is low - blame that on the clots at the top - but on committees like SAGE there are a lot of really bright people doing the best anyone possibly can to inform decision making. It's not just Covid, we see the same behavioural pattern repeated across wide ranges of topics. I genuinely think that our naivety in providing the technology and platforms to allow the type of disinformation seen here to spread will be our undoing as a species.


Like Neil Ferguson and his 500,00 death toll. That silly person caused the fear and massive overreaction that's put this country on the brink of financial ruin.


----------



## FatmanG

Droogs said:


> A plandemisist. Really! All controlled by the Illuminati who have managed to hide 1000 years of human history in the Dark Ages and been in total world control since then steering us to be well behaved pets. But oops, something went wrong and the pets got out of control and managed to overbreed and take over. Get real


You need to get real mate just look at the CDC in the USA now censored by big tech for their report that only 10,000 of the american pandemic death toll is a direct result of civic 19 The CDC is not a quack body or plandemic believer. Take off your mask pal as time goes on the whole scam is unraveling. The sad thing is its people like you who are part of the problem you ridicule and silence/cancel anyone with a different point of view. Wogan once ridiculed David Icke on his TV show it is a damn shame he isn't alive to apologise as he has been proved absolutely right.
As for the person who claims the virus has been isolated is wrong a freedom of information request to the department of health requesting evidence of the virus being isolated was asked for and the reply was it hasn't been isolated and furthermore it was added that it was not possible to isolate covidc19.
The pcr test used to diagnose covid is only testing for genetic material. The person who invented this test did it in relation to HIV for which he won the Nobel prize he has stated clearly that the test should NOT be used to diagnose infectious disease.
Carry on mocking droogs keep on your mask that is your right! It is my rights as it is anyones to disagree. IMO vaccines are unsafe they are not properly tested. Vaccine manufacturers are immune from prosecution. Gates has done serious damage in India and Africa with vaccination programs and vaccination is the agenda behind covid 19. Gates funds the WHO who are setting the covid policies for the world. Anyone with half a brain can see the conflict of interests and can smell a rat. I could go deeper about Whitty,Faucci but that's enough for now


----------



## Bm101

5 pages in so far. Good job no one wanted another covid thread eh?


----------



## FatmanG

Bm101 said:


> 5 pages in so far. Good job no one wanted another covid thread eh?


First time I've been back on here for months Chris reading through this and letting myself get drawn in made me realise why I stopped in the first place. 
Hope your well mate? I'm getting along nicely with those sharpening stones now I soak them glad I kept them


----------



## Woody2Shoes

FatmanG said:


> ......Vaccine manufacturers are immune from prosecution. .....



I suppose they would be wouldn't they?


----------



## StevieB

FatmanG said:


> ......The pcr test used to diagnose covid is only testing for genetic material. The person who invented this test did it in relation to HIV for which he won the Nobel prize he has stated clearly that the test should NOT be used to diagnose infectious disease.......



Gosh - 25 years in Science and currently a Professor in Human Genetics and I have been doing it wrong all this time 

Care to explain why PCR is no use as a diagnostic tool? I am sure the scientific community would love to know as it is a staple of genetic testing and has been for many years. In fact the Sanger Centre in Cambridge - you know, the ones instrumental in sequencing the human genome - have existed almost exclusively on genetic detection based on PCR for decades. They do tend to know a thing or two about disease identification but we are always willing to be educated, so please do come down and give us a seminar on where we are going wrong won't you - it should be fascinating.


----------



## Bm101

FatmanG said:


> First time I've been back on here for months Chris reading through this and letting myself get drawn in made me realise why I stopped in the first place.
> Hope your well mate? I'm getting along nicely with those sharpening stones now I soak them glad I kept them


I'm good thanks. Glad you are getting on with the stones now. Best regards.


----------



## FatmanG

StevieB said:


> Gosh - 25 years in Science and currently a Professor in Human Genetics and I have been doing it wrong all this time
> 
> Care to explain why PCR is no use as a diagnostic tool? I am sure the scientific community would love to know as it is a staple of genetic testing and has been for many years. In fact the Sanger Centre in Cambridge - you know, the ones instrumental in sequencing the human genome - have existed almost exclusively on genetic detection based on PCR for decades. They do tend to know a thing or two about disease identification but we are always willing to be educated, so please do come down and give us a seminar on where we are going wrong won't you - it should be fascinating.


Judy Mikovits Dr Rashid Buttar can explain it far better than i unfortunately your 25yrs in science may well have been wasted by the sounds of it. your probably an advocate of the WHO and the product of the system corrupted by big pharma. You sir should be ashamed of yourself. I prefer to believe the nobel prize winner who invented the PCR test who said it should not be used to diagnose infectious disease Kary Mullis.
I say no more on the subject its you and your ilk who think they know best that is sending humanity into a very very dark period. ~(Edited out the insulting sentence. Angie)

Carry on


----------



## Rorschach




----------



## Terry - Somerset

Google Judy Mikovits.

I think it is fair to say that she is an outlier in the nutter category - Wikipedia sums it up nicely :

_ known for her discredited medical claims, such as that murine endogenous retroviruses are linked to chronic fatigue syndrome. As an outgrowth of these claims, she has engaged in anti-vaccination activism, promoted conspiracy theories, and been accused of scientific misconduct._

Personally I will continue to rely upon a scientific consensus supported by scientists who still have a reputation!


----------



## Rorschach

Yes me too.


----------



## Dovetail

Gentlemen remember to reply decently and not refer to someone going for fascim. So easy to call names such as that these days to those you don't agree with.


----------



## FatmanG

Terry - Somerset said:


> Google Judy Mikovits.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that she is an outlier in the nutter category - Wikipedia sums it up nicely :
> 
> _ known for her discredited medical claims, such as that murine endogenous retroviruses are linked to chronic fatigue syndrome. As an outgrowth of these claims, she has engaged in anti-vaccination activism, promoted conspiracy theories, and been accused of scientific misconduct._
> 
> Personally I will continue to rely upon a scientific consensus supported by scientists who still have a reputation!


GOOGLE Wikipedia my Goodness they are censoring anyone who speaks out against the narrative. There is more places to learn from than Google your posts confirms everything i believe. Judy Mikovits was ruined for telling the truth FACT she could of kept her $5m dollar grants if she kept her mouth shut. She couldnt live with herself if any child was harmed or died because she kept quiet that would mean she had lost everything. Discredited by Faucci and told by Google ok mate if she was lying and libelous in what she says why has she never been charged with any crime or sued by gates.faucci et al
SHES A WHISTLEBLOWER i believe evrything she says


----------



## FatmanG

Angie said:


> Gentlemen remember to reply decently and not refer to someone going for fascim. So easy to call names such as that these days to those you don't agree with.


Fascism
being force fed a narrative and unable to reply unless it fits the narrative or you get censored by people who think they know better or follow the order. this fits into my idea of Fascism. I have the right as a human to speak you may not agree i may not agree with you but having the right to say it is crucial for free speech and democracy. unalbe to do so im afraid fits the remit of fascism.


----------



## Blackswanwood

FatmanG said:


> Wogan once ridiculed David Icke on his TV show it is a damn shame he isn't alive to apologise as he has been proved absolutely right.



I must admit to not being a follower of his fortunes but I am a little surprised that David Icke has turned out to be absolutely right. A holocaust denier who thinks the world is secretly ruled by reptiles ... really?


----------



## AJB Temple

FatmanG said:


> Fascism
> being force fed a narrative and unable to reply unless it fits the narrative or you get censored by people who think they know better or follow the order. this fits into my idea of Fascism. I have the right as a human to speak you may not agree i may not agree with you but having the right to say it is crucial for free speech and democracy. unalbe to do so im afraid fits the remit of fascism.



Snag is - this is a woodwork forum. Most of us come her to talk about craftsmanship, tools, tips and ideas. No one said this is a forum for political ideology, the advancement of medical science or the forces of economics. It's about making stuff.


----------



## Droogs

Or perhaps, in my opinion, possibly making stuff up. In secret code obvioously


----------



## FatmanG

Blackswanwood said:


> I must admit to not being a follower of his fortunes but I am a little surprised that David Icke has turned out to be absolutely right. A holocaust denier who thinks the world is secretly ruled by reptiles ... really?


Bill gates is a reptile anyhow get on with what your doing when the realisation sets in that economies have been trashed, lives unnecessarily lost due to restricted healthcare,human rights and liberty removed, and you're facing the abyss all because of a virus that's mostly asymptomatic and is no worse than the flu.
Carry on.


----------



## Bm101

Can we please all take a break. 
Go back a few years. 1994 when the government tried to ban 'repetitive beats'. remember that. Basically, stop outdoor partying. We are the Government Grrrr! It was the beginning of the end of the state imposed clampdown on civil liberties that had been about in this country and had been enshrined in Law for centuries. Thatcher using the police against the miners, smashing the Unions choke hold on the economy, all sorts, there's no definitive answers. John Major. Party Killer lol. But it did all lead in a cumulative manner to the day I was marching down Whitehall all good natured like, being young and innocent and then the police on horses led a cavalry type charge (I was there, I'm not kidding. No dramatics. It was a pre planned set piece) into the crowd right outside Downing Street. I don't panic easy. But F***kin* Hell. In big public disturbances/pub fights etc, I'm the one telling people where the exit is. I breathe and look for the way out.I remember lifting bodies over the barriers as the old bill were raining blows down on us. It was proper brutal. Mind your back there. 30 seconds earlier People were all singing and laughing. Now there was claret and screaming everywhere and mad animal panic. Not one copper had a numer unmasked. 
That night on the news, BBC mind. Stalwart of free speech. I watched as the newsreader read of mobs rioting outside Downing Street showing footage of the carnage. Really.
Learned summat that day about life, the Government, the State and the BBC.
(Also just in case, even Police horses are not immune to the twitch.  )
However, bitcharsing about it all on a woodwork forum ain't going to solve it. 
One exists independently of the other and there is some measure of balance in remembering that. 
Good luck all. Keep safe.


----------



## Blackswanwood

FatmanG said:


> Bill gates is a reptile anyhow get on with what your doing when the realisation sets in that economies have been trashed, lives unnecessarily lost due to restricted healthcare,human rights and liberty removed, and you're facing the abyss all because of a virus that's mostly asymptomatic and is no worse than the flu.
> Carry on.


Thanks - that’s a really compelling argument. I always wondered why Bill needs to spend most of his time basking in the sun and cannot believe I missed the fact that he’s got a forked tongue. 

Anyway, I’ll carry on as you’ve obviously got it all worked out.


----------



## Oddbod

FatmanG said:


> [snip] now we have the wearing of masks which stops you getting rid of the carbon dioxide and reduces oxygen intake lowering the bodies immune system and financial ruin. Maybe just maybe those are the reason for the very slight increase in the death total. People you need to wake up your rights are being eroded big tech are censoring censuring professional people from speaking out. Google, Facebook etc are only letting you see what fits the agenda. Bill gates and his vaccination agenda is set to earn him trillions and it will cause more damage. Wake up a vaccine takes up to 20 years to produce safely and now they are not placebo tested is a scam and you are blindly walking into a disaster for humanity.



Oh good grief!!!

Wearing a mask does NOT do what you claim.

Rights are NOT "being eroded".

The rest is like something David Icke came up with after being slipped some really good LSD...


----------



## Rorschach

Oddbod said:


> Oh good grief!!!
> 
> Wearing a mask does NOT do what you claim.
> 
> Rights are NOT "being eroded".
> 
> The rest is like something David Icke came up with after being slipped some really good LSD...



There is plenty of nonsense there but he is right about one thing, your rights are being/have been eroded.


----------



## Oddbod

FatmanG said:


> Judy Mikovits Dr Rashid Buttar can explain it far better than i unfortunately your 25yrs in science may well have been wasted by the sounds of it. your probably an advocate of the WHO and the product of the system corrupted by big pharma. You sir should be ashamed of yourself. I prefer to believe the nobel prize winner who invented the PCR test who said it should not be used to diagnose infectious disease Kary Mullis.
> I say no more on the subject its you and your ilk who think they know best that is sending humanity into a very very dark period. ~(Edited out the insulting sentence. Angie)
> 
> Carry on



Rashid Buttar is an osteopath, not a virologist.
He's also an anti vaxxer & full on conspiraloon.

Mikovits is a completely discredited former scientist & known proponent of fruitloop rubbish like CO2 being a toxic gas.


----------



## Oddbod

Rorschach said:


> There is plenty of nonsense there but he is right about one thing, your rights are being/have been eroded.



Really?

In what way?


----------



## Rorschach

Just a small sample, at any moment the local council deems necessary they can shut down your business and you have no legal recourse, no compensation and no right to appeal.
You can be fined for not wearing a face mask.
You can be forcibly detained at your home.
Your child can be removed from school and tested forcibly.


----------



## Droogs

They have always been able to all of the above if they so wished. Nothing has changed


----------



## doctor Bob

Droogs said:


> They have always been able to all of the above if they so wished. Nothing has changed


They could have fined me last year for not wearing a face mask, who knew!!


----------



## RogerS

Selwyn said:


> You need to stay in your bedroom. You are one of those people who seem to have been waiting for years for the apocalypse. Statistics from people much cleverer than you are adding flesh to the bones of this all the time


Seem to recall you posting rubbish on other threads a while back and spouting complete nonsense. Still doing it, I see. Ease up on the Ad Hominem attacks, mate...it doesn't put you in a very good light. Easy enough to put you on Ignore.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> They have always been able to all of the above if they so wished. Nothing has changed



What a load of rot.


----------



## Droogs

are you aware of the powers that local government actually has over your day to day life? You will be deeply saddened at the power we let them have.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The issue is not how much power they have over us, but how they use it.

General public and individuals deserve protection from those who would unreasonably abuse their rights and freedoms. Without legal structure the individual or group response could quickly escalate to violence or riot.

Riot and civil unrest would be a less atttractive outcome than the reasonable use of legal powers by the local authority.

The question is therefore - do they use those powers generally with judgement and discretion, and what remedy is there if those powers are misused.


----------



## Selwyn

RogerS said:


> Seem to recall you posting rubbish on other threads a while back and spouting complete nonsense. Still doing it, I see. Ease up on the Ad Hominem attacks, mate...it doesn't put you in a very good light. Easy enough to put you on Ignore.



No I argued the information. I'm not making an attack. You need to stay inside to protect yourself


----------



## FatmanG

Terry - Somerset said:


> The issue is not how much power they have over us, but how they use it.
> 
> General public and individuals deserve protection from those who would unreasonably abuse their rights and freedoms. Without legal structure the individual or group response could quickly escalate to violence or riot.
> 
> Riot and civil unrest would be a less atttractive outcome than the reasonable use of legal powers by the local authority.
> 
> The question is therefore - do they use those powers generally with judgement and discretion, and what remedy is there if those powers are misused.


My God I despair  I and others like me are the general public and I need protection from wokism who want to turn the world into China. Oliver Cromwell would be turning in his grave. 
What is unreasonable about going out of your home when you want?
What's unreasonable about wanting to run your business?
What's unreasonable to want to go see your Mother, and kids see their grandparents?
What's unreasonable about a mother and sister wanting to be at her sons hospital bed as he draws his last breath?
There is no scientific evidence to back up the draconian measures we have had imposed on us. Sweden didn't do lockdown, fact ! and they are no worse off than us health wise but far better off financially. 
Viruses are everywhere seek out Zach Bush, he's an expert and has no agenda. He's an interesting guy. The only true way out of this situation is natural herd immunity, once we have had the virus you won't get it again, the body is then full of antibodies to stop it reoccurring. The WHO and the rest of the gates cabal are lying to us, they are all about a vaccine that's all this is about. You have Neil Ferguson of imperial college scaring the bejesus out of the west with 500,000 UK deaths and 2m USA deaths yet he can break the rules to go carry out his affair with a married woman, the Scottish health leader telling Scots to stay at home, save lives, yet she can do as she likes and break her own rules. Nancy Pelosi keeping businesses closed except when she needs a hair cut. Example after example shows how the authorities use their power. Shake off your cognitive dissidence and open your eyes to the possibility that their is something stinking really bad. 
Check out corbetreport/gates its not a conspiracy theory its fact no lizards no accusations draw your own conclusion. 
Check out Eugenics.
Check out who funded the Wuhan lab with millions of us taxpayers dollars stand up Mr Anthony Faucci
There is so much behind what's going on. 
We were taken to war on lies where countless people died and injured the knock on effect is still in effect today in Syria and all over the world. Refugees risking all crossing the channel in rubber dinghies by the hundreds daily. I don't trust the powers that be one bit. Its those that are putting us at risk not Joe blogs not wearing a useless face mask. 
All the evidence is showing this is no more deadly a disease than the flu. It's trend is like the flu dropping off in summer. I am dreading the winter by November all hell will break loose and then the vaccine will magically appear anyone willing to offer odds I'm all in. 
Once you take the vaccine you will then have to take more and more I bet you. But I won't be taking it and why should I have to. The only people in danger would be others who choose not to be vaccinated if the vaccine works so the case for mandatory vaccination is bogus. 
Check out Robert f Kennedy jnr and his take on vaccines he's not a nutcase. He's just got n annoying voice. 
Too many drs are being silenced too many peoples reputations are being ruined because they speak out. The political class cannot be trusted they are owned by those with money. They are educated at places owned by big money its a racket.
Society has become like sheep without need of the sheepdog the sheep police the sheep. social media is full of sheep attacking other sheep even jk Rowling gets cancelled for saying women have periods. People getting cancelled is fascism and Fascist's no longer run about clicking their heels and saluting or wearing white robes and burning crosses. Its everywhere and clear as day in all social media platforms. Google Facebook twitter linked in censoring anyone with a different view to their narrative. Patreon closing accounts overnight and refusing to hand over money to the account holder. Ryan Dawson check him out a great journalist independent politically, investigated Epstein for 15 years shut down by google YT et all had his patron account closed overnight and thousands withheld. Freedom of speech is fundamental in any democracy I may not agree with 90% of people on this forum but I will defend your right to be able to say it. 
The world is being lied to I truly believe it. Don't abuse my thinking don't mock me prove me wrong were running out of time by winter we will be micro chipped if we don't do something now.
Have a nice day everyone


----------



## billw

Bacms said:


> I have been a data scientist/bioinformatician working with genomics and high throughput sequencing data for the last decade so I really need some more than a conspiracy documentary to believe in any of what you have just posted.



You just know that posts that start off like this are going to be a great read.


----------



## billw

FatmanG said:


> My God I despair  I and others like me are the general public and I need protection from wokism who want to turn the world into China. Oliver Cromwell would be turning in his grave.



OK this is complex but I'll try and boil it down. People dislike China because they don't hold much regard for human rights. OK that's their choice. The concept of sovereignty has been around for the best part of 4 centuries now - people give up some of their freedom to a sovereign body in return for "security". 

Back in the day, security meant avoiding being invaded and killed. These days...well that sort of behaviour is rare - in fact most of the invasions seem to be done by our "friends" across the pond. China sees its role as giving security in terms of economic benefits, i.e. you'll not be poor and we'll make sure you live a good life - although yes we'll read all your emails and stick you in prison if you say anything we don't like. That's the trade-off in Chinese society. In the West we like to mouth off against the government, but vote en masse for parties who make large portions of society poor. They also read our emails.

I would argue that SIngapore's semi-authoritarian model is actually far superior to anything we have in the West, and it's what China based their model on.

Wanting a disproportionate amount of freedom suggests to me that people are doing things they shouldn't be doing, and don't want to get caught.


----------



## Rorschach

billw said:


> Wanting a disproportionate amount of freedom suggests to me that people are doing things they shouldn't be doing, and don't want to get caught.



I worry about the future when I hear people say things like this, the old "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument.


----------



## AJB Temple

Whenever you want to write a really long post about China, freedom, woke, eugenics, plague, economics and (shhhh politics) say very quickly _"would Edward Woodward do this, I only would if Edward Woodward would"._ This will remind us that this forum is about wood.


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> I worry about the future when I hear people say things like this, the old "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument.



Except it's true. What of my life is hidden now? I'm subject to CCTV whereever I go, my financial history is entirely electronic, my communications are all logged. Do I *really* have privacy? Of course not. If GCHQ wants to check what anyone is doing, they will. And I'm glad for it.


----------



## billw

AJB Temple said:


> This will remind us that this forum is about wood.



That's why it's in the off-topic section


----------



## Blackswanwood

I'm writing to my MP to warn him not to even contemplate infringing my right to sharpen chisels with a method of my choosing ....


----------



## Lons

billw said:


> That's why it's in the off-topic section


Unless the rules have changed to allow political content it shouldn't be in any section


----------



## Bm101

Do you know why Edward Woodwood had all those D's in his name?

Because otherwise he would have been called Ewar Woowoo.


----------



## AJB Temple

billw said:


> That's why it's in the off-topic section


Threads that stray into politics and name calling get zapped though wherever situated. I was just trying to introduce a little levity as it was getting a tad heavy.


----------



## artie

billw said:


> Wanting a disproportionate amount of freedom suggests to me that people are doing things they shouldn't be doing, and don't want to get caught.



But who gets to decide what I should be doing? and for what reason?

If you are happy to be watched and your every move scrutinised that's fine, I however feel that I can live my life without causing loss or harm to any other being without being watched 24/7


----------



## billw

artie said:


> But who gets to decide what I should be doing? and for what reason?
> 
> If you are happy to be watched and your every move scrutinised that's fine, I however feel that I can live my life without causing loss or harm to any other being without being watched 24/7



That's true, but it also gives the opportunity for others to harm or cause loss to you. 

More to the point, I am sure the government and security services have better things to do than watch everything I do. I certainly haven't had any compliments on my bench hook by MI5 yet. Saying that, I was recently googling potential PhD topics and one of them was nuclear terrorism, which might have raised some eyebrows.

So, my personal preference is to have a far higher rate of civilian monitoring, because I likely benefit more from other people being more easily caught than I have to worry about if the government know I went to Tesco for some crisps at 3.29pm and then went home and watched videos about veneer glue.

Obviously everyone has their own opinion on rights but I think the West is currently on the wrong track one way, and China is too extreme on the other.


----------



## artie

billw said:


> So, my personal preference is to have a far higher rate of civilian monitoring,


Just for fun then, say you were in charge what level of surveillance would you subject us to?


----------



## billw

artie said:


> Just for fun then, say you were in charge what level of surveillance would you subject us to?



National ID cards, no anonymous access to any telecoms systems, heavier use of facial recognition in cities and transport systems, easier access for police to financial and phone records, far more NPR technology to reduce the ability to use fake numberplates.


----------



## Oddbod

FatmanG said:


> There is no scientific evidence to back up the draconian measures we have had imposed on us. Sweden didn't do lockdown, fact ! and they are no worse off than us health wise but far better off financially.
> Viruses are everywhere seek out Zach Bush, he's an expert and has no agenda. He's an interesting guy. The only true way out of this situation is natural herd immunity, once we have had the virus you won't get it again, the body is then full of antibodies to stop it reoccurring. The WHO and the rest of the gates cabal are lying to us, they are all about a vaccine that's all this is about. You have
> Check out corbetreport/gates its not a conspiracy theory its fact no lizards no accusations draw your own conclusion.
> Check out Eugenics.
> Check out who funded the Wuhan lab with millions of us taxpayers dollars stand up Mr Anthony Faucci
> 
> All the evidence is showing this is no more deadly a disease than the flu. It's trend is like the flu dropping off in summer. I am dreading the winter by November all hell will break loose and then the vaccine will magically appear anyone willing to offer odds I'm all in.
> Once you take the vaccine you will then have to take more and more I bet you. But I won't be taking it and why should I have to. The only people in danger would be others who choose not to be vaccinated if the vaccine works so the case for mandatory vaccination is bogus.
> Check out Robert f Kennedy jnr and his take on vaccines he's not a nutcase.



There is so much fabricated nonsense & dangerous untruths in this post that it should be framed as an example of how some people fall for pretty much every conspiracy theory & piece of fake news going, so long as it gels with their preconceptions.


----------



## Rorschach

Boy am I glad you aren't in charge.


----------



## doctor Bob

billw said:


> National ID cards, no anonymous access to any telecoms systems, heavier use of facial recognition in cities and transport systems, easier access for police to financial and phone records, far more NPR technology to reduce the ability to use fake numberplates.



 How does reading a numberplate say from a CCTV help stop fake ones?
I all for less intrusion, even though I think I'm pretty non hooky these days.


----------



## billw

doctor Bob said:


> How does reading a numberplate say from a CCTV help stop fake ones?
> I all for less intrusion, even though I think I'm pretty non hooky these days.



If a plate is suddenly seen miles from where it was last recorded (and there's no intermediate sightings), it can get flagged up as being potentially false. Obviously right now we haven't got enough police to enforce it, or stop it at checkpoints etc etc. Obviously it's easier to spot if the two cars are on the road at the same time!


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> Boy am I glad you aren't in charge.



Why, what you hiding?


----------



## doctor Bob

billw said:


> If a plate is suddenly seen miles from where it was last recorded (and there's no intermediate sightings), it can get flagged up as being potentially false. Obviously right now we haven't got enough police to enforce it, or stop it at checkpoints etc etc. Obviously it's easier to spot if the two cars are on the road at the same time!



By that explaination I assume then it would be a fruitless exercise and another waste of money.


----------



## billw

doctor Bob said:


> By that explaination I assume then it would be a fruitless exercise and another waste of money.



Not at all, it still monitors vehicle movements.


----------



## Rorschach

billw said:


> Why, what you hiding?



All sorts of things, none of them illegal as far as I am aware, doesn't mean I want other people knowing though.


----------



## Bm101

Bill, the problem with your argument is that your presumption is that the state and therefore in this day and age by complicit agreement large corporate investment, is munificent. But it's not. Never has been. Open any history book. Even a largely beneficial society like the UK. Yet throughout UK history the Government has quite happily inposed state based order on the people at whim. It echoes though the years.
The issue for me is that the goalposts have _already _shifted. You carry a mobile, you maintain an online presence, pay bills etc etc you are _already_ on database peddaling your information. For free. You're giving away what other people are making money from.
Ok. but for the law abiding citizen with nothing to fear is that ok?
There must be a point, HAS to be a point where your information/data becomes more important than the person dealing in it. Where is that? Medical records?
Family History? Family photos of your nan's 80th birthday on polaroid?
We keep giving this information away but the corporate multibillion dollar companies peddaling that information don't share the pot Bill.
Why is that ok?
Why is it ok for your information to be peadalled off?

This is not all about 'terrorism' or 'national security threat' or Bill W is a criminal.... There's a bigger picture but it's not some secret society or such nonsense. Just human greed.


Best wishes. Don't mean to offend anyone, least of all you Bill.


----------



## Spectric

Hi all

No one can really be supprised because the chinese supply nearly everything these days and they gave us Covid for nothing. If it was not for human rights and our obsession with privacy and data protection then we would stand a better chance of holding it at bay till a vacine is sourced.


----------



## billw

Bm101 said:


> Why is it ok for your information to be peadalled off?
> 
> This is not all about 'terrorism' or 'national security threat' or Bill W is a criminal.... There's a bigger picture but it's not some secret society or such nonsense. Just human greed.
> 
> Best wishes. Don't mean to offend anyone, least of all you Bill.



Yeah I agree that information shouldn't be used for profit, the whole thing with the UK government giving Google access to NHS records (did that happen in the end?) is certainly moving away from what I would think was necessary for my own security and safety. That said, if the data is used in such a way that it spots some pattern in illness or disease and I'm flagged up at being at risk so get treatment before I even knew I was ill.....well yeah this gets difficult doesn't it?!


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> Hi all
> 
> No one can really be supprised because the chinese supply nearly everything these days and they gave us Covid for nothing. If it was not for human rights and our obsession with privacy and data protection then we would stand a better chance of holding it at bay till a vacine is sourced.



How does that work?


----------



## artie

billw said:


> Why, what you hiding?


Everything I can. 
I don't see why anyone should be watching my every move and selling my habits and purchase history so I can be targeted with endless ads for what I have already bought.


----------



## Bm101

There is no difference Bill. No privacy.
When you fill in your census do you tick that little box, because otherwise your local council sells_* all *_your data to online mass marketing companies. George Orwell was a visionary Bill and I'm the very blunt end of data privacy. This issue will ony continue to grow as information points online get assimilated in the future. No tin foil here just a relucance to make some squirm in a suit rich from my data.


----------



## billw

artie said:


> Everything I can.
> I don't see why anyone should be watching my every move and selling my habits and purchase history so I can be targeted with endless ads for what I have already bought.



OK but just to clarify, I'm not advocating this, I am advocating that the state more heavily monitor citizens in order to provide security and safety. This isn't about adverts of Facebook.


----------



## artie

billw said:


> That said, if the data is used in such a way that it spots some pattern in illness or disease and I'm flagged up at being at risk so get treatment before I even knew I was ill.....well yeah this gets difficult doesn't it?!


Seriously, would you take treatment, just because you were at risk?


----------



## artie

billw said:


> OK but just to clarify, I'm not advocating this, I am advocating that the state more heavily monitor citizens in order to provide security and safety. This isn't about adverts of Facebook.


*Those who would give up essential Liberty*, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither *Liberty* nor Safety.


----------



## Droogs

i want the government to hire Judge Dredd but partner him with Halo Jones


----------



## artie

billw said:


> National ID cards,


I have often wondered what would be the benefit of a national ID card. There are ample means of identification already


----------



## FatmanG

Oddbod said:


> There is so much fabricated nonsense & dangerous untruths in this post that it should be framed as an example of how some people fall for pretty much every conspiracy theory & piece of fake news going, so long as it gels with their preconceptions.


Like what? 
This isn't a. Conspiracy theory anymore this pandemic is a proven conspiracy! Don't taemy word for it but David E Martins
Freedom platform.TV/davidemartin 
I suppose he's a lunatic as well


----------



## Eshmiel

The stuff in this topic is so very like the stuff in similar on-line places or even pub & dinner table conversations these days - composed of various fashions of mass media opinion with their scuttlebutt repeated like a mental tape recording by various fanboys of those various mass media comics and their comedians. 

It used to be just "the red & blue clownshow" of left vs right but now there are dozens of weird klowns with mad stories about "what's really going on". These days, the whole puddin' is leavened with 1001 mini mass media channels found about the interweb, of every flavour, shade and toxicity.

But how much do any of the scuttlebutt relay stations spouting in a forum or on faecespuke really know about anything - from their own direct experience of everyday life rather than from reading The Hate Mail, Torygraph, New Lunacy or "This is the true truth" website by Cletus the swivel-eyed loon? In fact, how many even have "their own" everyday experiences, rather than the allocation of various personal events into their ideological taxonomy as installed via the main mass media and other mass media prattle-gabble sources pouring into their eyes and ears every minute of the day?

Really, most of us know nowt but what we're told. We are told all sorts, all of it mediated by axe-grinding editors of various ilks & tittles. And who puppets them? And who or what motivates the puppeteers? The fact is, we will never know, despite being told everyday by a newspaper or website that we can know if we just believe them and no one else.

In the modern world it's become impossible to know anything much about causes, main-movers and other zeitgeist-generators with any level of certainty. Our brains are filled with so much inchoate cultural noise from birth, from so many channels, that avoiding cognitive dissonance and vast internal structures of self-delusion is impossible.

Personally I find myself avoiding conversations other than those about very specific matters of which I have significant personal experience. I have even become ultra-sceptical not just about the "information" out there but also of my own assumptions and beliefs about the wider (especially political) world - which are likely not _my_ beliefs but were installed over the past 70 years by a hundred agencies, many of them mad; many of them with all sorts of agendas nothing to do with my welfare.

Do you recall British History as it was taught in schools of the 50s and 60s? The glorious British Empire bringing myriad benefits to the various native chappies (not exploiting and murdering them willy-nilly in the process at all. Ha!).

A sad state of affairs, in one way, to become so sceptical that it borders on cynicism. From another perspective, it removes an awful lot of angst about machinations in the wider world that one can do nothing about and which don't really impinge on most of us in any serious way .... yet. But perhaps the often draconian and apparently arbitrary imposition of Covid rules is the beginning of something that's long been brewing in circles of power ever since Jeremy Bentham advocated his panopticon?

Of course, an inability to know about "now" in any coherent fashion means no ability to control the future. But personally I believe that it's just human hubris to believe that anyone has such control or ever had. We act out of deep and hidden motives generated deep down in our flawed human nature, making up stories to justify what we (and others) did well after the fact.

But blether-on, chaps. It's all good entertainment. 

Eshmiel


----------



## Rorschach

RogerS said:


> Easy enough to put you on Ignore.



Get on then, don't use that as some kind of threat as if anyone actually cares what you do. Just make sure you do actually ignore them instead of doing your normal routine. When you actually ignore me it's wonderful and I greatly appreciate the peace and quiet.


----------



## artie

Eshmiel said:


> The stuff in this topic is so very like the stuff in similar on-line places or even pub & dinner table conversations these days - composed of various fashions of mass media opinion with their scuttlebutt repeated like a mental tape recording by various fanboys of those various mass media comics and their comedians.
> 
> It used to be just "the red & blue clownshow" of left vs right but now there are dozens of weird klowns with mad stories about "what's really going on". These days, the whole puddin' is leavened with 1001 mini mass media channels found about the interweb, of every flavour, shade and toxicity.
> 
> But how much do any of the scuttlebutt relay stations spouting in a forum or on faecespuke really know about anything - from their own direct experience of everyday life rather than from reading The Hate Mail, Torygraph, New Lunacy or "This is the true truth" website by Cletus the swivel-eyed loon? In fact, how many even have "their own" everyday experiences, rather than the allocation of various personal events into their ideological taxonomy as installed via the main mass media and other mass media prattle-gabble sources pouring into their eyes and ears every minute of the day?
> 
> Really, most of us know nowt but what we're told. We are told all sorts, all of it mediated by axe-grinding editors of various ilks & tittles. And who puppets them? And who or what motivates the puppeteers? The fact is, we will never know, despite being told everyday by a newspaper or website that we can know if we just believe them and no one else.
> 
> In the modern world it's become impossible to know anything much about causes, main-movers and other zeitgeist-generators with any level of certainty. Our brains are filled with so much inchoate cultural noise from birth, from so many channels, that avoiding cognitive dissonance and vast internal structures of self-delusion is impossible.
> 
> Personally I find myself avoiding conversations other than those about very specific matters of which I have significant personal experience. I have even become ultra-sceptical not just about the "information" out there but also of my own assumptions and beliefs about the wider (especially political) world - which are likely not _my_ beliefs but were installed over the past 70 years by a hundred agencies, many of them mad; many of them with all sorts of agendas nothing to do with my welfare.
> 
> Do you recall British History as it was taught in schools of the 50s and 60s? The glorious British Empire bringing myriad benefits to the various native chappies (not exploiting and murdering them willy-nilly in the process at all. Ha!).
> 
> A sad state of affairs, in one way, to become so sceptical that it borders on cynicism. From another perspective, it removes an awful lot of angst about machinations in the wider world that one can do nothing about and which don't really impinge on most of us in any serious way .... yet. But perhaps the often draconian and apparently arbitrary imposition of Covid rules is the beginning of something that's long been brewing in circles of power ever since Jeremy Bentham advocated his panopticon?
> 
> Of course, an inability to know about "now" in any coherent fashion means no ability to control the future. But personally I believe that it's just human hubris to believe that anyone has such control or ever had. We act out of deep and hidden motives generated deep down in our flawed human nature, making up stories to justify what we (and others) did well after the fact.
> 
> But blether-on, chaps. It's all good entertainment.
> 
> Eshmiel


I can'd disagree with much of that, but it is important that we question, debate and hopefully learn.

My outlook is totally different from it was thirty years ago.

Was I right then, am I right now, will I be right in another ten years, who knows but I'm no longer content to swallow everything the six o'clock news tells me.


----------



## The May

Why is this drivel even being rehashed on this forum? If you really want to promote this narrative, that’s what Spiked is for. Or perhaps just lock yourself in your workroom and do something until your brain functions properly.


----------



## doctor Bob

Eshmiel said:


> But how much do any of the scuttlebutt relay stations spouting in a forum or on faecespuke really know about anything - from their own direct experience of everyday life rather than from reading The Hate Mail, Torygraph, New Lunacy or "This is the true truth" website by Cletus the swivel-eyed loon? In fact, how many even have "their own" everyday experiences, rather than the allocation of various personal events into their ideological taxonomy as installed via the main mass media and other mass media prattle-gabble sources pouring into their eyes and ears every minute of the day?
> 
> 
> Eshmiel



Well I have direct experience having been alien abducted at least 12 times, trust me what "Zoorg" tells me would make your ears spin.


----------



## Lons

It's all been said before, multiple times by the same prantagonists and should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago, there are numerous forums out there where they can specifically spout extreme or otherwise views and opinions. This is supposed to be a woodworking forum.

I didn't ask for the thread to be removed but but was pleased, now disappointed it's been reinstated.


----------



## Oddbod

FatmanG said:


> Like what?
> This isn't a. Conspiracy theory anymore this pandemic is a proven conspiracy! Don't taemy word for it but David E Martins
> Freedom platform.TV/davidemartin
> I suppose he's a lunatic as well



Utter rot.

Martin is indeed a certified barking moonbat & purveyor of stupid conspiracy theories.
You lap up his guff all you like - I'll stick to getting my information from peer reviewed scientific sources, rather than what some nutter posts on t' interweb.


----------



## Rorschach

The May said:


> Why is this drivel even being rehashed on this forum? If you really want to promote this narrative, that’s what Spiked is for. Or perhaps just lock yourself in your workroom and do something until your brain functions properly.



What's wrong with Spiked? Damn site more sensible people there than on the MSM.


----------



## Rorschach

Lons said:


> It's all been said before, multiple times by the same prantagonists and should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago, there are numerous forums out there where they can specifically spout extreme or otherwise views and opinions. This is supposed to be a woodworking forum.
> 
> I didn't ask for the thread to be removed but but was pleased, now disappointed it's been reinstated.



And this is the off-topic section, if you don't like it, don't get involved, not very difficult is it?


----------



## Dovetail

This is a wood working forum. This is in the "Off Topic" forum (and it really qualifies for Off Topic). If you do not like this thread, please go to the top and click IGNORE. Or if you don't like this forum. Go to the header and click IGNORE. It's there so you do not have to endure a topic you don't like and wish would go away.


----------



## FatmanG

Really! You are ignorant and talk about things you know nothing about. Dr David E Martin has spoke with authority in the US congress several times. He is an expert on linguistics and has successfully brought down countless organised criminal conspiracies. Fact!! He digitalized the patent system and through patents he has irrefutable proof of criminal offences committed by bill and Melinda gates foundation, Anthony Faucci and Maderna pharmaceutical who faucci has said is his preferred choice for the vaccine. Maderna don't have the permission to use the platform to administer their vaccine undisputable fact. Maderna lodge 1000 patent applications on the 28/03/2019 which was for the deliberate release of a corana virus. What did they know to apply for such a unlikely scenario? 
You can mock me as much as you like but thankfully humanity always takes down these despots who believe there own BS. Today on mainstream media we are told we must limit our contact with people in our own homes because the r rate is above 21. We have a few days of 30000 positive test we will have with testing being increased all the time but they fail to point out there was only 3 deaths. Wake up people this lockdown is draconian and totally uneccessary. Our human Rights are disappearing at warp speed and your running along like a good boy because this is too big an issue for it to be a lie!! Wrong history is littered with despots tyrants genocides all recently. But it won't happen to us will it. YES YES YEE it can. I have faith that humanity will once again thwart the terrible pandemic and those of you who think they know it all will be revealed as who they truly are and feel the pain that most of us are feeling now finacilly ruined confined like a prisoner and wondering how in the hell do we recover from this nightmare.
Some of you on here truly disgust me


Oddbod said:


> Utter rot.
> 
> Martin is indeed a certified barking moonbat & purveyor of stupid conspiracy theories.
> You lap up his guff all you like - I'll stick to getting my information from peer reviewed scientific sources, rather than what some nutter posts on t' interweb.


----------



## Doug71

It's amazing how the whole conspiracy theory thing can affect people.

I know a lad who has really changed over the last few years, he was a nice sensible chap with his own business. Think it was all the conspiracy theories around 9/11 that got him in to it, now whenever I see him all he talks about are the things going on in the world that are hidden from us and these higher beings that run everything. Everytime he pops over for a chat his beard and hair are a bit longer, he looks thinner and his skin is a bit greyer, he threw away his mobile phone ages ago "because they are listening". He now spends all his time watching different Gurus on youtube. Last time he came round it was to see if I knew anyone selling a generator as he is moving off grid so "they" can't get to him.


----------



## Steve Blackdog

Doug71 said:


> It's amazing how the whole conspiracy theory thing can affect people.
> 
> I know a lad who has really changed over the last few years, he was a nice sensible chap with his own business. Think it was all the conspiracy theories around 9/11 that got him in to it, now whenever I see him all he talks about are the things going on in the world that are hidden from us and these higher beings that run everything. Everytime he pops over for a chat his beard and hair are a bit longer, he looks thinner and his skin is a bit greyer, he threw away his mobile phone ages ago "because they are listening". He now spends all his time watching different Gurus on youtube. Last time he came round it was to see if I knew anyone selling a generator as he is moving off grid so "they" can't get to him.



There are few more effective means of controlling people than to lead them to believe that they can trust nobody but you. Sadly that has what our politics has become - you can't trust the others, but follow me and everything you ever wished for will come true. I am sure that there are many people whose lives have been made worse by what they read on the web.

That of course is the dilemma - how do you work out whom to believe when everyone says everyone else is lying? Me, I have found that being right is an over-rated ambition. The only thing I am certain of is that there is more that I don't know than I do know.

Talking of ignorance, I must get back into the shed and do my inadequate best to turn sawn up pieces of tree into into another guitar. From the tree's point of view, it might have preferred to have continued being a tree!


----------



## billw

Most conspiracy theories, especially those in the USA, seem to form a threat to individual freedom. Therefore perhaps the biggest conspiracy theory is that all the other conspiracy theories are pushed out by pro-gun lobby in order to make sure the second amendment isn't repealed.

They're coming for you - socialists, climate change activists, communists, liberals, aliens, foreigners, minority sexualities, people of colour...... literally anyone. Buy a gun.


----------



## Oddbod

FatmanG said:


> Really! You are ignorant and talk about things you know nothing about. Dr David E Martin has spoke with authority in the US congress several times. He is an expert on linguistics and has successfully brought down countless organised criminal conspiracies. Fact!! He digitalized the patent system and through patents he has irrefutable proof of criminal offences committed by bill and Melinda gates foundation, Anthony Faucci and Maderna pharmaceutical who faucci has said is his preferred choice for the vaccine. Maderna don't have the permission to use the platform to administer their vaccine undisputable fact. Maderna lodge 1000 patent applications on the 28/03/2019 which was for the deliberate release of a corana virus. What did they know to apply for such a unlikely scenario?
> You can mock me as much as you like but thankfully humanity always takes down these despots who believe there own BS. Today on mainstream media we are told we must limit our contact with people in our own homes because the r rate is above 21. We have a few days of 30000 positive test we will have with testing being increased all the time but they fail to point out there was only 3 deaths. Wake up people this lockdown is draconian and totally uneccessary. Our human Rights are disappearing at warp speed and your running along like a good boy because this is too big an issue for it to be a lie!! Wrong history is littered with despots tyrants genocides all recently. But it won't happen to us will it. YES YES YEE it can. I have faith that humanity will once again thwart the terrible pandemic and those of you who think they know it all will be revealed as who they truly are and feel the pain that most of us are feeling now finacilly ruined confined like a prisoner and wondering how in the hell do we recover from this nightmare.
> Some of you on here truly disgust me



There are so many false claims in your post that pointing them out would take forever.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid (it was actually Flavor-Aid...).


----------



## Trevanion

_”You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone.” - Marcus Aurelius _


----------



## Droogs

Ah a true stoic



more in depth


----------



## billw

Trevanion said:


> _”You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone.” - Marcus Aurelius _



Recently discovered stoicism and it definitely helps.


----------



## Rorschach

From Monday we can't gather in groups of more than 6, what does that mean if 7 people live in your house? Does one have to move out?
It means that if you have 3 children you can't have both grandparents visit at the same time, but one could visit in the morning then the other in the afternoon before going home together. 
Just another rule we won't following that's for certain.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> From Monday we can't gather in groups of more than 6, what does that mean if 7 people live in your house? Does one have to move out?
> It means that if you have 3 children you can't have both grandparents visit at the same time, but one could visit in the morning then the other in the afternoon before going home together.
> Just another rule we won't following that's for certain.



In case it's passed your notice, the covid-19 infection rate is showing a marked increase among young adults, due in no small part to their propensity for gathering in large groups, with little regard for social distancing. These measures, as blunt and imprecise as they may be, are an attempt to keep this in check. While infections may present little danger of fatality among that age group, the risk remains that infections will be passed on to age groups more at risk. I don't expect this concerns you much given your previously demonstrated lack of concern for deaths in older age groups, but, at my age, (69), it sure as hell concerns me.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> In case it's passed your notice, the covid-19 infection rate is showing a marked increase among young adults, due in no small part to their propensity for gathering in large groups, with little regard for social distancing. These measures, as blunt and imprecise as they may be, are an attempt to keep this in check. While infections may present little danger of fatality among that age group, the risk remains that infections will be passed on to age groups more at risk. I don't expect this concerns you much given your previously demonstrated lack of concern for deaths in older age groups, but, at my age, (69), it sure as hell concerns me.



Infections have been increasing for 9 weeks if we believe the testing figures, yet deaths continue to fall (if you believe the current deaths have anything to do with C19, which I don't). The more it passes amongst the young now the safer you will be come winter time.
Oh and to be clear, about 30% of infections are still in the over 40's so don't blame the young for everything.

You are old, you are probably right to be worried, by all means keep yourself safe but leave everyone else to live their lives.


----------



## AJB Temple

My favourite films are Marcus Aurelius inclusive:
Gladiator
Top Gun 
Troy
Sound of Music (I was in love with Julie Andres when I was 13, as I thought her hills were alive).


----------



## artie

selectortone said:


> In case it's passed your notice, the covid-19 infection rate is showing a marked increase among young adults,



No that is not correct there is no evidence that the infection rate is increasing, only that more cases are being detected.





selectortone said:


> These measures, as blunt and imprecise as they may be, are an attempt to keep this in check. While infections may present little danger of fatality among that age group, the risk remains that infections will be passed on to age groups more at risk.



Wouldn't it make sense to quarantine / isolate the sick, rather than the healthy. I myself am unfortunately no longer in the youthful category, but am happy to say that I am not so scared of dying that I will stop living.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

The problem with the idea that "I haven't done anything wrong, so why should I worry?", is that you haven't done anything wrong..._yet_. This may change. What you consider normal, reasonable and sensible behaviour, which is currently perfectly legal, might be outlawed next week, and then what do you do?

Just in case you thought the British justice system was fair, equitable and without prejudice, did you know Julian Assange 's extradition hearing is happening at the moment? The press seem to be keeping it a secret, and the legal system are definitely trying to keep as much of it hidden as possible. Have a read of this and perhaps you may (or may not) rethink what the government should or should not be able to do.









Your Man in the Public Gallery: the Assange Hearing Day 6 - Craig Murray


I went to the Old Bailey today expecting to be awed by the majesty of the law, and left revolted by the sordid administration of injustice. There is a romance which attaches to the Old Bailey. The name of course means fortified enclosure and it occupies a millennia old footprint on the edge of...




www.craigmurray.org.uk


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Infections have been increasing for 9 weeks if we believe the testing figures, yet deaths continue to fall.



Let's revisit that in a month's time shall we?


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Let's revisit that in a month's time shall we?



But in a month if the figures have increased you will claim I was wrong and if they have not you will claim the restrictions worked. I lose either way in your eyes.


----------



## murdoch

Rorschach said:


> From Monday we can't gather in groups of more than 6, what does that mean if 7 people live in your house? Does one have to move out?
> It means that if you have 3 children you can't have both grandparents visit at the same time, but one could visit in the morning then the other in the afternoon before going home together.
> Just another rule we won't following that's for certain.



We’re a family of 7, our 5 kids are aged between 2.5 - 8. The 3 oldest go to the same school and drop off is staggered every 20mins for each age group. She leaves at 8.15 and get back around 9.25 even though the schools 5mins away. I will keep the 2 year old twins at home with me or take them to the workshop to help her out if I can but it’s often not possible. Both sets of grandparents live close by and often help her with drop off and pick up but now it’s illegal!!! This has gone way too far, we’re being stripped of liberty and few people even seem to care. The max 6 person rule won’t make much difference to many of you but to us it’s major meaning we effectively can never have anyone round our house. Hats off to the government, they’ve done such a great job of brainwashing so many that these laws are passed and no one even cares that freedom is being stolen from them.


----------



## AJB Temple

You cannot match death rates today with detection rates today. There is a significant lag between infection and demise.


----------



## Droogs

No R the restrictions wont have effect until the month after surely as those who will die are already infected before the restrictions kick in. Or am I I thinking it wrong?


----------



## Rorschach

AJB Temple said:


> You cannot match death rates today with detection rates today. There is a significant lag between infection and demise.



Is 9 weeks enough? Infections have been rising for that long.


----------



## Rorschach

murdoch said:


> We’re a family of 7, our 5 kids are aged between 2.5 - 8. The 3 oldest go to the same school and drop off is staggered every 20mins for each age group. She leaves at 8.15 and get back around 9.25 even though the schools 5mins away. I will keep the 2 year old twins at home with me or take them to the workshop to help her out if I can but it’s often not possible. Both sets of grandparents live close by and often help her with drop off and pick up but now it’s illegal!!! This has gone way too far, we’re being stripped of liberty and few people even seem to care. The max 6 person rule won’t make much difference to many of you but to us it’s major meaning we effectively can never have anyone round our house. Hats off to the government, they’ve done such a great job of brainwashing so many that these laws are passed and no one even cares that freedom is being stolen from them.



Some of us remain sensible and you have my sympathies for your struggles.


----------



## Droogs

Are the people complaining that you can't be in groups of 6 or more aware that in English law as it stands any public grouping or assembly of more than 6 people unless given prior sanction is technically classed as a riot. Old law never repealed, though the police do have to actually read you the riot act before they can technically do anything about it. Weird.


----------



## Eshmiel

AJB Temple said:


> My favourite films ......
> Sound of Music (I was in love with Julie Andres when I was 13, as I thought her hills were alive).



For me it was Mitzi Gaynor in South Pacific; or Gina Lollobrigida in anything (or even better, nothing). It was just me hormones, newly ris-up at the time.

Eshmiel


----------



## billw

I do suspect that a lot of the more recent cases are younger people who are at less risk of dying, so we may not see quite as sharp a rise in deaths as expected - nonetheless the government do point out that either way there's an increased risk of passing the virus on to those who are more vulnerable - especially now with such a large proportion of younger people still living with parents.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Is there anything new to say on the topic of COVID-19?


----------



## StevieB

Blackswanwood said:


> Is there anything new to say on the topic of COVID-19?



Yes, although as positions become entrenched people may choose not to listen! It is also worth recapping on occasion however, as people tend to forget where we have come from and how things have developed along the way. Disclaimer - I am a scientist, and have a scientific view point. I like evidence to back up a hypothesis/statement. I do not seek to covert anyone to a particular way of thinking. I do teach university students however, and I do ask them to question, to think and to form conclusions based on reasoned argument. The most important question they (or indeed anyone) can ask, is 'why?'. So with that caveat out of the way, here is just one semi-scientific viewpoint of the Covid situation! This may be a long post, apologies in advance.

Origins
Covid-19 is a coronavirus. This is a type of virus typically found in some animal species, notably bats, and several variants can cross the species barrier and infect humans. SARS and MERS are two recent examples. Viruses require a living cell as a host. There are many types of virus and they have different mechanisms for replicating - some lay dormant for years, others will use the host cellular machinery to replicate. Some will have no effect on an individual while some will cause significant effects in the host individual. A significant proportion of cancer is actually viral in origin, either directly, or by side effects such as integrating into your genome and turning on genes that should be dormant, or turning off genes that should be expressed. In short, viruses show huge variety and are pretty much ubiquitous. They also mutate rapidly compared to other organisms, generating new strains all the time. These mutations can determine how infectious a virus is to a particular species, and the effects the strain will have on its host organism. Mutations can make a viral strain more infectious or less infectious. The more infectious a virus the faster it spreads (generally). With Covid, the evidence to date suggests that it originated in bats and crossed the species barrier to man. This may have happened via live animal markets in China, but nobody can be certain. It is certainly the case that as we disturb natural habitats and come into closer contact with wildlife that previously we would have avoided (or would have avoided us) we will be exposed to biological agents for the first time. this is not a new phenomenon - think of the Spanish and the Inca's in South America for just one example.

Is there any evidence the virus is man / lab made?
This has been a popular theory in some quarters, not helped by political statements that encourage this thinking. From a scientific viewpoint, it is relatively easy to manipulate the genome of a virus. It is a standard technique both for research, in trying to understand how a virus works, in medicine, for trying to isolate, culture or immunise against a virus, and as a molecular tool. Any university laboratory in the world will have performed procedures relating to this technology, as will any molecular biology R&D lab. What we cannot do however, is make a virus from scratch. So it is certain that nobody 'built' Covid from the ground up as an artificial life form. It is possible to take an existing virus and alter it however, by adding or removing genes or chunks of DNA from the viral genome. This is not a subtle process however, and is extremely easy to spot for a variety of technical reasons. The Covid genome has been sequenced, and that sequence is freely available to the scientific community (and anyone else who wants it). There is no evidence that the genome has been artificially manipulated. The Covid genome has also been compared to other Coronavirus genomes and shows significant similarity as well as expected mutation rates. Without getting too complicated, we can make estimates of mutation rates and the time taken to get from one strain to another, and the Covid genome fits these estimates. So several lines of evidence suggest this is not man-made. Some may choose not to believe these, I would simply suggest that the evidence underpinning a hypothesis is as important as the hypothesis itself, possibly more so.

Sampling and infection rates
So we know the virus exists, and scientific evidence suggests it is a naturally occurring strain. It definitely affects humans, and to a certain extent it does not matter where it has come from, but how it is affecting us. There is plenty of ongoing research into the origins of the virus and mutation rates still, but this is for scientific interest. The study of how it is affecting us all is now as much an epidemiological one, as a molecular one. The key thing to remember when considering population level data is that individuals within a population are all different, and that drawing general conclusions based on sparse data is incredibly complex with wide margins for error. There will always be outliers, there will always be exceptions to the general rule, and populations are not static, so different parts of a (very large) population can show widely different outcomes. This is amplified by sampling strategies - in a sufficiently large population, you need to test a significant proportion of individuals to draw meaningful conclusions and minimise your margin for error. This becomes impossible for extremely large populations, because you cannot test enough of the population to draw meaningful conclusions.

A measure of the spread of infection within a population is given by the 'R' number. This is effectively the number of individuals an infected individual passes the infection onto while they are infectious. A number greater than 1 means the prevalence of a virus in the population is increasing, a number below 1 means it is decreasing. The rise is exponential. 'R' is measured by sampling - effectively you take a random number of individuals from a population, test them for the virus, then repeat this process and work out whether the number of positive individuals has increased or decreased. As it can easily be seen, unless you test a huge proportion of the population, you are not going to get an accurate result. The statistical way to deal with this is to put something called confidence intervals around a number - typically at 95%. This means you define a number, but also a window around that number such that you are 95% certain your estimate is within that window. The bigger the sample you test, the tighter the window is. The issue is that a confidence interval can be difficult to grasp; a confidence interval that spans 1.0 is not helpful (it suggests you are 95% certain the infection rate is either increasing or decreasing!) and variability in the population means a single R number is not representative of all parts of a population anyway. So even in a good scenario, you are using fuzzy data to produce wide estimates, and basing a one size fits all policy on this. Scientifically R numbers are calculated correctly, but they are imperfect (although the best we have) for deciding blanket policy. Some people recognise this and live with the uncertainly, others decry the use of R numbers and ignore them. The approach recently has been to test more, and to base R numbers on local/regional data. To add insult to injury, R numbers work best when infected individuals form a higher proportion of a population, so as infection rates tail off, estimates become even worse. That does not mean testing is useless, but it is just one line of enquiry that informs policy.

Death rates
Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, over deaths due to Covid. Again, we are hampered empirically by poor sampling sizes, lack of accurate testing at time of death, and lack of reliable methodologies for calculating deaths. Should it be at time of death? Should it be the main cause of death? Should it be within 28 days of a positive test? Should we test all deaths post mortem? There is no consensus, and therefore estimates vary even within the UK, let alone between countries. Comparisons are somewhat meaningless, and variation in death rates from year to year anyway make longitudinal comparisons difficult, and accurate ones impossible. Use of different methodologies to support or refute viewpoints is commonplace, and unfortunately very confusing for the general public. An agreed worldwide methodology would help, but again if testing regimens vary, results will vary even of the same calculation is used. It is not in doubt that Covid can cause respiratory distress and in some cases death. Whether individuals would have died anyway is unclear, which co-morbidities are relevant is unclear, and whether deaths are significantly increased or decreased at the population level, and by how much, is also, you guessed it, unclear. Come back in 5 or 10 years and examine the data for a best guess, but even that will be heavily caveated. For now, it is probably safe to simply say that any data on 'death rates' can be refuted or conflicting data presented for an alternate viewpoint. Some will argue the data supports lockdowns, others will argue the data supports that no measures are necessary at all. We can get some idea from other countries, particularly where quarantine or lockdown measures have not been followed (such as Brazil) and note increased deaths, we can look at data from the US and in particular New York and see increased death rates, and we can look at countries with poor living conditions such as India and note high infection rates and deaths. Others will look at Sweden and use that to support alternative arguments. There is no definitive data, so again, look at the strength of evidence underpinning a particular position and draw your own conclusions.

Science, politics and economics
This is a fun one for a scientist! Scientific evidence has largely been derided and devalued in recent decades (I would say that though, I am a scientist remember). Politics, and the need for soundbites in the age of social media and short attention spans has been the priority until recently. Science tends to be cautious, it attaches caveats to findings, rarely makes definitive statements and can be conflicting. Politicians often say they 'follow scientific advice and guidance' as it gives them credibility, but what a politician really follows is the need to be re-elected. They will use science if it meets their needs, but will equally ignore it if it doesn't - that is part and parcel of the job. Yet when we enter a situation such as the current pandemic, scientists are currently in favour again. There is a reason SAGE is in the news, and the Chief Scientific Officer or Healthcare lead flanks whichever politician is giving the days briefing - it adds credibility to the politician. Yet look carefully, and scientists that do not toe the political line will be quickly dropped in favour of those who do. Scientifically, the best way to resolve a pandemic is to isolate everyone to prevent transmission. Politically and economically this is suicide. Balancing these 3 view points - the science to minimise adverse effects, the economic to ensure the effect on the population is not overwhelming, and the politic so politicians can be seen to be doing a good job and be worth re-electing - is a delicate act and the cause of most of the disagreements we see even on threads such as this one, as people cherry pick scientific theory, economic data and political opinion that suit their narrative or viewpoint and then propose this as an argument for or against a position. Some positions are more credible than others (look at the evidence in support of a position to judge this) others are equally credible but in opposition with each other. There is no right answer. No scientist wants to be wrong, no politician wants to be unelectable and nobody wants to tank the economy, but each will have a different perspective on the right way to deal with the reality of 'now'. Hindsight is 20:20 and the past can be studied at leisure.

Random final thoughts
What some see as prudent steps to limit the spread of infection or the consequences of a pandemic situation, others view as an infringement of their civil liberties. I am by no means an expert in this type of sociological argument and try to avoid them as there is no 'right' answer. There are valid points on both sides, and extreme points on both sides that can probably be safely ignored. Some people will accept a small infringement on their day to day activities, others will view any infringement as something worth standing against. The most powerful example is probably the US right to bear arms - some view this as a necessary part of the constitution at the time it was written when the landscape was very different to today, others view it as the right to own a military assault rifle for 'self defence'. Neither side will change the others viewpoint. The more extreme on both sides tend to attract the headlines.

I have steered clear of vaccines and clinical trials, these are complicated and difficult to interpret without significant data. There are also ethical issues I am not in any way an expert in. What we do know is that individual variability means trials must be of significant size to produce statistically meaningful data, and one size will not fit all. This is the case for all medicines and diseases. We currently are uncertain on the longevity of an immune reaction, whether that reaction differs between individuals and if so why. There are multiple factors that influence a bodies response to infection and vaccination. Will a vaccine be produced? Scientifically yes. Will it be 100% effective so we can eradicate Covid like we have smallpox? Probably not, at least not quickly. There are many ways to produce a vaccine, many responses to the same product and much variability and uncertainty about side effects and longevity. There is no quick solution.

Well that was a long post, and there is so much more we could have touched on. There is plenty to learn about Covid, but you have to dig and explore, as well as be willing to listen, judge and evaluate. Always look for the evidence underpinning a position, draw your own conclusions on the strength of this, and above all never be afraid to question.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Thanks StevieB. If Carlsberg did posts on Covid-19 ...


----------



## FatmanG

billw said:


> I do suspect that a lot of the more recent cases are younger people who are at less risk of dying, so we may not see quite as sharp a rise in deaths as expected - nonetheless the government do point out that either way there's an increased risk of passing the virus on to those who are more vulnerable - especially now with such a large proportion of younger people still living with parents.


Ah its the let's save granny argument. Flawed in numerous ways not less by schools who remain open with the same class sizes as pre pandemic and social distancing not applicable as each class is a bubble. So when the kids visit granny they are putting her at risk as most young are asymptomatic or it's too late once symptoms arise as your already infectious and have been for a week at least. If the main reason of lockdown is for granny then all the services of healthcare wouldn't have been stopped dead and other terrible killers like cancer wouldn't be left to run wild. Finally were told in the bible to expect 3 score years and 10 as life's existence its plenty of time to have lived enjoyed record opportunities to shape the world enjoyed foreign travel and historic freedoms. Freedoms that are now ripped away from grannies children and grandchildren and if she has 4 grandchildren to one of her children she isnt allowed to the house to see them. Its insane! Death is part of life I'm afraid old people die especially from respiratory problem issues. Usually they stop breathing! Flu season is around the corner and the media and govt will ramp up the repetitive narrative again and further erosion of our freedom will occur. Scenes like we have seen in Australia will start happening here. SARS cov 2 is real its dangerous to the elderly just like the flu. We have never quarantined the healthy, decimated a world economy, closed schools for the flu. Covid 19 is a brand there is no peer review paper anywhere that shows covid 19 as a Novel corona virus. Its been branded to cause sheer terror to take away our way of life to take control over us and to vaccinate us all.
God bless granny


----------



## Rorschach

The average age of those who have died _WITH (not OF)_ C19 is 83, let that sink in for a moment. In Scotland that is OVER the average life expectancy by a couple of years.


----------



## FatmanG

StevieB said:


> Yes, although as positions become entrenched people may choose not to listen! It is also worth recapping on occasion however, as people tend to forget where we have come from and how things have developed along the way. Disclaimer - I am a scientist, and have a scientific view point. I like evidence to back up a hypothesis/statement. I do not seek to covert anyone to a particular way of thinking. I do teach university students however, and I do ask them to question, to think and to form conclusions based on reasoned argument. The most important question they (or indeed anyone) can ask, is 'why?'. So with that caveat out of the way, here is just one semi-scientific viewpoint of the Covid situation! This may be a long post, apologies in advance.
> 
> Origins
> Covid-19 is a coronavirus. This is a type of virus typically found in some animal species, notably bats, and several variants can cross the species barrier and infect humans. SARS and MERS are two recent examples. Viruses require a living cell as a host. There are many types of virus and they have different mechanisms for replicating - some lay dormant for years, others will use the host cellular machinery to replicate. Some will have no effect on an individual while some will cause significant effects in the host individual. A significant proportion of cancer is actually viral in origin, either directly, or by side effects such as integrating into your genome and turning on genes that should be dormant, or turning off genes that should be expressed. In short, viruses show huge variety and are pretty much ubiquitous. They also mutate rapidly compared to other organisms, generating new strains all the time. These mutations can determine how infectious a virus is to a particular species, and the effects the strain will have on its host organism. Mutations can make a viral strain more infectious or less infectious. The more infectious a virus the faster it spreads (generally). With Covid, the evidence to date suggests that it originated in bats and crossed the species barrier to man. This may have happened via live animal markets in China, but nobody can be certain. It is certainly the case that as we disturb natural habitats and come into closer contact with wildlife that previously we would have avoided (or would have avoided us) we will be exposed to biological agents for the first time. this is not a new phenomenon - think of the Spanish and the Inca's in South America for just one example.
> 
> Is there any evidence the virus is man / lab made?
> This has been a popular theory in some quarters, not helped by political statements that encourage this thinking. From a scientific viewpoint, it is relatively easy to manipulate the genome of a virus. It is a standard technique both for research, in trying to understand how a virus works, in medicine, for trying to isolate, culture or immunise against a virus, and as a molecular tool. Any university laboratory in the world will have performed procedures relating to this technology, as will any molecular biology R&D lab. What we cannot do however, is make a virus from scratch. So it is certain that nobody 'built' Covid from the ground up as an artificial life form. It is possible to take an existing virus and alter it however, by adding or removing genes or chunks of DNA from the viral genome. This is not a subtle process however, and is extremely easy to spot for a variety of technical reasons. The Covid genome has been sequenced, and that sequence is freely available to the scientific community (and anyone else who wants it). There is no evidence that the genome has been artificially manipulated. The Covid genome has also been compared to other Coronavirus genomes and shows significant similarity as well as expected mutation rates. Without getting too complicated, we can make estimates of mutation rates and the time taken to get from one strain to another, and the Covid genome fits these estimates. So several lines of evidence suggest this is not man-made. Some may choose not to believe these, I would simply suggest that the evidence underpinning a hypothesis is as important as the hypothesis itself, possibly more so.
> 
> Sampling and infection rates
> So we know the virus exists, and scientific evidence suggests it is a naturally occurring strain. It definitely affects humans, and to a certain extent it does not matter where it has come from, but how it is affecting us. There is plenty of ongoing research into the origins of the virus and mutation rates still, but this is for scientific interest. The study of how it is affecting us all is now as much an epidemiological one, as a molecular one. The key thing to remember when considering population level data is that individuals within a population are all different, and that drawing general conclusions based on sparse data is incredibly complex with wide margins for error. There will always be outliers, there will always be exceptions to the general rule, and populations are not static, so different parts of a (very large) population can show widely different outcomes. This is amplified by sampling strategies - in a sufficiently large population, you need to test a significant proportion of individuals to draw meaningful conclusions and minimise your margin for error. This becomes impossible for extremely large populations, because you cannot test enough of the population to draw meaningful conclusions.
> 
> A measure of the spread of infection within a population is given by the 'R' number. This is effectively the number of individuals an infected individual passes the infection onto while they are infectious. A number greater than 1 means the prevalence of a virus in the population is increasing, a number below 1 means it is decreasing. The rise is exponential. 'R' is measured by sampling - effectively you take a random number of individuals from a population, test them for the virus, then repeat this process and work out whether the number of positive individuals has increased or decreased. As it can easily be seen, unless you test a huge proportion of the population, you are not going to get an accurate result. The statistical way to deal with this is to put something called confidence intervals around a number - typically at 95%. This means you define a number, but also a window around that number such that you are 95% certain your estimate is within that window. The bigger the sample you test, the tighter the window is. The issue is that a confidence interval can be difficult to grasp; a confidence interval that spans 1.0 is not helpful (it suggests you are 95% certain the infection rate is either increasing or decreasing!) and variability in the population means a single R number is not representative of all parts of a population anyway. So even in a good scenario, you are using fuzzy data to produce wide estimates, and basing a one size fits all policy on this. Scientifically R numbers are calculated correctly, but they are imperfect (although the best we have) for deciding blanket policy. Some people recognise this and live with the uncertainly, others decry the use of R numbers and ignore them. The approach recently has been to test more, and to base R numbers on local/regional data. To add insult to injury, R numbers work best when infected individuals form a higher proportion of a population, so as infection rates tail off, estimates become even worse. That does not mean testing is useless, but it is just one line of enquiry that informs policy.
> 
> Death rates
> Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, over deaths due to Covid. Again, we are hampered empirically by poor sampling sizes, lack of accurate testing at time of death, and lack of reliable methodologies for calculating deaths. Should it be at time of death? Should it be the main cause of death? Should it be within 28 days of a positive test? Should we test all deaths post mortem? There is no consensus, and therefore estimates vary even within the UK, let alone between countries. Comparisons are somewhat meaningless, and variation in death rates from year to year anyway make longitudinal comparisons difficult, and accurate ones impossible. Use of different methodologies to support or refute viewpoints is commonplace, and unfortunately very confusing for the general public. An agreed worldwide methodology would help, but again if testing regimens vary, results will vary even of the same calculation is used. It is not in doubt that Covid can cause respiratory distress and in some cases death. Whether individuals would have died anyway is unclear, which co-morbidities are relevant is unclear, and whether deaths are significantly increased or decreased at the population level, and by how much, is also, you guessed it, unclear. Come back in 5 or 10 years and examine the data for a best guess, but even that will be heavily caveated. For now, it is probably safe to simply say that any data on 'death rates' can be refuted or conflicting data presented for an alternate viewpoint. Some will argue the data supports lockdowns, others will argue the data supports that no measures are necessary at all. We can get some idea from other countries, particularly where quarantine or lockdown measures have not been followed (such as Brazil) and note increased deaths, we can look at data from the US and in particular New York and see increased death rates, and we can look at countries with poor living conditions such as India and note high infection rates and deaths. Others will look at Sweden and use that to support alternative arguments. There is no definitive data, so again, look at the strength of evidence underpinning a particular position and draw your own conclusions.
> 
> Science, politics and economics
> This is a fun one for a scientist! Scientific evidence has largely been derided and devalued in recent decades (I would say that though, I am a scientist remember). Politics, and the need for soundbites in the age of social media and short attention spans has been the priority until recently. Science tends to be cautious, it attaches caveats to findings, rarely makes definitive statements and can be conflicting. Politicians often say they 'follow scientific advice and guidance' as it gives them credibility, but what a politician really follows is the need to be re-elected. They will use science if it meets their needs, but will equally ignore it if it doesn't - that is part and parcel of the job. Yet when we enter a situation such as the current pandemic, scientists are currently in favour again. There is a reason SAGE is in the news, and the Chief Scientific Officer or Healthcare lead flanks whichever politician is giving the days briefing - it adds credibility to the politician. Yet look carefully, and scientists that do not toe the political line will be quickly dropped in favour of those who do. Scientifically, the best way to resolve a pandemic is to isolate everyone to prevent transmission. Politically and economically this is suicide. Balancing these 3 view points - the science to minimise adverse effects, the economic to ensure the effect on the population is not overwhelming, and the politic so politicians can be seen to be doing a good job and be worth re-electing - is a delicate act and the cause of most of the disagreements we see even on threads such as this one, as people cherry pick scientific theory, economic data and political opinion that suit their narrative or viewpoint and then propose this as an argument for or against a position. Some positions are more credible than others (look at the evidence in support of a position to judge this) others are equally credible but in opposition with each other. There is no right answer. No scientist wants to be wrong, no politician wants to be unelectable and nobody wants to tank the economy, but each will have a different perspective on the right way to deal with the reality of 'now'. Hindsight is 20:20 and the past can be studied at leisure.
> 
> Random final thoughts
> What some see as prudent steps to limit the spread of infection or the consequences of a pandemic situation, others view as an infringement of their civil liberties. I am by no means an expert in this type of sociological argument and try to avoid them as there is no 'right' answer. There are valid points on both sides, and extreme points on both sides that can probably be safely ignored. Some people will accept a small infringement on their day to day activities, others will view any infringement as something worth standing against. The most powerful example is probably the US right to bear arms - some view this as a necessary part of the constitution at the time it was written when the landscape was very different to today, others view it as the right to own a military assault rifle for 'self defence'. Neither side will change the others viewpoint. The more extreme on both sides tend to attract the headlines.
> 
> I have steered clear of vaccines and clinical trials, these are complicated and difficult to interpret without significant data. There are also ethical issues I am not in any way an expert in. What we do know is that individual variability means trials must be of significant size to produce statistically meaningful data, and one size will not fit all. This is the case for all medicines and diseases. We currently are uncertain on the longevity of an immune reaction, whether that reaction differs between individuals and if so why. There are multiple factors that influence a bodies response to infection and vaccination. Will a vaccine be produced? Scientifically yes. Will it be 100% effective so we can eradicate Covid like we have smallpox? Probably not, at least not quickly. There are many ways to produce a vaccine, many responses to the same product and much variability and uncertainty about side effects and longevity. There is no quick solution.
> 
> Well that was a long post, and there is so much more we could have touched on. There is plenty to learn about Covid, but you have to dig and explore, as well as be willing to listen, judge and evaluate. Always look for the evidence underpinning a position, draw your own conclusions on the strength of this, and above all never be afraid to question.


As a scientist is it right that private and corporate money has too much influence on the research? As a well trained and educated man are you happy that bill gates and his yes man tedroos are leading the WHO and the response to the pandemic? Neither have any training whatsoever to do with health. Is it fair to say from your post that there is a vast amount of this virus that is acting in the same way that SARS and mers did? Do you believe that a working,safe vaccine can be produced in less than 12 months? You point out its not your bag but you will have an opinion would you take if one is produced?
Great post by the way


----------



## FatmanG

Rorschach said:


> The average age of those who have died _WITH (not OF)_ C19 is 83, let that sink in for a moment. In Scotland that is OVER the average life expectancy by a couple of years.


I thought Glasgow was around 64 the worst life expectancy in uk. 
Have you checked out Dr David e martin and his forensic following of patents and the money trail. Finally someone with proof of criminality.


----------



## AJB Temple

I had a look at David Martin. He's certainly not modest. About - David Martin | The Wobble Effect

This type of effusive self aggrandisement and wild claims of "saving the lives of billions" fits into a certain mould of American self publicist flogging self help and lifestyle tomes. He may have some sensible things to say, but is hard to get past the constant boasts.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Hallelujah, amen....


StevieB said:


> Yes, although as positions become entrenched people may choose not to listen! It is also worth recapping on occasion however, as people tend to forget where we have come from and how things have developed along the way. Disclaimer - I am a scientist, and have a scientific view point. I like evidence to back up a hypothesis/statement. I do not seek to covert anyone to a particular way of thinking. I do teach university students however, and I do ask them to question, to think and to form conclusions based on reasoned argument. The most important question they (or indeed anyone) can ask, is 'why?'. So with that caveat out of the way, here is just one semi-scientific viewpoint of the Covid situation! This may be a long post, apologies in advance.
> 
> Origins
> Covid-19 is a coronavirus. This is a type of virus typically found in some animal species, notably bats, and several variants can cross the species barrier and infect humans. SARS and MERS are two recent examples. Viruses require a living cell as a host. There are many types of virus and they have different mechanisms for replicating - some lay dormant for years, others will use the host cellular machinery to replicate. Some will have no effect on an individual while some will cause significant effects in the host individual. A significant proportion of cancer is actually viral in origin, either directly, or by side effects such as integrating into your genome and turning on genes that should be dormant, or turning off genes that should be expressed. In short, viruses show huge variety and are pretty much ubiquitous. They also mutate rapidly compared to other organisms, generating new strains all the time. These mutations can determine how infectious a virus is to a particular species, and the effects the strain will have on its host organism. Mutations can make a viral strain more infectious or less infectious. The more infectious a virus the faster it spreads (generally). With Covid, the evidence to date suggests that it originated in bats and crossed the species barrier to man. This may have happened via live animal markets in China, but nobody can be certain. It is certainly the case that as we disturb natural habitats and come into closer contact with wildlife that previously we would have avoided (or would have avoided us) we will be exposed to biological agents for the first time. this is not a new phenomenon - think of the Spanish and the Inca's in South America for just one example.
> 
> Is there any evidence the virus is man / lab made?
> This has been a popular theory in some quarters, not helped by political statements that encourage this thinking. From a scientific viewpoint, it is relatively easy to manipulate the genome of a virus. It is a standard technique both for research, in trying to understand how a virus works, in medicine, for trying to isolate, culture or immunise against a virus, and as a molecular tool. Any university laboratory in the world will have performed procedures relating to this technology, as will any molecular biology R&D lab. What we cannot do however, is make a virus from scratch. So it is certain that nobody 'built' Covid from the ground up as an artificial life form. It is possible to take an existing virus and alter it however, by adding or removing genes or chunks of DNA from the viral genome. This is not a subtle process however, and is extremely easy to spot for a variety of technical reasons. The Covid genome has been sequenced, and that sequence is freely available to the scientific community (and anyone else who wants it). There is no evidence that the genome has been artificially manipulated. The Covid genome has also been compared to other Coronavirus genomes and shows significant similarity as well as expected mutation rates. Without getting too complicated, we can make estimates of mutation rates and the time taken to get from one strain to another, and the Covid genome fits these estimates. So several lines of evidence suggest this is not man-made. Some may choose not to believe these, I would simply suggest that the evidence underpinning a hypothesis is as important as the hypothesis itself, possibly more so.
> 
> Sampling and infection rates
> So we know the virus exists, and scientific evidence suggests it is a naturally occurring strain. It definitely affects humans, and to a certain extent it does not matter where it has come from, but how it is affecting us. There is plenty of ongoing research into the origins of the virus and mutation rates still, but this is for scientific interest. The study of how it is affecting us all is now as much an epidemiological one, as a molecular one. The key thing to remember when considering population level data is that individuals within a population are all different, and that drawing general conclusions based on sparse data is incredibly complex with wide margins for error. There will always be outliers, there will always be exceptions to the general rule, and populations are not static, so different parts of a (very large) population can show widely different outcomes. This is amplified by sampling strategies - in a sufficiently large population, you need to test a significant proportion of individuals to draw meaningful conclusions and minimise your margin for error. This becomes impossible for extremely large populations, because you cannot test enough of the population to draw meaningful conclusions.
> 
> A measure of the spread of infection within a population is given by the 'R' number. This is effectively the number of individuals an infected individual passes the infection onto while they are infectious. A number greater than 1 means the prevalence of a virus in the population is increasing, a number below 1 means it is decreasing. The rise is exponential. 'R' is measured by sampling - effectively you take a random number of individuals from a population, test them for the virus, then repeat this process and work out whether the number of positive individuals has increased or decreased. As it can easily be seen, unless you test a huge proportion of the population, you are not going to get an accurate result. The statistical way to deal with this is to put something called confidence intervals around a number - typically at 95%. This means you define a number, but also a window around that number such that you are 95% certain your estimate is within that window. The bigger the sample you test, the tighter the window is. The issue is that a confidence interval can be difficult to grasp; a confidence interval that spans 1.0 is not helpful (it suggests you are 95% certain the infection rate is either increasing or decreasing!) and variability in the population means a single R number is not representative of all parts of a population anyway. So even in a good scenario, you are using fuzzy data to produce wide estimates, and basing a one size fits all policy on this. Scientifically R numbers are calculated correctly, but they are imperfect (although the best we have) for deciding blanket policy. Some people recognise this and live with the uncertainly, others decry the use of R numbers and ignore them. The approach recently has been to test more, and to base R numbers on local/regional data. To add insult to injury, R numbers work best when infected individuals form a higher proportion of a population, so as infection rates tail off, estimates become even worse. That does not mean testing is useless, but it is just one line of enquiry that informs policy.
> 
> Death rates
> Much has been made, on both sides of the argument, over deaths due to Covid. Again, we are hampered empirically by poor sampling sizes, lack of accurate testing at time of death, and lack of reliable methodologies for calculating deaths. Should it be at time of death? Should it be the main cause of death? Should it be within 28 days of a positive test? Should we test all deaths post mortem? There is no consensus, and therefore estimates vary even within the UK, let alone between countries. Comparisons are somewhat meaningless, and variation in death rates from year to year anyway make longitudinal comparisons difficult, and accurate ones impossible. Use of different methodologies to support or refute viewpoints is commonplace, and unfortunately very confusing for the general public. An agreed worldwide methodology would help, but again if testing regimens vary, results will vary even of the same calculation is used. It is not in doubt that Covid can cause respiratory distress and in some cases death. Whether individuals would have died anyway is unclear, which co-morbidities are relevant is unclear, and whether deaths are significantly increased or decreased at the population level, and by how much, is also, you guessed it, unclear. Come back in 5 or 10 years and examine the data for a best guess, but even that will be heavily caveated. For now, it is probably safe to simply say that any data on 'death rates' can be refuted or conflicting data presented for an alternate viewpoint. Some will argue the data supports lockdowns, others will argue the data supports that no measures are necessary at all. We can get some idea from other countries, particularly where quarantine or lockdown measures have not been followed (such as Brazil) and note increased deaths, we can look at data from the US and in particular New York and see increased death rates, and we can look at countries with poor living conditions such as India and note high infection rates and deaths. Others will look at Sweden and use that to support alternative arguments. There is no definitive data, so again, look at the strength of evidence underpinning a particular position and draw your own conclusions.
> 
> Science, politics and economics
> This is a fun one for a scientist! Scientific evidence has largely been derided and devalued in recent decades (I would say that though, I am a scientist remember). Politics, and the need for soundbites in the age of social media and short attention spans has been the priority until recently. Science tends to be cautious, it attaches caveats to findings, rarely makes definitive statements and can be conflicting. Politicians often say they 'follow scientific advice and guidance' as it gives them credibility, but what a politician really follows is the need to be re-elected. They will use science if it meets their needs, but will equally ignore it if it doesn't - that is part and parcel of the job. Yet when we enter a situation such as the current pandemic, scientists are currently in favour again. There is a reason SAGE is in the news, and the Chief Scientific Officer or Healthcare lead flanks whichever politician is giving the days briefing - it adds credibility to the politician. Yet look carefully, and scientists that do not toe the political line will be quickly dropped in favour of those who do. Scientifically, the best way to resolve a pandemic is to isolate everyone to prevent transmission. Politically and economically this is suicide. Balancing these 3 view points - the science to minimise adverse effects, the economic to ensure the effect on the population is not overwhelming, and the politic so politicians can be seen to be doing a good job and be worth re-electing - is a delicate act and the cause of most of the disagreements we see even on threads such as this one, as people cherry pick scientific theory, economic data and political opinion that suit their narrative or viewpoint and then propose this as an argument for or against a position. Some positions are more credible than others (look at the evidence in support of a position to judge this) others are equally credible but in opposition with each other. There is no right answer. No scientist wants to be wrong, no politician wants to be unelectable and nobody wants to tank the economy, but each will have a different perspective on the right way to deal with the reality of 'now'. Hindsight is 20:20 and the past can be studied at leisure.
> 
> Random final thoughts
> What some see as prudent steps to limit the spread of infection or the consequences of a pandemic situation, others view as an infringement of their civil liberties. I am by no means an expert in this type of sociological argument and try to avoid them as there is no 'right' answer. There are valid points on both sides, and extreme points on both sides that can probably be safely ignored. Some people will accept a small infringement on their day to day activities, others will view any infringement as something worth standing against. The most powerful example is probably the US right to bear arms - some view this as a necessary part of the constitution at the time it was written when the landscape was very different to today, others view it as the right to own a military assault rifle for 'self defence'. Neither side will change the others viewpoint. The more extreme on both sides tend to attract the headlines.
> 
> I have steered clear of vaccines and clinical trials, these are complicated and difficult to interpret without significant data. There are also ethical issues I am not in any way an expert in. What we do know is that individual variability means trials must be of significant size to produce statistically meaningful data, and one size will not fit all. This is the case for all medicines and diseases. We currently are uncertain on the longevity of an immune reaction, whether that reaction differs between individuals and if so why. There are multiple factors that influence a bodies response to infection and vaccination. Will a vaccine be produced? Scientifically yes. Will it be 100% effective so we can eradicate Covid like we have smallpox? Probably not, at least not quickly. There are many ways to produce a vaccine, many responses to the same product and much variability and uncertainty about side effects and longevity. There is no quick solution.
> 
> Well that was a long post, and there is so much more we could have touched on. There is plenty to learn about Covid, but you have to dig and explore, as well as be willing to listen, judge and evaluate. Always look for the evidence underpinning a position, draw your own conclusions on the strength of this, and above all never be afraid to question.



Hallelujah, amen....


----------



## StevieB

FatmanG said:


> As a scientist is it right that private and corporate money has too much influence on the research? As a well trained and educated man are you happy that bill gates and his yes man tedroos are leading the WHO and the response to the pandemic? Neither have any training whatsoever to do with health. Is it fair to say from your post that there is a vast amount of this virus that is acting in the same way that SARS and mers did? Do you believe that a working,safe vaccine can be produced in less than 12 months? You point out its not your bag but you will have an opinion would you take if one is produced?
> Great post by the way



Can you define what you mean by private and corporate please? Research falls broadly into 2 camps - that of an academic nature to further knowledge, and that of a commercial nature to turn a profit. There is obviously overlap between these two things, with academic research leading to spin-outs and companies being formed, while commercial R&D will work with academia. Academic research is primarily funded by applying for grants. These may be to government funding schemes such as UKRI in the UK or NIH in the US, or to charities such as the Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation and a myriad others. Commerical R&D is usually funded by companies themselves. Each of the funding bodies will set their own priorities, judge applications independently and award based on their own set of criteria. A funder does not 'control' the research, rather as a bidder I make a case for a study or series of experiments, the funders decide whether to fund them and I then perform those experiments if funded. So private or corporate funders set a direction of travel (by choosing what they will fund) but this is a very loose direction. Funders do not dictate specific experiments explicitly.

A third but relatively minor category of funding is philanthropic. This is where the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation fits and where some of today's big charities originated (Henry Wellcome was a pharmacist, for example). These are private individuals who have vast wealth, that have chosen to invest in a particular cause. In Bill Gates case this has been largely through under represented diseases or populations, to improve the healthcare of the third world, but also other areas of interest. I have read that he funds the WHO to further this aim. It is not one individual sitting and deciding how to distribute their own wealth, but I suspect he will take an active interest in where his money goes and sets the direction of travel for his Foundation. With the amount of money available for this, those decisions can presumably dictate policy in some instances, or bring others to a cause through matched funding or shared costs (if I put $10 million into this alongside the government of the day, that brings shared benefits). I don't subscribe to the view that this is part of a plan for world domination, or to direct research to a defined goal of his choosing. Others may disagree and see it as wrong that an individual of vast wealth contributes so much to a body such as the WHO.

SARS and MERS are coronaviruses, so from the same family yes. Not sure anyone is denying this are they?

I am not a vaccine expert, but 12 months is very quick for a vaccine to make it to market. This is not because the technology is difficult, but because we are very cautious about how we regulate and market potential therapies. Trials take a long time because you want to follow participants for a long time and ensure there are no side effects that manifest later on, and to ensure any therapy is long lasting. You test, test test and test again, in labs, in animal trials and then in humans. The more of that you skip or rush, the less certain you can be about the efficacy of your vaccine. Even then we can get it wrong, or it only works for a subset of the population. Can we make a vaccine in 12 months - sure, if you are defining a vaccine as something that produces an immune reaction in a test subject. Whether we can say definitively it offers 100% protection for ever is much less certain. I do believe anything that makes it to market will have gone through rigorous testing and be safe, trials are stopped quite early if that is not the case and never make it to market. Would I take a vaccine - yes. Would I make it compulsory - no, that way lies real issues around civil liberties and individual human rights.


----------



## FatmanG

AJB Temple said:


> I had a look at David Martin. He's certainly not modest. About - David Martin | The Wobble Effect
> 
> This type of effusive self aggrandisement and wild claims of "saving the lives of billions" fits into a certain mould of American self publicist flogging self help and lifestyle tomes. He may have some sensible things to say, but is hard to get past the constant boasts.


If you separate the the USA style/ego away from the substance of what he is saying and focus on that its easier to digest. Watch freedomplatform.tv/davidemartin the interview is purely about provable content that anyone can fact check. Its not about suspicions or theories. Its quite an extraordinary watch. If anyone is genuinely open minded and reasonably concerned about criminality in corporations that is possibly directing the worlds response to this pandemic then they have to watch the interview and fact check the documents provided. An event of such life changing is too big to be a lie.


----------



## AJB Temple

OK, I have in fact watched some of it already before you posted. Freedom Platform lacks credibility - for example it promoted get rich quick schemes "make $1m in one deal" and is an established platform for David Icke, who has been shown many times to be deluded. 

Anyway, I skipped through some guff and listened to Mr Martin. His style is to make a large number of assertions, presented as facts. He then repeats them to reinforce the assertions. My judgement, purely as an open minded viewer, is that this man is not credible.


----------



## billw

FatmanG said:


> If anyone is genuinely open minded and reasonably concerned about criminality in corporations that is possibly directing the worlds response to this pandemic then they have to watch the interview and fact check the documents provided.



The fact that the world's biggest economy has a political system that is essentially open (and put on record) to monetary incentives being made to politicians in order to support the requirements of industry over the safety of its citizens suggests that there's no conspiracy theory or criminality at play - it's just a fact.

Reading StevieB's post - he states facts, he admits when he doesn't know something, he doesn't make wild claims or try and link facts to make a dramatic story. I am happy with the scientific community's position that CoVid is naturally occurring and my mum believes China released it as a bioweapon - I read facts, she reads the Daily Mail.


----------



## FatmanG

StevieB said:


> Can you define what you mean by private and corporate please? Research falls broadly into 2 camps - that of an academic nature to further knowledge, and that of a commercial nature to turn a profit. There is obviously overlap between these two things, with academic research leading to spin-outs and companies being formed, while commercial R&D will work with academia. Academic research is primarily funded by applying for grants. These may be to government funding schemes such as UKRI in the UK or NIH in the US, or to charities such as the Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation and a myriad others. Commerical R&D is usually funded by companies themselves. Each of the funding bodies will set their own priorities, judge applications independently and award based on their own set of criteria. A funder does not 'control' the research, rather as a bidder I make a case for a study or series of experiments, the funders decide whether to fund them and I then perform those experiments if funded. So private or corporate funders set a direction of travel (by choosing what they will fund) but this is a very loose direction. Funders do not dictate specific experiments explicitly.
> 
> A third but relatively minor category of funding is philanthropic. This is where the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation fits and where some of today's big charities originated (Henry Wellcome was a pharmacist, for example). These are private individuals who have vast wealth, that have chosen to invest in a particular cause. In Bill Gates case this has been largely through under represented diseases or populations, to improve the healthcare of the third world, but also other areas of interest. I have read that he funds the WHO to further this aim. It is not one individual sitting and deciding how to distribute their own wealth, but I suspect he will take an active interest in where his money goes and sets the direction of travel for his Foundation. With the amount of money available for this, those decisions can presumably dictate policy in some instances, or bring others to a cause through matched funding or shared costs (if I put $10 million into this alongside the government of the day, that brings shared benefits). I don't subscribe to the view that this is part of a plan for world domination, or to direct research to a defined goal of his choosing. Others may disagree and see it as wrong that an individual of vast wealth contributes so much to a body such as the WHO.
> 
> SARS and MERS are coronaviruses, so from the same family yes. Not sure anyone is denying this are they?
> 
> I am not a vaccine expert, but 12 months is very quick for a vaccine to make it to market. This is not because the technology is difficult, but because we are very cautious about how we regulate and market potential therapies. Trials take a long time because you want to follow participants for a long time and ensure there are no side effects that manifest later on, and to ensure any therapy is long lasting. You test, test test and test again, in labs, in animal trials and then in humans. The more of that you skip or rush, the less certain you can be about the efficacy of your vaccine. Even then we can get it wrong, or it only works for a subset of the population. Can we make a vaccine in 12 months - sure, if you are defining a vaccine as something that produces an immune reaction in a test subject. Whether we can say definitively it offers 100% protection for ever is much less certain. I do believe anything that makes it to market will have gone through rigorous testing and be safe, trials are stopped quite early if that is not the case and never make it to market. Would I take a vaccine - yes. Would I make it compulsory - no, that way lies real issues around civil liberties and individual human rights.


Vaccines is too big a subject to get into here but you mention rigorous testing which is how its supposed to be done, placebo trials etc unfortunately that is not the way modern ones are tested and in the USA manufacturers are protected in law against legal action instead the govt has a vaccine injury fund that has paid out 3.2billion dollars for vaccine injury.
l gates is all over the media pushing his vaccinate the world is the only way out of this pandemic. This is now the narrative of government's the WHO and mainstream media. Gates set up Gavi his money anyhow they as you say went into poor countries like India and were subsequently thrown out for injuries to numerous children mainly girls who have terrible polio like injuries and ruined their lives. In Africa gavi vaccination program was responsible for deaths,brain injuries and polio like injuries however they blame it on the front line workers who administered it incorrectly.
In research there are clear conflicts of interests with gain of function. No one in charge of public health policies should be able to own or shareholders in profit making corporations who make vaccines or corona virus test producers for example its a clear conflict of interest. Unfortunately its happening in most developed nations eg faucci, is going to become very rich from testing and the vaccine whoever makes it. My guess would be Maderna in the Usa but any is OK he's well in whoever it is and so is gates. So science and politics are intertwined. The agenda isn't world domination just make huge amounts of money through vaccines.


----------



## FatmanG

billw said:


> The fact that the world's biggest economy has a political system that is essentially open (and put on record) to monetary incentives being made to politicians in order to support the requirements of industry over the safety of its citizens suggests that there's no conspiracy theory or criminality at play - it's just a fact.
> 
> Reading StevieB's post - he states facts, he admits when he doesn't know something, he doesn't make wild claims or try and link facts to make a dramatic story. I am happy with the scientific community's position that CoVid is naturally occurring and my mum believes China released it as a bioweapon - I read facts, she reads the Daily Mail.


and its your right to believe what you like I made my beliefs known as my right nobody has the right to force feed a narrative on anyone and those that mock take the mick are really just pineapples


----------



## AJB Temple

FatMan G, you are also making statements as if they are facts: for example the assertion that the Gates foundation was kicked out of India. This is untrue - it was just viral nonsense that populates part of the internet. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wasn’t kicked out of India

Follow the links and check the Indian Government statement on the issue. Your argument is not helped by repetition of falsehoods.


----------



## billw

FatmanG said:


> The agenda isn't world domination just make huge amounts of money through vaccines.



I'm pretty sure that most pharma profits actually come from the USA where the healthcare system is ripe for being commandeered for profiteering. I have friends over there, as I am sure many folk on here do, and they get stung for virtually anything medical whereas we can buy a pack of aspirin in Tesco for 20p and prescription drugs are capped at 9 quid.

Many big pharmas sell drugs at vastly reduced prices to developing and emerging economies - because otherwise sales would be 0. It's just commercial sense to them. Developed nations effectively subsidise the poorer ones, and quite honestly I am happy with that concept. Additionally, yes pharma makes big profits, but they also spend billions on R&D which can often lead nowhere and take years and years of investment. There's a simple risk/reward ratio in play. Do people manipulate things for personal gain? Look no further than "everyone's favourite President" who's been pushing whacky theories because his "mates" have their fingers in the pie.


----------



## Blackswanwood

FatmanG said:


> Gates set up Gavi his money anyhow they as you say went into poor countries like India and were subsequently thrown out for injuries to numerous children mainly girls who have terrible polio like injuries and ruined their lives. In Africa gavi vaccination program was responsible for deaths,brain injuries and polio like injuries however they blame it on the front line workers who administered it incorrectly.



I must have a dodgy version of Google as a search for "Bill Gates India" quickly gives a list of fact checking sites showing this to be false.


----------



## FatmanG

AJB Temple said:


> FatMan G, you are also making statements as if they are facts: for example the assertion that the Gates foundation was kicked out of India. This is untrue - it was just viral nonsense that populates part of the internet. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wasn’t kicked out of India
> 
> Follow the links and check the Indian Government statement on the issue. Your argument is not helped by repetition of falsehoods.


No I said gavi was kicked out of India who was set up by gates money its his project


----------



## billw

FatmanG said:


> and its your right to believe what you like I made my beliefs known as my right nobody has the right to force feed a narrative on anyone and those that mock take the mick are really just pineapples



OK I'm not mocking or taking the mick, and correct - you are totally free to believe whatever you want. Last term I did some work around political conspiracies and mapped out how they were perpetuated. The result was that people's belief was really driven by nothing but amplification. One person writes something, someone else repeats it, someone more important says they heard it, people think it must be true if they're saying it, etc etc. Digging into each amplification shows there was absolutely no attempt to verify it and the original author's work was so heavily discredited that it was essentially worthless.

Do people believe it? Yes. Have those people taken the time to go back and verify it? No. They just rely on "but they said it so it must be true". @AJB Temple has made the same point above, you're saying things _as if_ they're facts.


----------



## billw

Blackswanwood said:


> I must have a dodgy version of Google as a search for "Bill Gates India" quickly gives a list of fact checking sites showing this to be false.



Google's part of the conspiracy - they're hiding the truth!


----------



## Blackswanwood

FatmanG said:


> No I said gavi was kicked out of India who was set up by gates money its his project


That's not correct - as recently as 7th August it was announced Gavi are collaborating with the Serum Insititue of India.


----------



## rwillett

Droogs said:


> Are the people complaining that you can't be in groups of 6 or more aware that in English law as it stands any public grouping or assembly of more than 6 people unless given prior sanction is technically classed as a riot. Old law never repealed, though the police do have to actually read you the riot act before they can technically do anything about it. Weird.



Sorry, that's wrong and is now an urban myth. The Riot Act was repealed in 1967 by the Criminal Law Act and it was for 12 or more people who were unlawfully assembled. The definition of unlawful assembly was quite wide until 1986 when that offence was abolished in 1986. It does not exist in English law.

Rob


----------



## AJB Temple

FatmanG said:


> and its your right to believe what you like I made my beliefs known as my right nobody has the right to force feed a narrative on anyone and those that mock take the mick are really just pineapples


I have not seen anyone taking the mick out of you. People have fact checked some of your assertions (that you state as if they are facts) though, and found them to be inaccurate. 

There is, or can be, a difference between "beliefs" and verifiable facts. You clearly believe, as you have stated it twice, that Gavi was kicked out of India. This is demonstrably wrong, and clinging to belief in it anyway unfortunately just undermines your position.


----------



## FatmanG

Blackswanwood said:


> I must have a dodgy version of Google as a search for "Bill Gates India" quickly gives a list of fact checking sites showing this to be false.


Google try an independent search engine


Blackswanwood said:


> That's not correct - as recently as 7th August it was announced Gavi are collaborating with the Serum Insititue of India.


OK your right gavi didn't get taken off running the polio vaccines and govt didn't take over. It wasn't anything to do with paralysis and onset of AFT in under 15s. Dress it up howyou wish but children were seriously injured by oral polio vaccines and the provider of that vaccine no longer provides it. That was then I strongly suspect that due to no longer gavi running the show. They may well be collaborating in India today


----------



## rwillett

I've met Bill Gates (or someone who claimed to be him) at a Microsoft conference in the US many years ago (25?), he sat on the same table as us and we (approx 10 of us) had a discussion on software and the future of Operating Systems (I used to be a Unix hacker when hacker meant something different). 

I recall he was very polite, very pleasant, had his own views, I shook his hand and didn't feel any cold dry skin such as when you touch a reptile at London Zoo (and yes I have done that). I didn't notice the forked tongue as he spoke, but he was at the end of the table so perhaps he hid it well. It was quite early as I recall, so I assume he had used a infra red lamp to warm up.

I had an opportunity then to show the world that he was a reptile, but I missed it. I can only apologise for my failures and the next time I meet him, I will denounce him.

Rob


----------



## FatmanG

AJB Temple said:


> I have not seen anyone taking the mick out of you. People have fact checked some of your assertions (that you state as if they are facts) though, and found them to be inaccurate.
> 
> There is, or can be, a difference between "beliefs" and verifiable facts. You clearly believe, as you have stated it twice, that Gavi was kicked out of India. This is demonstrably wrong, and clinging to belief in it anyway unfortunately just undermines your position.


Throughout this thread anyone who believes that the official narrative is wrong have been referred to as moonballs I believe one term was used. I couldn't care less tbh mate. Gavi as kicked off/taken off running vaccines in India. However you dress it up they don't do it anymore. I have referenced David e martin re criminal activity again he's been called all sorts but noons has come back and disproved anything he's said! Calling him names doesn't make him wrong. My position is clear there is proven criminal behaviour by faucci,maderna and its now down to the us legal system to prosecute the allegations, hopefully their courts will open sooner rather than later.


----------



## Droogs

rwillett said:


> Sorry, that's wrong and is now an urban myth. The Riot Act was repealed in 1967 by the Criminal Law Act and it was for 12 or more people who were unlawfully assembled. The definition of unlawful assembly was quite wide until 1986 when that offence was abolished in 1986. It does not exist in English law.
> 
> Rob


Thank you I stand corrected. It is nice to learn something factual everyday


----------



## Bacms

FatmanG said:


> Throughout this thread anyone who believes that the official narrative is wrong have been referred to as moonballs



Out of curiosity what is the official narrative? And is that the official narrative of the US or does it applies to the entire world?


----------



## billw

Bacms said:


> Out of curiosity what is the official narrative? And is that the official narrative of the US or does it applies to the entire world?


I would argue that anyone who believes the US administration's official position on anything is the moonball.


----------



## FatmanG

Bacms said:


> Out of curiosity what is the official narrative? And is that the official narrative of the US or does it applies to the entire world?


The WHO sets the agenda/guidelines for the entire world.
Wuhan live market killer corona virus covid 19 stay home don't speak were all going to die. We need to shutdown the world. Your not responsible so were removing your freedoms Wear a mask blah blah you know the rest.


----------



## AJB Temple

FatmanG said:


> The WHO sets the agenda/guidelines for the entire world.
> Wuhan live market killer corona virus covid 19 stay home don't speak were all going to die. We need to shutdown the world. Your not responsible so were removing your freedoms Wear a mask blah blah you know the rest.


That is a very short explanatory post FG, considering the very long one setting out your beliefs above. The WHO has always been controversial, however, President of the US withdrew funding from it in Mid April 2020 (The US funded about a fifth), accusing the WHO of severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus (source - his tweet of 14 April 2020). 

So you would think that the US, having broken away, would present alternative facts. Yet it now emerges that POTUS was recorded by Bob Woodward (he of Nixon fame) telling him that he wished to downplay the seriousness of C19. That was in February 2020 I think. 

It makes it difficult to float a conspiracy when parties who presumably must have conspired to get the alleged fallacy of Covid 19 going, fall out in this very public way, and yet still both appear to think that C19 is very much a serious threat. 

(PS I would not normally get into this, but I am stuck in bed with time on my hands awaiting an op tomorrow).


----------



## Bacms

FatmanG said:


> The WHO sets the agenda/guidelines for the entire world.
> Wuhan live market killer corona virus covid 19 stay home don't speak were all going to die. We need to shutdown the world. Your not responsible so were removing your freedoms Wear a mask blah blah you know the rest.



So according to this governments are allowed freedom and that is why the response to the virus was exactly the same everywhere? Especially in light of most countries ignoring WHO which allowed the virus to become pandemic in the first place?


----------



## Spectric

All problems, issues, pandemics etc etc are attributable to one of the worst human traits which is greed. In this current pandemic there are still people whining about their business suffering, loosing money because they are not allowed to fill stadiums with thousands of people, complaining that they need to socialise and many other similar cases. Health must take priority over wealth and we all need to all get back to basics and start respecting each other because this virus is going to be infecting us at any opportunity for some time to come and normality cannot return without a vacine. My biggest concern is that this pandemic has really exposed just how weak and vunerable we are as a race and totaly unprepared even thou some people had raised the posibility some time back and the next extinction event has just become more of a reality.


----------



## Blackswanwood

AJB Temple said:


> (PS I would not normally get into this, but I am stuck in bed with time on my hands awaiting an op tomorrow).


Hopefully nothing serious and you will not be out of action for long. Best wishes etc


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> All problems, issues, pandemics etc etc are attributable to one of the worst human traits which is greed. In this current pandemic there are still people whining about their business suffering, loosing money because they are not allowed to fill stadiums with thousands of people, complaining that they need to socialise and many other similar cases. Health must take priority over wealth and we all need to all get back to basics and start respecting each other because this virus is going to be infecting us at any opportunity for some time to come and normality cannot return without a vacine. My biggest concern is that this pandemic has really exposed just how weak and vunerable we are as a race and totaly unprepared even thou some people had raised the posibility some time back and the next extinction event has just become more of a reality.



I would agree with you IF this were a serious illness like Ebola that kills 50% of those infected. However C19 is not serious and does not warrant the measures taken. And for those to naive to know, Wealth IS Health, when GDP goes down so does quality of life and life expectancy. We will be living with the consequences of lockdown for years possibly decades after we stopped caring about C19.


----------



## Spectric

Hi there


Rorschach said:


> However C19 is not serious



Would you say that to all the familys who have lost loved ones, I would not expect to end up in an ICU on a ventilator if it was not serious. It may be leaving the younger generation alone at present but what is it leaving them with for later life? This is just a shot over our bows, worse will come unless we change how we interact with our enviroment.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Reading all this I am reminded of the (non) moon landing conspiracy.

Very convincing evidence was presented by those who thought the landing was faked here on earth. It was very persuasive.

I was intrigued, and may even have been convinced bar one key point.

NASA employed 10s of thousands of people and used countless subcontractors. Hundreds or maybe low thousands would have been aware that the landing had been faked. 

That none (AFAIK) spoke in support of the fakery at the time or later led me to believe that the evidence however cleverly presented simply lacked credibility.

The same applies to this virus - that no credible government has broken ranks, and a very substantial scientific consensus, leads me to believe that the virus and its impacts are a reality not a fabrication. 

But it's a free world and you can believe whatever you want!!


----------



## Rorschach

Spectric said:


> Hi there
> 
> 
> Would you say that to all the familys who have lost loved ones, I would not expect to end up in an ICU on a ventilator if it was not serious. It may be leaving the younger generation alone at present but what is it leaving them with for later life? This is just a shot over our bows, worse will come unless we change how we interact with our enviroment.



You assume our family didn't lose someone? I can't confirm 100% that we did because they died before testing was possible but it is highly likely given their symptoms and circumstances. 
Yes I stand by that, C19 is not serious, compared to all the other things that kill people every year C19 is a minor illness, indeed for 99% of those that catch it it is no worse than a cold. I will state it again, the average age of those that die WITH C19 is 83.


----------



## rwillett

Rorschach said:


> You assume our family didn't lose someone? I can't confirm 100% that we did because they died before testing was possible but it is highly likely given their symptoms and circumstances.
> Yes I stand by that, C19 is not serious, compared to all the other things that kill people every year C19 is a minor illness, indeed for 99% of those that catch it it is no worse than a cold. I will state it again, the average age of those that die WITH C19 is 83.



I'm sorry but that is just wrong, C19 is serious and it hits people hard. I am lucky enough not to have it but I know two close friends, both of which had it badly. One is a very, very close friend and is super fit, she does 20-40 miles per day cycling and 100 miles per weekend day. She's a nurse and knows how to take precautions. The other was a friend who works out a lot, neither smoke. Both are in their 40's. I don't work out and am overweight. Anyway, both of them got CV-19 at the start, one was in the ICU at Guys.

She was off work for three weeks, she described the aches and pains as beyond anything she'd ever felt before and that included difficult child birth. She couldn't move and thought she was simply going to die. I've picked her up off the road after a bad bike crash and she didn't complain. The chaps in Guys hosipital had each person either side of him die from CV-19, they were not 83 years old, but a similar age to him. He thought he was going to die and so did the doctors. He tried to prepare himself for it and the fact he wouldn't see his family at the time was awful to him.

This idea that Covid-19 is just like flu is rubbish. If you get it, it can hit you hard, it can kill, it appears to have long term health implications, we are getting better at managing the treatment of it as we have a slightly better understanding of it and the doctors have started to learn about what works and what doesn't work.I accept that it doesn't hit everybody the same and that the elderly are hit harder than the young, but nobody is immune.

This is real, these are my friends, these are my direct experiences of people who are close to me. I do not think I am special and I happen to have just the few people who've been affected, this is happening all over the world, people are dying, because we are taking precautions, less people are dying than before. I would hate to think what we would be like if we hadn't locked down. I think this govt's response has been woeful in the extreme as well.

However this is not some WHO fantasy, this is not a plot from Dan Brown illuminiti trash novel, there is no reptile ruler of the universe overlording us, this is not something I heard from a mate down the pub, this is not something I picked up from Karen or Ken on Facebook. Bill Gates isn't a reptile, whatever people think. (though I do think he actually set computing back with Windows and I'll never forgive him for the Clippy).

There is no govt secret plot to manage and control us, this govt can't organise a party in a brewery, the US govt leaks more than a sieve, do you think they can keep this secret cabal secret. How many people who have to be in on the plot and for not one of them to speak out? People seem to think there there are always secret organisations with perfect control of their membership who never leak information, who never get drunk and blurt out they are working for <insert name of latest conspiracy theory>, who never leak information, who never get things wrong.

Sometimes the simple explanation is the right one, it's a nasty virus, it is infectious, it's novel, it's passed in the air. It may well have originated in China. We have had these things before and we'll have them again. This is the real world.

I am now disengaging from this thread and will go back to learning how to use a tenon saw. 

Stay safe, all of you, even the ones who think this is a hoax. I wouldn't wish Covid-19 on my worst enemy.

Ron


----------



## Rorschach

@rwillett I am sorry that your friends suffered, I am sure there are plenty who have, but the fact remains that for 99%+ of people it is not a serious illness. Have you ever watched someone suffering from a serious flu? I have and it is not pleasant at all, very similar to bad C19 from the descriptions I have seen.
You appear to be one of the people who forget that thousands die from flu and other winter respiratory infections every year, who forget that 1700 people per day die in this country from all sorts of awful things. C19 is not a serious disease.


----------



## AJB Temple

A good friend of mine teaches teenagers and has two of her own. Her perspective is that the weight of opinion among young people is that they have very low risk. Those that have very high risk (weak and old to summarise) are (according to the age group) welcome to isolate themselves but should not impose this on everyone else, as it is damaging their lives, education and well being. 

I am fairly ambivalent about it all, but it is certainly true that old v young can logically hold very different perspectives.


----------



## Rorschach

AJB Temple said:


> A good friend of mine teaches teenagers and has two of her own. Her perspective is that the weight of opinion among young people is that they have very low risk. Those that have very high risk (weak and old to summarise) are (according to the age group) welcome to isolate themselves but should not impose this on everyone else, as it is damaging their lives, education and well being.
> 
> I am fairly ambivalent about it all, but it is certainly true that old v young can logically hold very different perspectives.



Kids can be a lot more sensible than they are given credit for.

I said the same in the original C19 thread back in March/April. If you are old and vulnerable, protect yourself, but don't ruin things for everyone else.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

There is an excellent article by Tim Harford in the FT Magazine - I'd highly recommend reading it. One point he makes is that C19 is 10,000 times more lethal for 90 year-olds than it is for nine year-olds. Long Covid is definitely a thing - a 45 year-old neighbour has been struggling with it for months.
The primary problem is the risk of uncontrolled spread leading to an overloading of our healthcare system - this threat has not gone away.
The only reason I survived double pneumonia in my thirties was because I had access to an ICU bed staffed by skilled people - that and the antibiotics worked.
Much of the reason for lockdown is to keep our healthcare system on some kind of even keel.

I'm off for my flu and pneumonia jabs next week - I hope you'll all be doing the same....


----------



## artie

Woody2Shoes said:


> The primary problem is the risk of uncontrolled spread leading to an overloading of our healthcare system - this threat has not gone away.



Yes that's what they told us, But the hospitals were almost empty, some of the specially built ones never saw a patient. Doctors and nurses so bored they made dancing videos to pass the time. Even still hospitals for the most part are way under capacity.



Woody2Shoes said:


> I'm off for my flu and pneumonia jabs next week - I hope you'll all be doing the same....



I definitely won't


----------



## Bacms

Rorschach said:


> @rwillettC19 is not a serious disease.


As long as you remember to insert "in my opinion..." before this sort of statements I am all up for them but please remember they are just that, certainly not facts


----------



## FatmanG

The suspicion is the yearly flu vaccine which the Italians were given contributed to the chaos and desperate situation we saw there last march but only suspicion. SARS cover 2 is deadly to certain people no doubt. The answer is not to quarantine the healthy, decimated business and global economies, damage children's education and future, stop all treatment of serious disease and mental health. Stop life as we know it all because of a virus that behaves exactly the same as flu! Flu is serious anyone who has had real flu feels like they are dying and the vulnerable do that's why there's a flu jab each year. There will now be another coronavirus vaccine to take each year. Whatever your thoughts behind this virus is matter less the response is draconian, disproportionate and has done more damage to our future and children's future than SARS cov2 (covid 19 is a brand) could ever do.
I wish everyone all the best (you as well Roger)


----------



## Woody2Shoes

artie said:


> Yes that's what they told us, But the hospitals were almost empty, some of the specially built ones never saw a patient. Doctors and nurses so bored they made dancing videos to pass the time. Even still hospitals for the most part are way under capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely won't


The Nightingale hospitals were not needed because the lockdown (although later than it should ideally have been) worked! Just as well, because it's highly questionable whether there would have been enough suitably qualified staff to operate them.

In the nicest possible way, I hope those who aren't having a flu jab will not trouble the NHS this winter.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

FatmanG said:


> The suspicion is the yearly flu vaccine which the Italians were given contributed to the chaos and desperate situation we saw there last march but only suspicion. SARS cover 2 is deadly to certain people no doubt. The answer is not to quarantine the healthy, decimated business and global economies, damage children's education and future, stop all treatment of serious disease and mental health. Stop life as we know it all because of a virus that behaves exactly the same as flu! Flu is serious anyone who has had real flu feels like they are dying and the vulnerable do that's why there's a flu jab each year. There will now be another coronavirus vaccine to take each year. Whatever your thoughts behind this virus is matter less the response is draconian, disproportionate and has done more damage to our future and children's future than SARS cov2 (covid 19 is a brand) could ever do.
> I wish everyone all the best (you as well Roger)


Wibbly wobbly woo


----------



## Rorschach

Woody2Shoes said:


> The Nightingale hospitals were not needed because the lockdown (although later than it should ideally have been) worked! Just as well, because it's highly questionable whether there would have been enough suitably qualified staff to operate them.
> 
> In the nicest possible way, I hope those who aren't having a flu jab will not trouble the NHS this winter.



Actually it didn't, we reached peak deaths too quickly after lockdown started for it to have been needed, we would have been fine if we didn't do it. The nightingale hospitals might have been a good precaution but we never actually needed them and it's a good job because as you correctly noted we didn't have the staff for them. They weren't hospitals, they were morgues for the almost dead.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Rorschach said:


> Actually it didn't, we reached peak deaths too quickly after lockdown started for it to have been needed, we would have been fine if we didn't do it. The nightingale hospitals might have been a good precaution but we never actually needed them and it's a good job because as you correctly noted we didn't have the staff for them. They weren't hospitals, they were morgues for the almost dead.


There's at least one non sequitur lurking in there...


----------



## Rorschach

Woody2Shoes said:


> There's at least one non sequitur lurking in there...



Care to enlighten us?


----------



## artie

Woody2Shoes said:


> There's at least one non sequitur lurking in there...


Would you point it/ them out for some of us who are not so observant?


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Rorschach said:


> Care to enlighten us?


Well there's probably two in the first sentence.


----------



## artie

Woody2Shoes said:


> I'm off for my flu and pneumonia jabs next week - I hope you'll all be doing the same....


Will you even enquire what is being injected into you?


----------



## billw

artie said:


> Will you even enquire what is being injected into you?



It's easy to find out from Home - electronic medicines compendium (emc) but given the vaccines are all designed to handle up to 4 flu strains as guided by the WHO's recommendations on which strains will be included, they'll probably all be very similar.

Of course, we all know that it's not really a flu vaccine you're being given, it's a GPS enabled microchip that records all your emails.


----------



## Bacms

artie said:


> Will you even enquire what is being injected into you?



Here we go...full list of vaccines ingredients is available in several places. Here is one of those Vaccine ingredients | Vaccine Knowledge. 

Do you question the ingredients and components of everything you ingest?


----------



## Bacms

billw said:


> Of course, we all know that it's not really a flu vaccine you're being given, it's a GPS enabled microchip that records all your emails.



Especially because most of us don't willingly carry a device on our pockets that does exactly the same thing


----------



## artie

Bacms said:


> Do you question the ingredients and components of everything you ingest?



Absolutely
Would be most reckless to put unknown substances in my body.


----------



## artie

I'm going to do my best to get by without having 


Human cell strains, animal cell strains and GMOs
injected into me.


----------



## Bacms

artie said:


> I'm going to do my best to get by without having
> 
> 
> Human cell strains, animal cell strains and GMOs
> injected into me.


Can you elaborate as to why? And did you bother to read that section or you were just looking for an excuse 

In any case, the only vaccine in the UK that contains GMOs is Nasal Flu vaccine (Fluenz) but you are more likely to get GMO through your food chain. 

As for cell strains, I am afraid those are the only way we have of replicating some of the inactivated viruses that are needed for the vaccines and unlike food products, the list of vaccine ingredients may include products used during the manufacturing process, even if they do not remain in the finished product. 
There is also absolutely no scientific evidence that cell lines cause any issues when ingested but that obviously isn't relevant to this discussion...


----------



## Steve Blackdog

Rorschach said:


> The average age of those who have died _WITH (not OF)_ C19 is 83, let that sink in for a moment. In Scotland that is OVER the average life expectancy by a couple of years.



My Dad lived until he was 100, and only died then because he had an accident.

At 86, he built an extension on their bungalow, digging foundations by hand. 

I would hesitate to write off everyone over 80 as having one foot in the grave.


----------



## artie

Bacms said:


> Can you elaborate as to why?



For the same reason that I don't have life insurance or health insurance. I believe in dealing with what happens, not worrying and preparing for things which may well never happen, with the added impetus that the vaccine may harm me.




Bacms said:


> In any case, the only vaccine in the UK that contains GMOs is Nasal Flu vaccine (Fluenz) but you are more likely to get GMO through your food chain.



Not if I can avoid it and believe me , I do my best.




Bacms said:


> As for cell strains, I am afraid those are the only way we have of replicating some of the inactivated viruses that are needed for the vaccines and unlike food products, the list of vaccine ingredients may include products used during the manufacturing process, even if they do not remain in the finished product.



Why would they list something that's not in it?



Bacms said:


> There is also absolutely no scientific evidence that cell lines cause any issues when ingested but that obviously isn't relevant to this discussion...



Is there any scientific evidence that they don't cause any issues when ingested? or is that not relevant?


----------



## Rorschach

Steve Blackdog said:


> My Dad lived until he was 100, and only died then because he had an accident.
> 
> At 86, he built an extension on their bungalow, digging foundations by hand.
> 
> I would hesitate to write off everyone over 80 as having one foot in the grave.



I didn't. I just pointed out that the average age of those dying is older than the average life expectancy.

Your father was clearly quite exceptional and good for him, my own father was basically crippled from his early 60's and died in his early 70's in a pretty bad state, if he had lived long enough C19 would have seen him off for certain. Meanwhile I have a family member at nearly 90, been fighting cancer for almost 30 years and has been exposed to C19 with seemingly no effect, the delay to cancer treatment this year has been devastating though. There are always exceptions but we don't base a nationwide policy around those exceptions.


----------



## Bacms

I am being pulled in again so stay safe everyone and see you in a while 



artie said:


> For the same reason that I don't have life insurance or health insurance. I believe in dealing with what happens, not worrying and preparing for things which may well never happen, with the added impetus that the vaccine may harm me.





artie said:


> Why would they list something that's not in it?



For this thing called transparency which is what people like you are claiming they haven't. They are used in the manufacturing process and therefore it is possible that some trace amount remains. It is the same reason that some foods have a label saying they may contain traces of nuts but they aren't listed on the ingredients but the food industry does not need to specify it may also contain traces of animal hairs, rat poo, etc 



artie said:


> Is there any scientific evidence that they don't cause any issues when ingested? or is that not relevant?



Actually there is plenty since they are heavily regulated for both safety and ethical reasons and any drug/vaccine that uses needs to be subjected to clinical trials to assess safety. 
Here are good starting points:








Guidelines for the use of cell lines in biomedical research


Cell-line misidentification and contamination with microorganisms, such as mycoplasma, together with instability, both genetic and phenotypic, are among the problems that continue to affect cell culture. Many of these problems are avoidable with the necessary ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov












Animal tissue culture principles and applications


Animal cell culture technology in today’s scenario has become indispensable in the field of life sciences, which provides a basis to study regulation, proliferation, and differentiation and to perform genetic manipulation. It requires specific ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## billw

I'm laughing at the insinuations that the scientific community is some sort of maverick cabal staffed by wannabe Bond villains, rather than a lot of scientists working within strict guidelines, laws, and ethical values.


----------



## Droogs

Rorschach, one of the hypothesis being put forward as to why the number of cancer patients being badly affected by Covid-19 is in fact a lot lower than expected is due to the fact that those undergoing chemo are so loaded with steroids that the virus doesn't get a toe hold


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> Rorschach, one of the hypothesis being put forward as to why the number of cancer patients being badly affected by Covid-19 is in fact a lot lower than expected is due to the fact that those undergoing chemo are so loaded with steroids that the virus doesn't get a toe hold



Great for those undergoing Chemo then, not great for those on other treatments or had their operations delayed by 4 months.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Rorschach said:


> I didn't. I just pointed out that the average age of those dying is older than the average life expectancy.
> 
> Your father was clearly quite exceptional and good for him, my own father was basically crippled from his early 60's and died in his early 70's in a pretty bad state, if he had lived long enough C19 would have seen him off for certain. Meanwhile I have a family member at nearly 90, been fighting cancer for almost 30 years and has been exposed to C19 with seemingly no effect, the delay to cancer treatment this year has been devastating though. There are always exceptions but we don't base a nationwide policy around those exceptions.



You may be right about the average age of those dying with Covid-19 but it's worth noting that having achieved age 84 on average males live for circa 6 years more and females for 7 years. Average life expectancy is easily misunderstood.

As with all this stuff everyone is entitled to their view. I personally don't subscribe to a view that we should isolate all the old people/vulnerable people and let everyone else get on with it. Equally I don't think life can stop while we wait for a vaccine or indeed that the current situation is satisfactory. 

It does seem that any discussion on Covid 19 comes back to the same binary points being made ... although in fairness this time we have also had a meander through a Dan Brown novel as well!


----------



## Rorschach

On the topic of Social Distancing. Just watched the kids coming out of the local secondary school (lots of schools around me but this one I can observe directly). As you might expect, no social distancing from the kids. Boys fighting and messing around, showing off in front of the girls, the girls gathered together in large groups laughing at the boys and pretending to be all grown up. I am sure some of them are all in the same "bubble" in school but they can't all be especially when you can clearly see they are a mix of ages.
I don't blame them of course, they are kids and they know they are safe.


----------



## Rorschach

Blackswanwood said:


> You may be right about the average age of those dying with Covid-19 but it's worth noting that having achieved age 84 on average males live for circa 6 years more and females for 7 years. Average life expectancy is easily misunderstood.
> 
> As with all this stuff everyone is entitled to their view. I personally don't subscribe to a view that we should isolate all the old people/vulnerable people and let everyone else get on with it. Equally I don't think life can stop while we wait for a vaccine or indeed that the current situation is satisfactory.
> 
> It does seem that any discussion on Covid 19 comes back to the same binary points being made ... although in fairness this time we have also had a meander through a Dan Brown novel as well!



Yes I understand that a healthy 84yr old isn't going to drop dead, but there are also plenty of unhealthy 84 yr olds that are just hanging on. The fact that the majority of deaths were from care homes shows that those dying were old and "in the waiting room" anyway, most people don't stay in care homes for very long.


----------



## Selwyn

Steve Blackdog said:


> My Dad lived until he was 100, and only died then because he had an accident.
> 
> At 86, he built an extension on their bungalow, digging foundations by hand.
> 
> I would hesitate to write off everyone over 80 as having one foot in the grave.



Your father was the exception not the rule


----------



## doctor Bob

Blackswanwood said:


> You may be right about the average age of those dying with Covid-19 but it's worth noting that having achieved age 84 on average males live for circa 6 years more and females for 7 years. Average life expectancy is easily misunderstood.
> 
> As with all this stuff everyone is entitled to their view. I personally don't subscribe to a view that we should isolate all the old people/vulnerable people and let everyone else get on with it. Equally I don't think life can stop while we wait for a vaccine or indeed that the current situation is satisfactory.
> 
> It does seem that any discussion on Covid 19 comes back to the same binary points being made ... although in fairness this time we have also had a meander through a Dan Brown novel as well!



This is the thing, at present it's very binary. To me in a perfect world we should be going about our business with very well worked social distancing and hygene in place. But people being people seem to find this impossible. How difficult is it to wash your hands regularly and avoid breathing in peoples faces!!


----------



## Droogs

It would seem from the evidence = extremely difficult


----------



## Selwyn

Blackswanwood said:


> You may be right about the average age of those dying with Covid-19 but it's worth noting that having achieved age 84 on average males live for circa 6 years more and females for 7 years. Average life expectancy is easily misunderstood.
> 
> As with all this stuff everyone is entitled to their view. I personally don't subscribe to a view that we should isolate all the old people/vulnerable people and let everyone else get on with it. Equally I don't think life can stop while we wait for a vaccine or indeed that the current situation is satisfactory.
> 
> It does seem that any discussion on Covid 19 comes back to the same binary points being made ... although in fairness this time we have also had a meander through a Dan Brown novel as well!



But surely it is better to isolate the old who do't have to work than to isolate everyone and tank the economy? Everyone will become poorer in the end and then there will be more health problems.

Put simply we need to keep on as we are but continue to reinforce public health messages


----------



## artie

doctor Bob said:


> How difficult is it to wash your hands regularly and avoid breathing in peoples faces!!



Not difficult at all, but is slathering our hands in antibacterial gel every few minutes helping or hurting?


----------



## artie

Selwyn said:


> But surely it is better to isolate the old



I think it's a mistake to be ageist regarding health.

Maybe better to isolate the vulnerable. After all a 40 year old may be in worse physical condition than a 75 yo.


----------



## Selwyn

artie said:


> I think it's a mistake to be ageist regarding health.
> 
> Maybe better to isolate the vulnerable. After all a 40 year old may be in worse physical condition than a 75 yo.



Well in the case of Covid, the statistics say that the most likely to die are the old and the vulnerable. Its just about being pragmatic and sensible. Not locking down and tanking peoples businesses


----------



## artie

Selwyn said:


> Well in the case of Covid, the statistics say that the most likely to die are the old and the vulnerable. Its just about being pragmatic and sensible. Not locking down and tanking peoples businesses


ah yes statistics, but couldn't you be pragmatic and substitute old with vulnerable? Then a 75 year old who regularly runs marathons won't lose his freedom.


----------



## billw

doctor Bob said:


> How difficult is it to wash your hands regularly and avoid breathing in peoples faces!!



The difficulty lies in being told to do it, rather than doing it through your own free will.


----------



## Blackswanwood

doctor Bob said:


> This is the thing, at present it's very binary. To me in a perfect world we should be going about our business with very well worked social distancing and hygene in place. But people being people seem to find this impossible. How difficult is it to wash your hands regularly and avoid breathing in peoples faces!!



I agree. I'm not sure there is an answer that will please everyone but the next best thing is probably one where everyone feels equally hacked off. A friend of mine lives in Sweden and has a view that they have done quite well as there is more of a natural tendency to accept compromise and then stick to what has been agreed.

To my mind the view of "it's not a serious illness and take some collateral damage amongst the older members of society" is flawed and not an acceptable approach. (And no need to get defensive Rorschach - you are entitled to your view and it's okay for us to have different perspectives!). Equally though we need to get the economy moving so we cannot stay in a permanent lockdown. The answer lies in finding a compromise that to the extent it increases the risk for the vulnerable offers them the extra support they need while allowing more of a semblance of normality to resume.


----------



## Rorschach

I am happy to compromise, in fact I even offered a compromise solution.


----------



## doctor Bob

See that's the problem, even on here if you say "we should accept it's going to kill people who are already pretty ill" you are shot down in flames......... "all lives are priceless" sorry but they are not, otherwise the government would not put a limit on NHS spending. 
What we really need is a virus which picks off angry passive aggressive people


----------



## AJB Temple

I have just listened to the BBC reporting of the situation in Birmingham and some surrounding areas, where the R rate is very elevated. I come from the midlands and for various family reasons I am plugged in to a degree of medical and pathology information there. What the BBC does not tell you (presumably for PC reasons?) is that much of the area seeing a high incidence of cases is largely populated by Asian and Indian families. Not only is their risk from Covid 19 higher for some reason, but also the social realities and culture tends to mean that families of elderly, middle aged and young live in the same household in a denser fashion than in say rural Kent where I live now. 

I am making the point that this country has pockets where cultural factors are_ radically_ different and health policy and Covid policy probably needs to take account of that in a far more transparent and protective way. It is in no sense racist to recognise that people of colour may be at higher risk and that they, and population concentrations in some towns and cities, may therefore need to be treated differently - and better. In such communities, the simplistic "let the old isolate" simply cannot work.


----------



## billw

AJB Temple said:


> What the BBC does not tell you (presumably for PC reasons?) is that much of the area seeing a high incidence of cases is largely populated by Asian and Indian families. Not only is their risk from Covid 19 higher for some reason, but also the social realities and culture tends to mean that families of elderly, middle aged and young live in the same household in a denser fashion than in say rural Kent where I live now.



This is very true, and I am not sure why the BBC wouldn't (couldn't) report on what is essentially a demographic fact. One of my friends emailed me just now asking if I'd seen the uproar on our local newspaper's facebook group because apparently we're "too posh to catch Covid". Now reality is that there's a huge number of detached houses here, so there's a large degree of natural social isolation, so there's probably some truth in there being less risk.


----------



## Blackswanwood

doctor Bob said:


> See that's the problem, even on here if you say "we should accept it's going to kill people who are already pretty ill" you are shot down in flames......... "all lives are priceless" sorry but they are not, otherwise the government would not put a limit on NHS spending.
> What we really need is a virus which picks off angry passive aggressive people



I am actually quite angry at the situation. I had to break the news to 240 people this week that they are being made redundant. It’s not entirely linked to Covid but the number would have been far lower without it. I then had to authorise taking a site down for twenty four hours while it was deep cleaned as we had a cluster of employees test positive and other employees were refusing to come into work.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> See that's the problem, even on here if you say "we should accept it's going to kill people who are already pretty ill" you are shot down in flames......... "all lives are priceless" sorry but they are not, otherwise the government would not put a limit on NHS spending.
> What we really need is a virus which picks off angry passive aggressive people



Our lives have become so comfortable and safe that we don't know how to have a sensible and practical discussion on death. We think everyone should live forever and we should spend any amount of money to make that happen. We talk about celebrities "untimely death at the age of 95" and we call all deaths a tragedy. Death is a natural part of life, some die young, some die old, in our family deaths have ranged from childhood to almost 100, some natural, some self inflicted. Aside from one murder I wouldn't consider any of them tragic, sad certainly but I wouldn't for a moment shut down the world to stop a natural part of life.


----------



## artie

Bacms said:


> There is also absolutely no scientific evidence that cell lines cause any issues when ingested











Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MikeJhn

To try and lighten the mood somewhat, the original Thread name was "Social Distancing what's that"


----------



## Oddbod

Selwyn said:


> But surely it is better to isolate the old who do't have to work than to isolate everyone and tank the economy? Everyone will become poorer in the end and then there will be more health problems.
> 
> Put simply we need to keep on as we are but continue to reinforce public health messages



How does one "isolate the old" when many require assistance with daily living, often from people who will visit several other, equally vulnerable people every day, or like myself, where I have to look after my mother, whilst at the same time trying to continue with other aspects of my life?
If a significant percentage of the population acts in a selfish & ignorant manner by failing to socially distance, wear a mask in shops & wash their hands, then it's almost impossible to shield the vulnerable.
Watching some cretin wipe their nose with their fingers, then get back hold of their supermarket trolley handle doesn't inspire confidence, nor does watching a mother & daughter pick up & put down multiple packs of Italian sausage before choosing ONE.
Hopefully a virus that only kills the wilfully ignorant, unthinking & selfish WILL come along & take out half the population.


----------



## Oddbod

billw said:


> The difficulty lies in being told to do it, rather than doing it through your own free will.



Anyone refusing to do something sensible because they've been told to is a pig ignorant, selfish silly person.
There are also a LOT of people out there who are too dim to think to do things for themselves, so what do you suggest: targeted messages only aimed at mouth breathers in order not to upset the terminally offended?

Sheesh...


----------



## Droogs

So, are you meant to water the plants or not?


----------



## billw

Oddbod said:


> Anyone refusing to do something sensible because they've been told to is a pig ignorant, selfish silly person.
> There are also a LOT of people out there who are too dim to think to do things for themselves, so what do you suggest: targeted messages only aimed at mouth breathers in order not to upset the terminally offended?
> 
> Sheesh...



I agree with all of that, and no I meant that the problem was the people who refuse to do something because they see it as infringement of liberty, not the messaging.


----------



## HappyHacker

Oddbod said:


> Anyone refusing to do something sensible because they've been told to is a pig ignorant, selfish silly person.
> There are also a LOT of people out there who are too dim to think to do things for themselves, so what do you suggest: targeted messages only aimed at mouth breathers in order not to upset the terminally offended?
> 
> Sheesh...



Have a look at Coronavirus: Ibiza clubber thought to be behind Bolton case spike


----------



## Rorschach

Oddbod said:


> How does one "isolate the old" when many require assistance with daily living, often from people who will visit several other, equally vulnerable people every day, or like myself, where I have to look after my mother, whilst at the same time trying to continue with other aspects of my life?



You find a way to do it as best you can. I could equally say why should someone lose their business, have all their workers redundant and their families lose their house just to protect your elderly mother?
You admit you want to continue with aspects of your life, why not other peoples? You seem to be the selfish one in this scenario.


----------



## maznaz

So I've had a read and the gist seems to be that some people who are not at risk from Covid-19 are happy for those who are to be sacrificed for the good of the economy. Did I miss anything?


----------



## Rorschach

maznaz said:


> So I've had a read and the gist seems to be that some people who are not at risk from Covid-19 are happy for those who are to be sacrificed for the good of the economy. Did I miss anything?



You're purposely oversimplifying the situation. You know full well it is much more complex than that.


----------



## maznaz

Rorschach said:


> You're purposely oversimplifying the situation. You know full well it is much more complex than that.



Which part isn't correct?


----------



## Rorschach

maznaz said:


> Which part isn't correct?


I never said you were wrong, I just said you are oversimplifying in order to vilify those that understand the reality of the world we live in.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> "we should accept it's going to kill people who are already pretty ill"



Its one thing if it kills someone in late stage Dementia, its another if it kills someone who has a very weakened immune system, say transplant patient, somebody with COPD etc...... thats a group who may live perfectly good lives with minimal loss of quality of life but Covid could get.

Hard though it is, there is a good argument to say the human race keeps people alive beyond their natural lifespan and as a result beyond the limit where they have quality of life. As somebody who has spent a fair time visiting one or other parent in hospital I can atttest to the grim reality of seeing bed after bed of very elderly people, lying in a fetal position, just moaning with little awareness of their surroundings.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> You find a way to do it as best you can. I could equally say why should someone lose their business, have all their workers redundant and their families lose their house just to protect your elderly mother?
> You admit you want to continue with aspects of your life, why not other peoples? You seem to be the selfish one in this scenario.



The argument of economy versus health isnt as true as it seems -South Korea, Germany, Singapore all imposed very hard and very early restrictions and with massive test and trace....all have suffered less economic damage.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Hard though it is, there is a good argument to say the human race keeps people alive beyond their natural lifespan and as a result beyond the limit where they have quality of life. As somebody who has spent a fair time visiting one or other parent in hospital I can atttest to the grim reality of seeing bed after bed of very elderly people, lying in a fetal position, just moaning with little awareness of their surroundings.



I have seen similar. Watched a family member spend 4 years bed bound, almost totally non-responsive apart from when we would visit and tears would roll down their face the entire time. Truly awful to watch.


----------



## RobinBHM

Oddbod said:


> Anyone refusing to do something sensible because they've been told to is a pig ignorant, selfish silly person.
> There are also a LOT of people out there who are too dim to think to do things for themselves, so what do you suggest: targeted messages only aimed at mouth breathers in order not to upset the terminally offended?
> 
> Sheesh...



The success of keeping the R value down below 1, requires collective effort.

So yes the rules may be somewhat contradictory, but if we individually follow sensibly that will have a net benefit for everybody.


I hate all these peopel which claim "its no worse than flu" "its a scamdemic"


----------



## doctor Bob

maznaz said:


> So I've had a read and the gist seems to be that some people who are not at risk from Covid-19 are happy for those who are to be sacrificed for the good of the economy. Did I miss anything?


That's one side if you want to make it a 2 sided arguement, So there is another side you have completely missed, can't think how if you have read it all!!
I think most would like somewhere in the middle, but if you are happy with a single sentence input then you have cracked it sir, congratulations Einstien


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> Its one thing if it kills someone in late stage Dementia, its another if it kills someone who has a very weakened immune system, say transplant patient, somebody with COPD etc...... thats a group who may live perfectly good lives with minimal loss of quality of life but Covid could get.
> 
> Hard though it is, there is a good argument to say the human race keeps people alive beyond their natural lifespan and as a result beyond the limit where they have quality of life. As somebody who has spent a fair time visiting one or other parent in hospital I can atttest to the grim reality of seeing bed after bed of very elderly people, lying in a fetal position, just moaning with little awareness of their surroundings.



Of course but unfortunately we know the NHS is not limitless.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Its one thing if it kills someone in late stage Dementia, its another if it kills someone who has a very weakened immune system, say transplant patient, somebody with COPD etc...... thats a group who may live perfectly good lives with minimal loss of quality of life but Covid could get.


So could influenza. So could a rhinovirus. So could any number of nasty little diseases. This has always been the case, but somehow we all managed to soldier on without stopping the world economy in its tracks. We didn't all wear masks when we visited relatives in hospital or in a care home. We didn't all practice social distancing, just in case. We didn't all stay at home and not work, because it was safer. Now, we do. There will be consequences. One major consequence will be the impoverishment of anyone relying on the state (which appears to be virtually everyone, at the moment). Anyone trying to run all business, also. About the only people not in trouble will be the billionaires who will be the only ones with any money to buy up all our assets, when we have to sell them to buy food. (That last bit _might_ be hyperbole, but it depends on how much longer everyone has to not work, in order to save the 0.04% of the population, or whatever the number is.)


----------



## Woody2Shoes

I think that the current best guesstimate is that half the world population will be exposed to the virus and somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of those will die with it (some proportion will also suffer serious long-term health effects).
There is an argument that says that part of reason that the UK's statistics have been so bad is because our health service has been so effective in keeping people alive who - in less well-provided-for countries - would already have died of something else.
I agree with those who say that our healthcare system sometimes tends to keep people alive because it technically can, not because 'quality of life' is carefully weighed up. A friend's 87 year-old mother has been in hospital for eightteen months in a near vegetative state - no-one has had the wit/cojones to let nature take its course, to the distress of all concerned. There are very difficult ethical/legal arguments here which I can understand medics not wanting to get bogged down in.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> So could influenza. So could a rhinovirus. So could any number of nasty little diseases.


yes but Ive not seen ICU departments overflowing from those, so perhaps you are indulging in whataboutery


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> We didn't all wear masks when we visited relatives in hospital or in a care home. We didn't all practice social distancing, just in case. We didn't all stay at home and not work, because it was safer. Now, we do



yes because we havent had a pandemic like this since the Spanish flu.....I believe that didnt end too well

most people are working, we have found socially distant ways to do it


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> but it depends on how much longer everyone has to not work, in order to save the 0.04% of the population, or whatever the number is.



the death rate has been kept down to manageable numbers because the whole world took action, so you are conflating 2 different arguments.


Countries that locked down much harder and faster using massive test, trace and quarantine like South Korea, Germany, Singapore have had less economic damage. Countries that put profit before people, have actually done more economic damage


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> Of course but unfortunately we know the NHS is not limitless.



nor the economy.....Im concerned about extending the furlough scheme TBH, will it help get businesses over the hill and keep going or is it just delaying the inevitable


----------



## Oddbod

Rorschach said:


> You find a way to do it as best you can. I could equally say why should someone lose their business, have all their workers redundant and their families lose their house just to protect your elderly mother?
> You admit you want to continue with aspects of your life, why not other peoples? You seem to be the selfish one in this scenario.



Don't try to twist what I said & posting ridiculous whataboutery like the above only serves to highlight you don't have a rational response.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> yes but Ive not seen ICU departments overflowing from those, so perhaps you are indulging in whataboutery



Go speak to a doctor who has worked in ICU in the last 10 years, they will tell you we have had several winters where ICU's were almost at breaking point with winter respiratory bugs. (Often simply diagnosed as flu for simplicity as they never test, too many potential candidates)


----------



## Oddbod

Rorschach said:


> I never said you were wrong, I just said you are oversimplifying in order to vilify those that understand the reality of the world we live in.



That list certainly doesn't include you.


----------



## Rorschach

Oddbod said:


> Don't try to twist what I said & posting ridiculous whataboutery like the above only serves to highlight you don't have a rational response.



You think I don't have a rational response, I don't think you have one either


----------



## Dibs-h

AJB Temple said:


> I have just listened to the BBC reporting of the situation in Birmingham and some surrounding areas, where the R rate is very elevated. I come from the midlands and for various family reasons I am plugged in to a degree of medical and pathology information there. What the BBC does not tell you (presumably for PC reasons?) is that much of the area seeing a high incidence of cases is largely populated by Asian and Indian families. Not only is their risk from Covid 19 higher for some reason, but also the social realities and culture tends to mean that families of elderly, middle aged and young live in the same household in a denser fashion than in say rural Kent where I live now.



Might just be a timing issue. 

I have seen a few reports on the BBC & C4 news about such things. I did see several reports by the BBC about Oldham and all the things you mentioned above were covered. They even had a local GP walk them round a neighborhood and talk about multi-generational households etc. and the impacts on them.

Admittedly not recently but a few weeks into things.


----------



## selectortone

doctor Bob said:


> See that's the problem, even on here if you say "we should accept it's going to kill people who are already pretty ill" you are shot down in flames......... "all lives are priceless" sorry but they are not, otherwise the government would not put a limit on NHS spending.
> What we really need is a virus which picks off angry passive aggressive people


Love the winky face. My daughter suffers from ulcerative colitis, a chronic, debilitating and generally really nasty condition that is kept at a manageable level with meds that unfortunately suppress her immune system. She's a secondary school teacher and she's just gone back to school last week (Boris says it's OK). She's bang in the firing line. Is she priceless or expendable?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Go speak to a doctor who has worked in ICU in the last 10 years, they will tell you we have had several winters where ICU's were almost at breaking point with winter respiratory bugs. (Often simply diagnosed as flu for simplicity as they never test, too many potential candidates)


not compared to covid

and dont forget the covid patients were either left to die in care homes or discharged back into care homes, so whilst the govt claimed the NHS "coped" it only did so under false pretences.

I dont remember almost every other treatment cancelled due to winter respiratory bugs, so you arent really comparing like with like


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Love the winky face. My daughter suffers from ulcerative colitis, a chronic, debilitating and generally really nasty condition that is kept at a manageable level with meds that unfortunately suppress her immune system. She's a secondary school and she's just gone back to school last week. She's bang in the firing line. Is she priceless or expendable?



IMO she would be be in the category that could shield at home. If the school were sensible they would allow teachers like her to work from home, doing remote classes for vulnerable children.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> not compared to covid
> 
> and dont forget the covid patients were either left to die in care homes or discharged back into care homes, so whilst the govt claimed the NHS "coped" it only did so under false pretences.
> 
> I dont remember almost every other treatment cancelled due to winter respiratory bugs, so you arent really comparing like with like



In the past we didn't over react to a fairly innocuous disease, that's why.


----------



## RobinBHM

selectortone said:


> Love the winky face. My daughter suffers from ulcerative colitis, a chronic, debilitating and generally really nasty condition that is kept at a manageable level with meds that unfortunately suppress her immune system. She's a secondary school and she's just gone back to school last week. She's bang in the firing line. Is she priceless or expendable?



the problem is there is a conflation of "pretty ill people" with "people that live normal lives with a debilitating condition, but with treatment allows them a high quality of life" -both groups are at risk groups for covid.

does your daughter have a gluten free diet? -my wife has graves disease, an auto immune disease and one of the potential causes is gluten -it causes a "leaky Gut". 

the real difficulty with auto immune diseases is there is very little scientific evidence to back up any holistic treatments.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> IMO she would be be in the category that could shield at home. If the school were sensible they would allow teachers like her to work from home, doing remote classes for vulnerable children.


Meanwhile in the real world...


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> In the past we didn't over react to a fairly innocuous disease, that's why.


strawman

it isnt innocuous, it just happens to be the first virus to happen for a long time that is highly transmissible.
do you consider Spanish flu to be innocuous?


why do you saying it is innocuous? -out of ignorance, or have you been manipulated by conspiracy theories
which is it?


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Meanwhile in the real world...


Well if you voted me prime minister that is what you would get


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> strawman
> 
> it isnt innocuous, it just happens to be the first virus to happen for a long time that is highly transmissible.
> do you consider Spanish flu to be innocuous?
> 
> 
> why do you saying it is innocuous? -out of ignorance, or have you been manipulated by conspiracy theories
> which is it?



Spanish flu was awful, it killed all ages, especially the young. But it doesn't apply now, we are living in a totally different world, even if we had a virus of that calibre now we wouldn't suffer as much as they did then.

Why am I saying it is innocuous, simple really, it isn't particularly deadly, likely similar to seasonal flu yet unlike seasonal flu it is only affecting the very old and vulnerable. Seasonal flu affects all ages, mostly the old but is also a killer of young children hence why primary school children get a flu vaccine each year.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Well if you voted me prime minister that is what you would get


More winky faces. I'm glad you're all having a good laugh.


----------



## doctor Bob

selectortone said:


> More winky faces. I'm glad you're all having a good laugh.


Must be miserable if you haven't laughed since Jan / Feb. I'm certainly fairly happy and trying my best to enjoy life, however in the future this may be banned. I understand you personal circumstances are different to mine but I fail to see how a winky face ban would help.


----------



## doctor Bob

removed


----------



## Trainee neophyte

From wikipedia:



> Once a person has become infected, no specific treatment is available,[13] although supportive care may improve outcomes.[7] Such care may include oral rehydration solution (slightly sweet and salty fluids), healthy food, and medications to control the fever.[7][8] Antibiotics should be prescribed if secondary bacterial infections such as ear infections or pneumonia occur.[7][13] Vitamin A supplementation is also recommended for children.[13] The risk of death among those infected is about 0.2%,[5] but may be up to 10% in people with malnutrition



That's for measles which is, depending on who you believe this week, 2 to 4 times more infectious than Covid19, and seems to have a reasonably similar IFR (I tried to find a definitive value, but I have anything between 0.08% to 18% - it depends on which country you look at). I attended a measles party when I was at nipper to make damn sure I caught it - thank my criminally negligent parents for that. Different times have different approaches. Try having a Covid party for your children and you would spend 20 years in prison for attempted murder, racism and global warming offences.


----------



## selectortone

.


----------



## selectortone

.


----------



## TheTiddles

This is a most helpful thread.

Sometimes one reads someone’s opinion elsewhere on the forum and can think them highly ignorant. You can now pop along to this thread and have any remaining doubt removed.

Aidan


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Spanish flu was awful, it killed all ages, especially the young. But it doesn't apply now, we are living in a totally different world, even if we had a virus of that calibre now we wouldn't suffer as much as they did then.
> 
> Why am I saying it is innocuous, simple really, it isn't particularly deadly, likely similar to seasonal flu yet unlike seasonal flu it is only affecting the very old and vulnerable. Seasonal flu affects all ages, mostly the old but is also a killer of young children hence why primary school children get a flu vaccine each year.



That is demonstrably untrue.

It does not only affect the very old and vulnerable. Plenty of healthy, younger people have suffered.
My niece works in the NHS, she knows 2 staff in her hospital that had it bad.

One was a guy who was overweight, but he was healthy enough to work full time as a nurse, he now has heart damage. The other was a female nurse, no health problems, she has sustained serious lung damage and they don't think she will work again.

My niece is a radiographer, she took plenty of CT scans of lungs of people with Covid: the doctors got used to seeing the severe lung damage not common with any other disease.


If the country had not made huge efforts to reduce the R value, many more people would have died.....you are unfortunately claiming it's not that bad because there was a largely successful effort that kept the numbers down.





Spanish flu was bad, so is Covid

"The coronavirus is at least as deadly as the 1918 flu pandemic and the death toll could even be worse if world leaders and public health officials fail to adequately contain it, researchers warned in a study published Thursday in the medical journal JAMA Network Open."

“What we want people to know is that this has 1918 potential,” lead author Dr. Jeremy Faust said in an interview, adding that the outbreak in New York was at least 70% as bad as the one in 1918 when doctors didn’t have ventilators or other advances to help save lives like they do today. “This is not something to just shrug off like the flu.”


----------



## RobinBHM

TheTiddles said:


> This is a most helpful thread.
> 
> Sometimes one reads someone’s opinion elsewhere on the forum and can think them highly ignorant. You can now pop along to this thread and have any remaining doubt removed.
> 
> Aidan


I could make a tongue in cheek comment here.......


----------



## Rorschach

@RobinBHM 

Sorry but you are wrong, the facts speak for themselves, C19 is nothing like Spanish Flu and the young are not affected in anywhere near the same way.


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> @RobinBHM
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong, the facts speak for themselves, C19 is nothing like Spanish Flu and the young are not affected in anywhere near the same way.



Possibly, JUST possibly, there might be the century of medical, technological, and communication advances that separates them that helped. 

When you say "the young are not affected" you mean in the short term. Nobody knows what the long-term effects are yet, and since time travel has not knowingly been invented* we have no way of speeding up that knowledge. Maybe there's some form of neurological damage that isn't being detected yet, or it will manifest in long term lung or heart complications.

* since nobody's come from the future to tell us it has. Yet.


----------



## doctor Bob

billw said:


> When you say "the young are not affected" you mean in the short term. Nobody knows what the long-term effects are yet, and since time travel has not knowingly been invented* we have no way of speeding up that knowledge. Maybe there's some form of neurological damage that isn't being detected yet, or it will manifest in long term lung or heart complications.



Crikey, the bonkers is strong.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

World population in 1918 was 1.7 billion ish, and and an estimated 50 million died from the Spanish flu. We would need more than 150 million dead from coronavirus to equate numerically. It hasn't even managed 1 million yet. There are two possibilities: either there is going to be a sudden, inexplicably huge increase in deaths, or the coronavirus isn't even remotely like the Spanish flu. I wouldn't like to speculate which is the most likely.


----------



## billw

doctor Bob said:


> Crikey, the bonkers is strong.



What? Just saying that's possible. I'm not saying I believe it, or that it's true. Just that it's possible. How that qualifies as bonkers I don't know.


----------



## doctor Bob

billw said:


> What? Just saying that's possible. I'm not saying I believe it, or that it's true. Just that it's possible. How that qualifies as bonkers I don't know.


Maybe anyone infected will turn into a zombie in winter ..............................


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Covid 19 has some major differences from flu:

transmission rate is ~1.5 compared to 2.5-3.0 for Covid
flu is contagious for ~1 day pre onset of symptoms, and 5-7 days afterwards. Covid is contagious for several days before symptoms (if any) making unknowing transmission far more likely
flu seems to have a much lower risk of death
There are superficial similarities:

the age profile of those who have a life threatening experience - mostly 70+ or in poor health
In 2014/15 there were 44000 excess of deaths (flu) over the 5 year average during the winter months. Daily figures show a similar profile to Covid with daily excesses up to ~700 over normal levels.
I can accept that views and emotions vary over the elderly and the extent to which the economy and young should make sacrifices. IMHO this needs to be balanced by the consequences on other diseases and the welfare of the entire community.

There is a much stronger argument to ensure that younger but vulnerable do receive support to minimise their risk of contracting Covid. Societies only work harmoniously if the needs of the entire community are reflected in behaviours adopted.

Selfish views being expresed by many posters on both sides of the argument do not take the debate forward.

As a final thought, even without a vaccine, Covid may be but another disease like measles, chicken pox, and other ailments (of old). 

In 20 years time the elderly and vulnerable to Covid will have either passed on or survived. The young will mostly routinely be infected in their early years and (big assumption) generally have immunity for later life!


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> @RobinBHM
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong, the facts speak for themselves, C19 is nothing like Spanish Flu and the young are not affected in anywhere near the same way.



Please avoid strawman logical fallacies, I didn't claim it was the same, an said as bad and backed up by a report published in a scientific journal.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> World population in 1918 was 1.7 billion ish, and and an estimated 50 million died from the Spanish flu. We would need more than 150 million dead from coronavirus to equate numerically. It hasn't even managed 1 million yet. There are two possibilities: either there is going to be a sudden, inexplicably huge increase in deaths, or the coronavirus isn't even remotely like the Spanish flu. I wouldn't like to speculate which is the most likely.


You are making a claim not many people have died.......but that is based on the result of a massive global effort to reduce the rate of infection.

Do you not remember the images of Italian and Spanish hospitals at breaking point.
Do you not remember the mass graves in New York

What do you think would've happened if those regions had just carried on as normal. How do you think the hospitals would have coped?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

There is some debate on whether lockdown make any difference at all. Here's a good test for you: if you didn't have the media screaming at you 24/7 that you are about to die; if there wasn't the endless repetition that the epidemic is colossal and huge and world ending, would you actually know that there is an epidemic, pandemic crisis? Have you suddenly attended (or been forbidden from attending) a plethora of funerals? Are half the people in your street dead or debilitated? Is there a crisis in reality?

The answer where I live is a definite, absolute "No". It may be different where you live, but it probably isn't. The amount of fear being pushed to control the herd is somewhat overinflated compared to what reality suggests is actually happening. 

Ask yourself if your terror of Covid19 is rational, and justified, based not on what you are told (because the media have a tendency to lie, exaggerate, create false narratives and engage in propaganda) but on what you have experienced. It is all subjective, and only you can come up with the answer for your particular situation. Bear in mind that every single person currently alive will most certainly die at some point, and about 1% of the world population die every year. This is normal and natural, and would be a disaster if it didn't happen. Images of convoys of trucks taking out the dead are impressive, but if you only have one coffin per truck, suddenly it isn't quite so dramatic. Do the maths, work on the numbers, make a decision based on what you believe to be reality. Don't immediately believe what other people claim is reality. As I see it, there are not sufficient dead people after 6 months to warrant destroying the world economy. More people will die from the effects than the cause. A pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.



> _I must not fear._
> Fear is the mind-killer.
> Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
> I will face my fear.
> I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
> And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
> Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
> Only I will remain.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Please avoid strawman logical fallacies, I didn't claim it was the same, an said as bad and backed up by a report published in a scientific journal.



Not a strawman, you said the young were affected by C19 like the Spanish Flu, they are demonstrably not, the young are not even affected as much as they are by seasonal Flu. It is not as bad as Spanish Flu, whether that changes we don't know we can only go by the facts of today which is what I am doing.

As to TN's point,have you seen people dropping like flies around you?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Not a strawman, you said the young were affected by C19 like the Spanish Flu, they are demonstrably not, the young are not even affected as much as they are by seasonal Flu. It is not as bad as Spanish Flu, whether that changes we don't know we can only go by the facts of today which is what I am doing.
> 
> As to TN's point,have you seen people dropping like flies around you?


No, I did not say the young were affected by C19.

The young were affected far more by Covid than seasonal flu.

On a minority of people Covid creates an excessive immune response, which can have a devastating affect, severe organ damage or failure. If you think flu does that, please provide the evidence.

Why do you say you only go on facts of the day? I can't see anything you say is backed by scientific evidence.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> There is some debate on whether lockdown make any difference at all


There may be some debate, please back up what you say by some evidence.

The rest of your post is built on a series of logical fallacies: strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks etc etc.
Do you still get your income from tourism.....in which case you have a hidden agenda.

And your argument "less people died than by the intervention" is using false presentation of the data.

There has been a huge effort to lower the R value globally, so to use the numbers that did die is a false argument.

You are basically making a comparison between intervention and herd immunity. Well the vast majority of virologists say herd immunity would not have worked. Trump wants to try it in America, projected figures suggest that could result in 2 million deaths.



Your argument that intervention hasn't worked is not borne out by facts. South Korea, Singapore, Germany have taken a full scale government intervention and their death rates are lower and economic damage was lower.

Those countries had organised, well funded test and trace systems. That is the proper solution.


----------



## russcelt

Oddbod said:


> How does one "isolate the old" when many require assistance with daily living, often from people who will visit several other, equally vulnerable people every day, or like myself, where I have to look after my mother, whilst at the same time trying to continue with other aspects of my life?
> If a significant percentage of the population acts in a selfish & ignorant manner by failing to socially distance, wear a mask in shops & wash their hands, then it's almost impossible to shield the vulnerable.
> Watching some cretin wipe their nose with their fingers, then get back hold of their supermarket trolley handle doesn't inspire confidence, nor does watching a mother & daughter pick up & put down multiple packs of Italian sausage before choosing ONE.
> Hopefully a virus that only kills the wilfully ignorant, unthinking & selfish WILL come along & take out half the population.



"...the vast majority of the harm inflicted during this pandemic was due to government edicts and political-bureaucratic fearmongering, not the virus itself." — James Bovard
Like

Comment

Share


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> No, I did not say the young were affected by C19.
> 
> The young were affected far more by Covid than seasonal flu.
> 
> On a minority of people Covid creates an excessive immune response, which can have a devastating affect, severe organ damage or failure. If you think flu does that, please provide the evidence.
> 
> Why do you say you only go on facts of the day? I can't see anything you say is backed by scientific evidence.



If you are going to contradict yourself and not bother to do any research then I am not going to engage with you further.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> If you are going to contradict yourself and not bother to do any research then I am not going to engage with you further.


I have done extensive research, that is why you don't want to debate with me.

You are finding it hard to argue against facts.

If you think Covid is merely innocuous, please back it up with links or evidence.

Do you know what excessive immune response is? 
Do you know the research that shows the number of deaths had herd immunity been chosen


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> I have done extensive research,



I don't know what avenues are open to you, but my only avenues are radio tv and the internet.

Radio and tv have an agenda of scaring the excrement from us and have been caught lying on numerous occasions, which leaves the internet.

No matter what position you take on masks, vaccines, social distancing, you will find an expert who agrees and another who disagrees.

So I am left to figure out for my self and act accordingly , rightly or wrongly.

Just one point because I have a life to live, regarding masks, there are many points but lets just take this one.
To comply with wishes of boris we should cover our faces while in a shop.

So put anything over your mouth and nose and you're good to go, as they say.

If it was a serious tactic to stop the spread of a disease we would have to wear a particular mask which would slow or stop the spread, not a hankie.


----------



## FatmanG

Here comes the resident moonball again!
The cabal, 1% or just evil c#$#s call them what you will shall be overjoyed reading this thread. Division, attacking each other, sarcasm and indifference. Job done I'd say.
People who are pandemic believers or believe SARS cov2 is just another typical flu like virus or against the draconian lockdown and financial ruin is because they are not at risk! Wrong I am at the highest risk. I should be in fear for my life disabled overweight man with an ILD and C.O.P.D. I was scared to death in the beginning seeing NY and Italy in what seemed like the Apocalypse. I was all for the lockdown in the beginning I thought it was necessary but as time has gone on my opinion has done a govt u turn. So much of what we are being spoon fed by the media is rubbish. Censorship, banning of therapeutic medicine, the only way out of this is a vaccines and likely to be mandatory were told! Why mandatory if the vaccines work then the only people at risk would be those who don't take it and have we lost so much control over our own lives we have to be injected against our own wishes? I read a comment on here about the opposite sides of this argument being extreme and most are somewhere in between or down the middle I think was said but there is no middle ground. This is either a killer virus so bad that everything has to be locked down or it isn't and life returns to normal herd immunity naturally occurs as it has always done. If Neil Ferguson believed his model that caused the world to shut down he wouldn't of been breaking the rules to meet his married wench! But OK were told to trust the scientific community. I trust nobody! Human beings are flawed I trust myself and my instincts have led me to research all the actors in this pandemic believers and none believers. Don't take it all on face value from anyone find out the stats and dissect them yourself. It will come out in the end. Like after 9/11 and the falsehoods that led to millions being maimed or killed throughout the world. All because of Saddam's WMDs. But like someone said earlier the whole scientific community can't be corrupt, they don't have to be! just a few loons at the top setting the agenda can cause absolute carnage. So forgive me and call me what you like! But my reasons for questioning the lockdown and the severity of the virus is not because I'm young and at no risk but because I have a son 2years since graduating from Sheffield uni and a 14yr old daughter that has just started her gave' GCSE's last Tuesday. Its their future, what future! I look at LA now and the tented villages already, we will end up like a 3rd world country. That scares me more than this virus.
I


----------



## Trainee neophyte

I think it is important to state first off that I don't want an angry, aggressive fight. I've got too much to do, and not enough time to invest in this, so apologies if I don't cover all your points individually.



RobinBHM said:


> There may be some debate, please back up what you say by some evidence.



Evidence of debate, or evidence that it didn't work? A few links which might supply one or the other, or perhaps both:








Lockdowns failed to alter course of pandemic, JP Morgan study claims


Falling infection rates since lockdowns were lifted in Europe and the US suggest that the virus 'likely has its own dynamics' which are 'unrelated' to lockdowns, JP Morgan says.




www.dailymail.co.uk












Lockdown Fail In One Easy Graph


Guest “Excel-lent!” by David Middleton What happens if you crossplot the “lockdown” rating of the Lower 48 states and DC with the COVID-19 infection rate? Lockdown Fail To t…




wattsupwiththat.com






RobinBHM said:


> The rest of your post is built on a series of logical fallacies: strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks etc etc.


Oh. Sorry about that. If you could be more specific, I could address the specific straw men, ad hominem (very sorry about those - certainly didn't meant to make baseless slurs on your good character) and logical fallacies. My main point is that you suggested this coronavirus as as lethal, deadly and all round scary as the Spanish Flu. I think it is about 150-200 times less lethal, but you could convince me otherwise with some data.



RobinBHM said:


> Do you still get your income from tourism.....in which case you have a hidden agenda.


I get _some_ of my income from tourism, and I would think my agenda is about as unhidden as you could get. It not just tourism that has fallen off a cliff - it is everything. With government support running out now, the real effects are about to be seen. If the governments around the world print money to give to the masses to pretend all is well, the effects of that will be felt instead/all well. Tourism is a tiny, probably irrelevant part of this impending disaster. 


RobinBHM said:


> You are basically making a comparison between intervention and herd immunity. Well the vast majority of virologists say herd immunity would not have worked. political name wants to try it in America, projected figures suggest that could result in 2 million deaths.


Are we allowed to mention Sweden? I know everyone is very rude about their failed policy, but they do seem to have found a different approach, and it does seem that it might be working.








Sweden’s Covid Expert Says ‘World Went Mad’ With Lockdowns


The man behind Sweden’s controversial Covid-19 strategy has characterized lockdowns imposed across much of the globe as a form of “madness” that flies in the face of what is known about handling viral outbreaks.




www.bloomberg.com












Sweden COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer


Sweden Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.




www.worldometers.info





So in conclusion, firstly it was not my intention to throw any insults around, and I am appalled if you think that I did. 

Secondly, I don't believe the current epidemic is as bad as the Spanish Flu - you will have to show me some data that proves otherwise before I think about changing my position.

Thirdly, I still believe that the best way forward is to allow the world to interact economically. Protect anyone who wants to be protected, but without economic activity there is no economy. Without an economy, there isn't much of anything. Like food, shelter, clothing, heating. The basics, in other words.


----------



## artie

Trainee neophyte said:


> Here's a good test for you: if you didn't have the media screaming at you 24/7 that you are about to die; if there wasn't the endless repetition that the epidemic is colossal and huge and world ending, would you actually know that there is an epidemic, pandemic crisis?


For months now I have been asking people I meet. "do you personally know anyone who died of covid?" Without fail they will say "A man died in such and such town or a friend of so and so died " etc.

I say that's not what I asked you, do you know personally anyone who died of, not with covid.

So far I have not had a yes.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

russcelt said:


> "...the vast majority of the harm inflicted during this pandemic was due to government edicts and political-bureaucratic fearmongering, not the virus itself." — James Bovard
> Like
> 
> Comment
> 
> Share


James Bovard!!!.....I have just had a little accident with my cup of tea (note to self - don't try drinking liquids while reading this thread)


----------



## Woody2Shoes

artie said:


> For months now I have been asking people I meet. "do you personally know anyone who died of covid?" Without fail they will say "A man died in such and such town or a friend of so and so died " etc.
> 
> I say that's not what I asked you, do you know personally anyone who died of, not with covid.
> 
> So far I have not had a yes.



I used to work with a healthy 72 year-old who died from C19 - he circulated amongst politicians in Westminster and caught it from them (sad irony) not long before Boris came down with it. A 45 year-old friend, who commuted to work in London by train every day, caught it in March and is still quite poorly with it. 15 people in my dad's care home tested positive for it (I've no idea how many got ill/died - we've never been told).

This bug is real enough for me, is circulating freely in the community, and is pernicious.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The success of keeping the R value down below 1, requires collective effort.
> 
> So yes the rules may be somewhat contradictory, but if we individually follow sensibly that will have a net benefit for everybody.
> 
> 
> I hate all these peopel which claim "its no worse than flu" "its a scamdemic"



Its better than flu actually. Its killing way less that flu at the moment. Way less


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I have also asked how many do you personally know who have actually died, or people you know that personally know others who have died.

Thus far the answer is zero.

The reasons are simple:

~50k have died from a population of ~66m. About 1 in 1300
most people have between 0 and 10 genuinely close friends
widen that to those you are "familiar" with - about 50.
I know this is a simplistic average. The elderly are more likely to know other elderly people, many young adults may know nobody (other than very close family) over 30.

The government message initially put the fear of death into many - particularly the old and vulnerable. It also initially adopted a policy of trying to flatten the curve to avoid overwhelming the NHS.

The former needs to be modified as there is a better understanding of the vulnerability of different age groups, ethnicity, economic status etc.

"Flatten the curve" has morphed into "protect life at any cost". 

This is simply not tenable - we need to accept the consequential impacts of restrictions on the community are non-trivial and will lead to alternative loss of lives, opportunity, relative poverty etc. 

I am late 60s and vulnerable. But I question the wisdom of stalling economic and social interaction for all to extend (perhaps by only a few weeks or months) the lives of elderly and infirm.

No one wants the virus but it is here. Greater tolerance of the needs of the young by the elderly and vulnerable may be reciprocated by the young showing greater tolerance of the needs of others. Or I may simply be utterly naive!

The rhetoric which accompanies much of the debate promotes conflict and the skewed use of statistics on both sides simply reinforces entrenched positions. All quite destructive really!!


----------



## Selwyn

artie said:


> ah yes statistics, but couldn't you be pragmatic and substitute old with vulnerable? Then a 75 year old who regularly runs marathons won't lose his freedom.



You wouldn't be under law that at 75 is unable to leave home. Merely guided or recommended so you are aware of the risks. You can still do what you want, it is your life!


----------



## billw

FatmanG said:


> Here comes the resident moonball again!
> The cabal, 1% or just evil c#$#s call them what you will shall be overjoyed reading this thread. Division, attacking each other, sarcasm and indifference. Job done I'd say.
> People who are pandemic believers or believe SARS cov2 is just another typical flu like virus or against the draconian lockdown and financial ruin is because they are not at risk! Wrong I am at the highest risk. I should be in fear for my life disabled overweight man with an ILD and C.O.P.D. I was scared to death in the beginning seeing NY and Italy in what seemed like the Apocalypse. I was all for the lockdown in the beginning I thought it was necessary but as time has gone on my opinion has done a govt u turn. So much of what we are being spoon fed by the media is rubbish. Censorship, banning of therapeutic medicine, the only way out of this is a vaccines and likely to be mandatory were told! Why mandatory if the vaccines work then the only people at risk would be those who don't take it and have we lost so much control over our own lives we have to be injected against our own wishes? I read a comment on here about the opposite sides of this argument being extreme and most are somewhere in between or down the middle I think was said but there is no middle ground. This is either a killer virus so bad that everything has to be locked down or it isn't and life returns to normal herd immunity naturally occurs as it has always done. If Neil Ferguson believed his model that caused the world to shut down he wouldn't of been breaking the rules to meet his married wench! But OK were told to trust the scientific community. I trust nobody! Human beings are flawed I trust myself and my instincts have led me to research all the actors in this pandemic believers and none believers. Don't take it all on face value from anyone find out the stats and dissect them yourself. It will come out in the end. Like after 9/11 and the falsehoods that led to millions being maimed or killed throughout the world. All because of Saddam's WMDs. But like someone said earlier the whole scientific community can't be corrupt, they don't have to be! just a few loons at the top setting the agenda can cause absolute carnage. So forgive me and call me what you like! But my reasons for questioning the lockdown and the severity of the virus is not because I'm young and at no risk but because I have a son 2years since graduating from Sheffield uni and a 14yr old daughter that has just started her gave' GCSE's last Tuesday. Its their future, what future! I look at LA now and the tented villages already, we will end up like a 3rd world country. That scares me more than this virus.
> I



Bloody hell.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Its better than flu actually. Its killing way less that flu at the moment. Way less



There has been massive effort to reduce the R value to flatten the curve to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.

So you making trying to make a comparison of false equivalence.....unless of course you can point to a flu pandemic where the world put measures in place to slow the spread.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> There has been massive effort to reduce the R value to flatten the curve to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.
> 
> So you making trying to make a comparison of false equivalence.....unless of course you can point to a flu pandemic where the world put measures in place to slow the spread.


Surley the actions taken to reduce covid, should also reduce flu?
That is if they actually worked.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> have also asked how many do you personally know who have actually died, or people you know that personally know others who have died



That's anecdotal not evidence, you wouldn't use it to enhance your argument if anybody you knew had suffered from it.

My niece works in the local hospital as a radiographer, she did chest scans on Covid patients, she saw first hand the unique and severe lung damage it can do.

2 people she knows in the hospital had it, both were ill. One will never return to work, one now has heart damage.

I agree the UK has to restore the economy, but the economy won't recover if there is a second wave.

It's a very careful balance, we must be vigilant in social distancing, infection control and where appropriate social bubbles.

The secret saviour is test and trace


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Surley the actions taken to reduce covid, should also reduce fku?
> That is if they actually worked.


That is true.

there hasn't been a flu outbreak, so it probably has stopped it....although it's a winter thing really, all those miserable cold days.

Kids back at school in the Autumn terms are mass spreaders of colds and flu, so they probably will do that this year too.....it could even be worse if people have lost immunity to coughs and colds.

My mum was a teacher, she used to always catch colds when going back in Sept.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> That is true.
> 
> there hasn't been a flu outbreak,


They're not my figures but someone a few posts up stated, and I'm sure they can back it up otherwise they wouldn't have posted, that Flu is currently killing more people than covid.

But you say there hasn't been a flue outbreak, but there has been covid outbreak.

I'm confused.

I'm also wondering, if someone has the flu and dies for any reason within 28 days, does it go down as a flu death>


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Perhaps we are losing sight of the fact that everyone is at risk of something. Different policies, designed to protect different parts of the community, have repurcussions. Actions have consequences, in other words. We could stop the virus in its tracks by locking every single person in their homes for a month. All of them. No shops, no supermarkets, no hospitals. No one goes outside. Problem solved. The unintended consequences would be quite horrific, but the virus would be gone. No more travel abroad, obviously, and complete isolation of the country would be required, so no more Chinese tool imports or French cheeses. 

Obviously that would never work, because the cure would do more damage than the illness. But any shutdown has implications, and there will be deaths, suicides, bankruptcies, mental illnesses etc. It's a bit like being captain of the Titanic post iceberg: you have x number of passengers, and x minus quite a lot lifeboat seats - who do you save, and who do you kill, or rather through inaction allow to die? What is the most effective outcome? How do you juggle young lives verses old, covid deaths verses other deaths etc? We seem to be arguing over where in the sliding scale the pointer should be set - luckily it's not our decision, because however you chose, someone has to die as a result.


----------



## Rorschach

artie said:


> I'm also wondering, if someone has the flu and dies for any reason within 28 days, does it go down as a flu death>



We don't test for flu, or rather we test very rarely. If you die of a respiratory illness you are assumed to have died of flu since it is the most common and most deadly. If you die of pneumonia then that is listed as the cause of death even though flu is a common cause of pneumonia. 

People saying flu is not that deadly and C19 is worse are generally ignorant of what Flu really is, possibly because of phrases like "ManFlu" that weaken our view of things. Real Flu is very dangerous and is deadly, is it more deadly than C19? I think it is as do many other scientists but we will never really know for certain as we don't have accurate enough data. One thing we do know, C19 does not kill children or the young and healthy (except in very rare cases), Flu on the other hand not only kills the old and vulnerable but it also kills healthy younger people and is especially nasty ofr young childen, primary school children get Flu vaccines every year because it is so bad for them. In terms of life years lost, Flu is way up there with many what we perceive to be nasty diseases, C19 on the other hand is very low in the life years lost as it is killing people very close to the natural end of their lives.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> There has been massive effort to reduce the R value to flatten the curve to stop the NHS being overwhelmed.
> 
> So you making trying to make a comparison of false equivalence.....unless of course you can point to a flu pandemic where the world put measures in place to slow the spread.



Well flu is currently killing more than Covid. And lockdown didn't seem to slow flu down did it? 

They are both respiratory diseases


----------



## AJB Temple

There is no means of telling whether lockdown slowed flu down (or anything else) because we do not know what would have happened had we not locked down. This is true of everything that has no control trial. (Sweden is slightly indicative but population density is radially different to highly affected parts of the UK).


----------



## artie

Rorschach said:


> We don't test for flu, or rather we test very rarely.



What I was getting at, is, if someone tests positive for covid and dies for any reason within 28 days it gets recorded as a covid death. Therefore in my opinion falsely exaggerating the rate.

If someone dies of flu it will go down as flu, if they get hit with a bus three weeks after the doc says they have flu, the death doesn't go down as flu.


----------



## Droogs

nor if they have covid and die from the bus impact - c'mon


----------



## Rorschach

artie said:


> What I was getting at, is, if someone tests positive for covid and dies for any reason within 28 days it gets recorded as a covid death. Therefore in my opinion falsely exaggerating the rate.
> 
> If someone dies of flu it will go down as flu, if they get hit with a bus three weeks after the doc says they have flu, the death doesn't go down as flu.



That is pretty must the gist of it from what I understand.


----------



## Rorschach

Droogs said:


> nor if they have covid and die from the bus impact - c'mon


Not true, if you have a C19 positive test within 28 days of death you are recorded as such, even if the actual cause of your death was something else.


----------



## AJB Temple

Rorschach said:


> Not true, if you have a C19 positive test within 28 days of death you are recorded as such, even if the actual cause of your death was something else.


I think this is wrong. My wife works for a firm providing safe custody of investment assets. When people die, the firm requires sight of the death certificate as part of the asset release policies. Clearly there is a time lag here so what she is seeing now is from the early to mid part oil lockdown. Certificates may mention the presence of Covid but the cause of death will be listed as whatever the doctor thinks the main factor was. Rarely Covid.


----------



## Rorschach

AJB Temple said:


> I think this is wrong. My wife works for a firm providing safe custody of investment assets. When people die, the firm requires sight of the death certificate as part of the asset release policies. Clearly there is a time lag here so what she is seeing now is from the early to mid part oil lockdown. Certificates may mention the presence of Covid but the cause of death will be listed as whatever the doctor thinks the main factor was. Rarely Covid.



I never said it was listed as primary cause, just that it was listed and if C19 is on your death certificate then you are counted among the C19 deaths, that's why they say "died WITH C19" rather than FROM.


----------



## artie

Droogs said:


> nor if they have covid and die from the bus impact - c'mon


Look it up, official gov site.


----------



## heimlaga

Sweden had rapid spread of Covid 19 as they refused any sort of lockdown at the beginning of the crisis. At present around 5% of the population in Sweden has measurable amounts of antibodies. 5800 have died. Icelandic research proves that practically everyone who has had the virus gets measurable amounts f antibodies so we can say that around 5% has had the virus.
If that had been allowed to continue Sweden would have had around 120000 deaths before the virus would have gone over the entire population.
However ordinary peope in Sweden did what the government neglected and created a sort of voluntary spontaneous lockdown which has largely halted the virus.
Applying the Swedish figures to Britain would mean 700000 Brits dead from covid 19 if there were no restrictions governmental nor voluntary.

Wishful thinking has never stopped an epidemic.


----------



## Rorschach

heimlaga said:


> Sweden had rapid spread of Covid 19 as they refused any sort of lockdown at the beginning of the crisis. At present around 5% of the population in Sweden has measurable amounts of antibodies. 5800 have died. Icelandic research proves that practically everyone who has had the virus gets measurable amounts f antibodies so we can say that around 5% has had the virus.
> If that had been allowed to continue Sweden would have had around 120000 deaths before the virus would have gone over the entire population.
> However ordinary peope in Sweden did what the government neglected and created a sort of voluntary spontaneous lockdown which has largely halted the virus.
> Applying the Swedish figures to Britain would mean 700000 Brits dead from covid 19 if there were no restrictions governmental nor voluntary.
> 
> Wishful thinking has never stopped an epidemic.



You are so wrong on so many points here I don't even know where to start.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> That is true.
> 
> there hasn't been a flu outbreak, so it probably has stopped it....although it's a winter thing really, all those miserable cold days.
> 
> Kids back at school in the Autumn terms are mass spreaders of colds and flu, so they probably will do that this year too.....it could even be worse if people have lost immunity to coughs and colds.
> 
> My mum was a teacher, she used to always catch colds when going back in Sept.



Flu isn't anything to do with cold days. Its to do with people being inside more


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Flu isn't anything to do with cold days. Its to do with people being inside more


Yes I know, I was merely making the point when flu is around its often miserable and cold weather.


----------



## woodhutt

It could pay to read this article. Particularly the armchair experts who appear to post ad nauseam on the subject.









Now everyone's a statistician. Here's what armchair COVID experts are getting wrong


The pandemic has exposed many of us to new statistical concepts, on the news, in everyday conversations and on social media. But how many are you getting wrong?




theconversation.com


----------



## artie

woodhutt said:


> It could pay to read this article. Particularly the armchair experts who appear to post ad nauseam on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now everyone's a statistician. Here's what armchair COVID experts are getting wrong
> 
> 
> The pandemic has exposed many of us to new statistical concepts, on the news, in everyday conversations and on social media. But how many are you getting wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com


I'm sorry but that article means absolutely nothing.
It's all about estimates, best estimates and speculation.


----------



## artie

Selwyn said:


> Flu isn't anything to do with cold days. Its to do with people being inside more


Is flu not a virus?


----------



## woodhutt

artie said:


> I'm sorry but that article means absolutely nothing.
> It's all about estimates, best estimates and speculation.



Actually, the article is largely about the incorrect interpretation of information out there, some deliberate, and which is disseminated on social media (and posts like this) which give a voice to conspiracy theorists and ultracrepidarians. 
I would have thought that the solution to reacting to the pandemic would be fairly simple. Look at those countries who have successfully suppressed the disease and those who haven't. Copy the former and avoid the latter.
However, as this will be my last post on this forum (and even visit to the site), I won't get into a discussion on the subject. I had joined the site believing I would have something in common with the members originating, as I do, from the UK albeit almost 50 years ago. I have learned from reading the various posts that this is not the case. The past really _*is*_ a different country. It has been an eye-opening experience for which, I suppose, I must say thanks. 
I'll sign off wishing you all the best in your future post-covid, post Brexit world.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

woodhutt said:


> which give a voice to conspiracy theorists and ultracrepidarians.


A pitty you have gone, because I wanted to thank you for expanding my vocabulary. "Ultracrepidarian" is definitely my word of the day. If you last saw the UK in 1970, then you are absolutely right that the past is another country.


----------



## Rorschach

Which countries have successfully suppressed C19? I haven't seen any.


----------



## heimlaga

New Zeeland has been fairly successful and Finland and Iceland aren't too far behind.

In this game there is nothing such as a total success. Only various grades of failiour. Falling just a little short of success is way better than a big time screw up when losses are roughly proportional to the grade of failiour.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

I don't see much merit in comparing the UK with countries which are fundamentally dissimilar - it is simply an exercise in selective statistics. Comparators should be similar in:

population density (Sweden is 10% of UK)
large centres of population (Helsinki is about the size of Bristol)
level of development (agriculture is NZ largest industry)
international connectivity (UK is hub, NZ is end of the line)
economic performance (Vietnam <$3k per capita, UK $42k)
Thus obvious comparators are European - France, Italy, Spain have performed broadly similar to the UK, Germany is worth a good look to understand better practice.

The other obvious anomaly is Japan with very low virus deaths.

Also need to consider culture and politics - eg: China "benefits" from a compliant population - challenge the government and prison camp may await. Germany is generally attatched to "alles in ordnung".

The UK by contrast delights in individualism - no matter how profoundly daft.


----------



## artie

Rorschach said:


> We already missed out on a lot of family time



This is the point, we won't get this time back, it's gone wasted.


----------



## heimlaga

We will never get this time back.......... but tomorrow we will have to live with the consequeces of our decisions made today. Even avoiding to make a decision counts as a decision.
If you decide to be irresposible you are the one who has to carry the blame if it gets a bad end.

In my family we have decided that all family time where different households meet is to be outdoors or if it is raining very heavily in a half open tractor shed where the wind is blowing trough. Households stay at least 3 metres apart and eat their own food at different tables. Never more than three households at once.
Loosing three months of family time the coming winter is a small price to pay for increasing the survival chances of our elders and all other sickly or elderly people in the country.

There are certainly other clever ways for those of you who live in a more urban environment. In my opinion each and every one of us should think outside all boxes and try to come up with ways that fits his/her family.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Yes I know, I was merely making the point when flu is around its often miserable and cold weather.



Sure. Common misinterpretation is that flu is weather related though


----------



## Rorschach

Got my last post deleted for encouraging illegal acitvity, oops! lol.

A slightly different question then that was asked on the radio at lunchtime, would you phone the police on your neighbours if you saw them have more than 6 people in their house?


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> Got my last post deleted for encouraging illegal acitvity, oops! lol.
> 
> A slightly different question then that was asked on the radio at lunchtime, would you phone the police on your neighbours if you saw them have more than 6 people in their house?



No, that rule is farcical if you can go to pubs and socialise indoors with people you don’t know.


----------



## heimlaga

Are you on this forum for any other reason than starting quarrels Rorschach?

You need an axe and a bow saw and 20 full size windfallen pine trees to turn into sawlogs and firewood. That is the best cure I know of when my brain is boiling and I feel like starting a fight would be a good idea.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Which countries have successfully suppressed C19? I haven't seen any.


why does it need suppressing

according to you it is innocuous


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> What I was getting at, is, if someone tests positive for covid and dies for any reason within 28 days it gets recorded as a covid death. Therefore in my opinion falsely exaggerating the rate.
> 
> If someone dies of flu it will go down as flu, if they get hit with a bus three weeks after the doc says they have flu, the death doesn't go down as flu.


the method of reporting was changed to make the figures more up to date

it has hardly any overall effect on the numbers

if you dont like the govt figures, use the ONS they use the primary cause written on the death cert


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I never said it was listed as primary cause, just that it was listed and if C19 is on your death certificate then you are counted among the C19 deaths, that's why they say "died WITH C19" rather than FROM.


not on the ONS figures


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> why does it need suppressing
> 
> according to you it is innocuous



I don't think it needs suppressing, I was asking @woodhutt to back up his claim.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> not on the ONS figures



Yes it is. (They state it on their site, you can look for yourself)


----------



## Rorschach

Well the last time I was due to take a trip it was cancelled by Boris with lockdown Mk1. Now I am due to take another trip and Boris is once again scheduled to make an important announcement.


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> Well the last time I was due to take a trip it was cancelled by Boris with lockdown Mk1. Now I am due to take another trip and Boris is once again scheduled to make an important announcement.



He's quitting.


----------



## Doug71

After 6 months off school my 10 yr old managed one week back before a teaching assistant tested positive so we are back to home schooling again, his whole class has to isolate for 2 weeks  I can't see how schools are going to manage to stay open.


----------



## Rorschach

Doug71 said:


> After 6 months off school my 10 yr old managed one week back before a teaching assistant tested positive so we are back to home schooling again, his whole class has to isolate for 2 weeks  I can't see how schools are going to manage to stay open.



It's pretty stupid. The assistant should isolate of course as they have tested positive but what is the point of the class doing it, if they have got it, they will already have taken it home so why not be in school together?


----------



## Rorschach

billw said:


> He's quitting.



My prediction for that is no he isn't but interesting you say that.


----------



## Rorschach

My luck is in for a change, I can still go away!


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Doug71 said:


> After 6 months off school my 10 yr old managed one week back before a teaching assistant tested positive so we are back to home schooling again, his whole class has to isolate for 2 weeks  I can't see how schools are going to manage to stay open.


Mine has gone on strike and is refusing to wear a mask. So are all the school kids across the entire country from what I can make out. They are not enjoying being forced to wear masks. Very cool to think that the children actually have their own minds over this, regardless of what the consequences are for them and for everyone else. Do UK children ever refuse to put up with their miserable conditions? I never did, but that was quite some time ago.


----------



## artie

Trainee neophyte said:


> So are all the school kids across the entire country from what I can make out.


I only know of one locally, I'm glad that her mother supported her and the headmaster has finally backed down and admitted she doesn't HAVE to wear it.


----------



## Rorschach

billw said:


> He's quitting.


 Seems not.


----------



## billw

Rorschach said:


> Seems not.



Well, it was an outside gamble of a guess for sure.


----------



## Rorschach

Can anyone explain to me why more people are dying of flu than C19?

Surely the same measures that "protect" us from C19, social distancing and wearing of masks etc should also be keeping flu deaths down?









More people are dying of flu than coronavirus


The increase in Covid-19 infections did not immediately lead to an increase in deaths, official data shows




www.birminghammail.co.uk


----------



## Terry - Somerset

*Can anyone explain to me why more people are dying of flu than C19? *

You may find the answer to your question if read the attached link.

Flu deaths - fullfact

It demonstrates that blind acceptance whatever selective information the media report simply because it fits a preconceived belief is questionable.

Your question would be reasonable only if there were confidence it is based on sound data.


----------



## Rorschach

That article just confirms what is being said, just maybe that the numbers are not quite right.


----------



## artie

lies, damn lies and statistics.


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Let's revisit that in a month's time shall we?



Well it's a month tomorrow, unless several thousand people die tonight I think you might have just been proved wrong.


----------



## Robin Whitfield

Rorschach said:


> Well it's a month tomorrow, unless several thousand people die tonight I think you might have just been proved wrong.


It'll probably take them another month to realise they forgot to report them.









Covid: 16,000 coronavirus cases missed in daily figures after IT error


Those who tested positive were told and their contacts are being traced, the prime minister says.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Rorschach

I know you all hate links and videos but the common sense and practicality expressed in this video is so refreshing and restores my faith in humanity. No dodgy scientists here, Harvard, Oxford and Stanford professors.


----------



## selectortone

Rorschach said:


> Well it's a month tomorrow, unless several thousand people die tonight I think you might have just been proved wrong.



Googling "Covid deaths Uk", brings up googles own covid-19 statistics which report that on 1st September there were two reported deaths, while on the 1st October there were 71. You may not consider that a significant increase but most people might.


----------



## artie

selectortone said:


> on 1st September there were two reported deaths, while on the 1st October there were 71. You may not consider that a significant increase but most people might.


On the second of October there were 59 would you call that a significant reduction?


----------



## selectortone

artie said:


> On the second of October there were 59 would you call that a significant reduction?


I would call it a significant increase over the second of September (3 deaths)


----------



## Rorschach

selectortone said:


> Googling "Covid deaths Uk", brings up googles own covid-19 statistics which report that on 1st September there were two reported deaths, while on the 1st October there were 71. You may not consider that a significant increase but most people might.



Worldometer shows 3 for the 1st and 10 for the 2nd of September, today there were 19 on the 28th there were 13. When you are talking about a tiny number any increase seems huge but in reality it isn't.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

From the ONS:




__





Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics


Provisional counts of the number of deaths registered in England and Wales, including deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), by age, sex and region.



www.ons.gov.uk








> The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 18 September 2020 (Week 38) was 9,523; this was 288 fewer deaths than in Week 37.
> In Week 38, the number of deaths registered was 2.8% above the five-year average (259 deaths higher).
> Of the deaths registered in Week 38, 139 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, accounting for 1.5% of all deaths in England and Wales; this is an increase compared with Week 37 (40 deaths higher).
> The numbers of deaths in hospitals and care homes were below the five-year average in Week 38 (365 and 68 fewer deaths respectively), while the number of deaths in private homes remained above the five-year average (711 more deaths).
> The number of deaths involving COVID-19 increased in six of the nine English regions; the North East and London were the only English regions to have fewer overall deaths than the five-year average.
> In Wales, the number of deaths involving COVID-19 increased from one death (Week 37) to five deaths (Week 38), while the total number of deaths in Week 38 was 20 fewer deaths than the five-year average.
> The number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 18 September 2020 (Week 38) was 10,784, which was 257 deaths higher than the five-year average but 361 deaths fewer than Week 37; of the deaths registered in the UK in Week 38, 158 deaths involved COVID-19, 48 deaths higher than Week 37.


----------



## doctor Bob

Can kicking has proved to be a hugely effective way of destroying the economy thats for certain.
Trouble is the can is pretty beaten up now and the population is tired of it.


----------



## Rorschach

As the video I posted states we have become obsessed with one metric, totally ignoring every other disease and issue faced by the human race. It's mass hysteria and we are going to suffer long and hard for it. As usual though the ones who will suffer most are the ones least placed to bear it, the lower classes.


----------



## artie

selectortone said:


> I would call it a significant increase over the second of September (3 deaths)


How many people died that day of flu, heart disease, Alzheimer's or cancer?

Lets get some perspective.


----------



## Rorschach

artie said:


> How many people died that day of flu, heart disease, Alzheimer's or cancer?
> 
> Lets get some perspective.



If I recall correctly around this time of year the daily death rate is about 1200 people (all causes). In the depths of winter that goes up to over 2000 a day and in the summer it falls to under 1000. (The average across the year is around 1700 per day, but of course that varies a lot depending on the season)

Even 100 people a day dying with C19 is small potatoes at this time of year, especially as a good proportion of them would have died from something else anyway.

Remember again, these deaths are WITH C19, not necessarily FROM C19 and indeed the daily death figures are running along at exactly what we would expect for this time of year, no massive increase at all.


----------



## Cabinetman

Very rough figures and I mean very rough, population of 66 million average life expectancy 84 means that 785,714 people die every year which is 2152 and a bit a day. I’ve said almost from the start that we are totally out of proportion on this virus. Maybe the original lockdown had some merit to ease the NHS into this – till we found out what it was all about but the present lockdowns are in my view ridiculous, it should be possible to protect the vulnerable from the worst of this and let the rest of us just get on with it. Ian


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Everyone has rather forgotten that the financial system was failing, and had actually started to implode in September 2019. If you wear your tinfoil hat at a rakish angle, you can come up with theories that explain most of the covid19 rationale as being nothing to do with saving lives, and everything to do with allowing a controlled demolition of the world economy. 

It doesn't actually matter, at the end if the day, if it was planned or just happened organically: the system is still going to fail. There is another thread running at the moment about inflation: if you define inflation as a rise in prices, then there is some, but not too much (ignore the official statistics - from the same people who include prostitution and drugs in gdp numbers, purely to avoid admitting to an endless recession). However, if you define inflation as an increase in the money supply then inflation is stratospheric and about to go interstellar. This may or may not affect the prices of things we buy in the next few months, but it is certainly going to cost us all in the long run.







When "they" proudly announce a Universal Basic Income, it will be time to run for the hills.


----------



## doctor Bob

240000 what?
Could be f*** ups in woodworking, would make sense with people finding it as a new hobby in 2020.

I made one back in 2011 .............................


----------



## Trainee neophyte

doctor Bob said:


> 240000 what?


Millions, I expect. The link is United Kingdom Money Supply M2 | 1986-2020 Data | 2021-2022 Forecast | Historical

"Money Supply M2 in the United Kingdom decreased to 2713066 GBP Million in August from 2713963 GBP Million in July of 2020"









Visualizing a Trillion: Just How Big That Number Is? - Digital Inspiration


Tech, a la carte




www.labnol.org


----------



## artie

Trainee neophyte said:


> "Money Supply M2 in the United Kingdom decreased to 2713066 GBP Million in August from 2713963 GBP Million in July of 2020"


Where did the 897 million go?


----------



## doctor Bob

artie said:


> Where did the 897 million go?



Shhhhhhhhh ............. keep quite and stop making a fuss and I'll split it with you.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

artie said:


> Where did the 897 million go?


"A million here, a million there - soon you're talking real money".


----------



## artie

Trainee neophyte said:


> "A million here, a million there - soon you're talking real money".





doctor Bob said:


> Shhhhhhhhh ............. keep quite and stop making a fuss and I'll split it with you.



No seriously, how does the money supply decrease?


----------



## RobinBHM

Cabinetman said:


> Very rough figures and I mean very rough, population of 66 million average life expectancy 84 means that 785,714 people die every year which is 2152 and a bit a day. I’ve said almost from the start that we are totally out of proportion on this virus. Maybe the original lockdown had some merit to ease the NHS into this – till we found out what it was all about but the present lockdowns are in my view ridiculous, it should be possible to protect the vulnerable from the worst of this and let the rest of us just get on with it. Ian



It would if this country had effective test and trace in place.

In which case we could then be protecting the vulnerable.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> If I recall correctly around this time of year the daily death rate is about 1200 people (all causes). In the depths of winter that goes up to over 2000 a day and in the summer it falls to under 1000. (The average across the year is around 1700 per day, but of course that varies a lot depending on the season)
> 
> Even 100 people a day dying with C19 is small potatoes at this time of year, especially as a good proportion of them would have died from something else anyway.
> 
> Remember again, these deaths are WITH C19, not necessarily FROM C19 and indeed the daily death figures are running along at exactly what we would expect for this time of year, no massive increase at all.



Your argument is based on a false premise.
Not many people have died because of the huge efforts to reduce the R rate.

I agree the current restrictions are a failure of policy, they have been put in place because of a lack of a working test and trace programme.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Your argument is based on a false premise.
> 
> 
> I agree the current restrictions are a failure of policy, they have been put in place because of a lack of a working test and trace programme.


But there is no test for covid 19


----------



## Trainee neophyte

artie said:


> No seriously, how does the money supply decrease?


In the normal course of events, money is created (magically brought into being) by borrowing it from a bank. It is destroyed by being repaid to the bank. It therefore should be your civic duty to borrow as much money as possible, _and never pay it back._ In the current regime, who knows what is going on.

I wonder if all that stimulus money and the furlough payments were used to pay mortgages and bank loans, which would destroy the money and be deflationary, which would be A Very Bad Thing. I also wonder if the central banks globally have decided to reign in the QE etc, which will have a pretty immediate and intentional effect on the various stock markets, for their beloved "October suprise". Luckily the people in charge are jolly clever and know exactly what they are doing, so no need to panic.

In answer to your question - I don't know. May be interesting to find out out the mechanism. I shall look further.

Edit: from the same chart source, M1 actually went up by a spooky 6,666 million pounds, whereas M2 and M3 both dropped (by 897 and 19,665 GBP respectively). Does this mean that people have been converting savings into cash? M1 is cash and deposits only; M2 is M1 plus "near-cash" equivalents, such as savings accounts etc, and M3 is M2 plus even more esoteric stuff (like the bizarre shadow banking system, so who really knows...)

Perhaps the question is actually "What is money"?


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> But there is no test for covid 19


Please back up with evidence or redact


----------



## RobinBHM

Cabinetman said:


> Very rough figures and I mean very rough, population of 66 million average life expectancy 84 means that 785,714 people die every year which is 2152 and a bit a day. I’ve said almost from the start that we are totally out of proportion on this virus. Maybe the original lockdown had some merit to ease the NHS into this – till we found out what it was all about but the present lockdowns are in my view ridiculous, it should be possible to protect the vulnerable from the worst of this and let the rest of us just get on with it. Ian



How can you say we are out of proportion to this virus?

Deaths from all other causes aren't preventable
With Covid, the R value can be reduced by simple social distancing and infection control measures.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> emember again, these deaths are WITH C19, not necessarily FROM C19 and indeed the daily death figures are running along at exactly what we would expect for this time of year, no massive increase at all



Remember again, excess deaths during the first lockdown were in the region of 60,000 
In line with the Covid death numbers

And 2 
you point that Daily death figures are now running in line with normal deaths rates......well gee that proves the Methods used to keep the R rate down have been working.
Thank you for confirming the Covid strategy is working. Well done.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> you point that Daily death figures are now running in line with normal deaths rates......well gee that proves the Methods used to keep the R rate down have been working.
> Thank you for confirming the Covid strategy is working. Well done.



Or it shows that anyone who was going to die with C19 has already done so, in which case the measures are pointless as we are not protecting anybody and in fact are harming them more by not building herd immunity when we should be.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Or it shows that anyone who was going to die with C19 has already done so, in which case the measures are pointless as we are not protecting anybody and in fact are harming them more by not building herd immunity when we should be.



Estimates give a figure of 3 million people have had Covid.
Herd immunity requires 60% of population.
in any case, research has not proven the case for herd immunity

"Only about 10% of the global population has antibodies against the infection, and experts don 't know how protective they are or how long the protection lasts"









WHO: Herd immunity is a long way off stopping COVID-19


Even if the presence of COVID-19 antibodies meant you were shielded against the coronavirus, research indicates only about 10% of the global population has these antibodies.




www.weforum.org





If you have any peer approved scientific evidence that proves herd immunity would be successful for Covid, I am sure you would like to share it with us.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Please back up with evidence or redact


I'll back pedal a little and say I haven't been able to find one, maybe you can show me?


----------



## Rorschach

@RobinBHM Herd immunity is the end game whether you like it or not. We either get it naturally or artificially by vaccine, we do it quickly or we do it slowly. If herd immunity cannot be acquired (as it cannot for some other coronaviruses) then we live in perpetual lockdown which is impossible.

At the moment all we are doing it "protecting" those already safe (the young middle classes who work from home) while putting the vulnerable (older working classes and those in care homes) at risk.

We squandered our opportunity in the summer and we will now pay for it in the winter.

Watch the video I posted recently.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Remember again, excess deaths during the first lockdown were in the region of 60,000
> In line with the Covid death numbers


Statistics I've looked at show lower deaths this year than in many previous years.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> If you have any peer approved scientific evidence that proves herd immunity would be successful for Covid, I am sure you would like to share it with us.


But the whole lockdown fiasco was based on computer models, estimates and speculation, why are you interested in any peer approved scientific evidence that proves herd immunity would be successful for Covid,


----------



## Rorschach

artie said:


> But the whole lockdown fiasco was based on computer models, estimates and speculation, why are you interested in any peer approved scientific evidence that proves herd immunity would be successful for Covid,



He's not interested, it's a way to discredit others arguments. The whole policy we are living through at the moment has no scientific basis but he can't admit that so he calls for science to say it is wrong instead.


----------



## Rorschach

I notice "local" lockdowns are getting bigger and stricter while cases continue to increase. Could it be (as some of us said back in april/may) that lockdowns don't work? Surely not?


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> Remember again, excess deaths during the first lockdown were in the region of 60,000
> In line with the Covid death numbers
> 
> And 2
> you point that Daily death figures are now running in line with normal deaths rates......well gee that proves the Methods used to keep the R rate down have been working.
> Thank you for confirming the Covid strategy is working. Well done.


Your in cuckoo land. 

Don't worry your holy grail the vaccine is imminent. 
Lockdown part 1 accomplished the following. The deaths of huge numbers of the elderly by emptying hospitals and sending them all to care homes with or without covid and it spread like wild fire. The same policy was employed in NYC by Andrew Cuomo which was a disaster and scared us here immeasurably. Lockdown accomplished the utter Destruction of freedoms, liberty and decimated the economy. None of which will ever return to pre March levels. We're now 7 months into the lockdown and we can clearly see that this virus is no worse than flu. The masks, social distancing is futile. Woodworkers should know about masks and particles getting through them. Its absolutely ridiculous to believe that the masks most people wear can prevent a tiny miniscule particle of a virus escaping. Its disingenuous for those clowns from PHE, CDC to claim a mask is vital. Its another form of control. Lockdown is clearly a disproportionate measure that has done far more harm than good in so many ways. Its clear the govt has failed miserably. Policy, track and trace all useless and not fit for purpose. President Trump has hit the nail on the head at last. There's nothing to be afraid of!
I repeat my solution I posted on here weeks ago. Isolate and protect the elderly and the vulnerable. Everyone else restart their lives open up the economy, businesses reopen and reclaim your life before its too late. What's the point of life if your unable to live.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> I'll back pedal a little and say I haven't been able to find one, maybe you can show me?


If haven't any, why write a post that says: "tests don't work".


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> Your in cuckoo land.
> 
> Don't worry your holy grail the vaccine is imminent.
> Lockdown part 1 accomplished the following. The deaths of huge numbers of the elderly by emptying hospitals and sending them all to care homes with or without covid and it spread like wild fire. The same policy was employed in NYC by Andrew Cuomo which was a disaster and scared us here immeasurably. Lockdown accomplished the utter Destruction of freedoms, liberty and decimated the economy. None of which will ever return to pre March levels. We're now 7 months into the lockdown and we can clearly see that this virus is no worse than flu. The masks, social distancing is futile. Woodworkers should know about masks and particles getting through them. Its absolutely ridiculous to believe that the masks most people wear can prevent a tiny miniscule particle of a virus escaping. Its disingenuous for those clowns from PHE, CDC to claim a mask is vital. Its another form of control. Lockdown is clearly a disproportionate measure that has done far more harm than good in so many ways. Its clear the govt has failed miserably. Policy, track and trace all useless and not fit for purpose. President Trump has hit the nail on the head at last. There's nothing to be afraid of!
> I repeat my solution I posted on here weeks ago. Isolate and protect the elderly and the vulnerable. Everyone else restart their lives open up the economy, businesses reopen and reclaim your life before its too late. What's the point of life if your unable to live.



Why are you saying masks and social distancing isn't successful.

Where is your evidence.

Your argument seems to be this:

The country followed scientific and virologist advice to reduce the R value which worked.......and because it worked you are now arguing that: "oh look, not many people of died, so the effort that was used to stop it killing people wasn't needed"


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> an clearly see that this virus is no worse than flu


Where is your evidence?

What you are saying is this: " the efforts to reduce the spread of the virus have kept its mortality down to flu. 

250,000 to 500,000 die from flu annually in the world.
1 million have died from Covid so far.

And that is with massive efforts to reduce the infection rate

So please can you explain how Covid is " no worse than flu" when the evidence states otherwise.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> He's not interested, it's a way to discredit others arguments. The whole policy we are living through at the moment has no scientific basis but he can't admit that so he calls for science to say it is wrong instead.



You have just contradicted yourself.

You said:
"the whole policy we are living through now has no scientific basis"

So on what basis have you determined that?
Your reasoning has no scientific basis.

Back to the drawing board for you.


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> Why are you saying masks and social distancing isn't successful.
> 
> Where is your evidence.
> 
> Your argument seems to be this:
> 
> The country followed scientific and virologist advice to reduce the R value which worked.......and because it worked you are now arguing that: "oh look, not many people of died, so the effort that was used to stop it killing people wasn't needed"


No! My argument is failed government policy caused so many deaths in the first place causing fear to rip through society. The lockdown only achieved destruction of liberty and the economy. The r rate is totally irrelevant. Its deaths that matter and the vast majority of them were old or had co morbidities. The death rate is in line with the norm now its clear this virus is no worse than the flu. The lockdown has done more damage than the virus ever could.
Edit: 1m deaths I dispute that all deaths were due to covid but recorded as with covid.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Statistics I've looked at show lower deaths this year than in many previous years.


Untrue.

Excess deaths has been carefully modelled.

Please provide a link that explains how your lower figures were modelled


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> You have just contradicted yourself.
> 
> You said:
> "the whole policy we are living through now has no scientific basis"
> 
> So on what basis have you determined that?
> Your reasoning has no scientific basis.
> 
> Back to the drawing board for you.



Where is your scientific basis for what we are doing now? Show us your peer reviewed studies?


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> But the whole lockdown fiasco was based on computer models, estimates and speculation, why are you interested in any peer approved scientific evidence that proves herd immunity would be successful for Covid,


Because Rorschach's is claiming that in the UK, herd immunity may have been reached.

Evidence shows that is untrue

And there is no evidence herd immunity can be achieved naturally through infection.
We don't know how long immunity lasts.


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> Because Rorschach's is claiming that in the UK, herd immunity may have been reached.
> 
> Evidence shows that is untrue
> 
> And there is no evidence herd immunity can be achieved naturally through infection.
> We don't know how long immunity lasts.


How can you claim herd immunity hasn't been reached when folk cannot get a test and the track and trace system is on a ventilator.
What scientific evidence do you have to prove its not been reached


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> If haven't any, why write a post that says: "tests don't work".


Because I haven't found one, but I'm still looking


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Untrue.
> 
> Excess deaths has been carefully modelled.
> 
> Please provide a link that explains how your lower figures were modelled


Total deaths per annum are recorded not modelled, and they are there for anyone to check.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Because Rorschach's is claiming that in the UK, herd immunity may have been reached.
> 
> Evidence shows that is untrue
> 
> And there is no evidence herd immunity can be achieved naturally through infection.
> We don't know how long immunity lasts.



I didn't claim it had been reached? When did I say that?


----------



## Regex

Rorschach said:


> As the video I posted states we have become obsessed with one metric, totally ignoring every other disease and issue faced by the human race. It's mass hysteria and we are going to suffer long and hard for it. As usual though the ones who will suffer most are the ones least placed to bear it, the lower classes.



I wade into this discussion at my own peril. I apologise for picking out your post in particular Rorschach, but I have to start somewhere.

Some thoughts from me.

Are we ignoring other diseases and issues?
One might think so, given the media reporting and social media discussions are almost exclusively focused on CV19.
On the other hand, I suspect most researchers investigating other diseases would not simply drop their life's work at this moment in time, so other issues like cancer, disabilities, and other afflictions are still being researched and treated (you just don't hear about it).
You frequently mention influenza deaths, comparing their numbers to CV19 deaths. The physical distancing and wearing masks will help prevent flu cases as well, since the flu virus can spread through the air in water particles from sneezing and coughing (just like CV19).
Other issues such as climate change are still very much a hot topic (pardon the pun).

Mass hysteria
There is a bit of a frenzy related to all this, but are you really surprised? CV19 spreads fast and silently, with outbreaks blooming almost overnight in communities that were fine before, filling up emergency wards in hospitals with people on ventilators at the expense of other health problems requiring emergency treatment too.
This 'unknown' is scary, it fills many people with dread.
Increasingly we are hearing about long term detrimental health effects post infection: this really is not your regular flu which often just goes away again.
This entire heated discussion shows that we ourselves are not immune to the mass hysteria either.

Focusing on one metric (deaths)
You are correct, we cannot just foucs on deaths.
I would like to mention that the following topics have been in focus for the whole time as well:
mental health, with people in isolation suffering from very real mental health problems directly associated with lockdown
economic impact to people's livelihoods is also real and must be considered.
However, this is an issue related to how badly the initial outbreak and ongoing efforts were handled, as opposed to lockdowns per se.
This is a failure placed largely on our government and their actions (or inactions)
This is not a political forum, so I will not dwell further on how well or how badly our government has handled this pandemic.


Increasingly we are hearing about long term detrimental health effects post infection: this really is not your regular flu which often just goes away again.

Lower classes will suffer.
Correct, this has always been the case with events like pandemics, recessions, social upheavals.
People are justafiably angry. What is the solution?
Certainly flouting rules such as keeping a physical distance and using facemasks is not the way forward, as this will only harm people we are close to. I live here abroad, I have not seen any of my family since the start of the year.
A change in government?
Holding leaders accountable for egregious blunders/lies? (I'm not holding my breath)

I have been lucky enough to be able to work from home. As such I am insulated from the economic impacts, for now at least, so I will not lecture on this point.

Wishing all the best to everyone, and remember to "phsically" distance (I always hated the term social distancing).


----------



## artie

Regex said:


> Mass hysteria
> There is a bit of a frenzy related to all this, but are you really surprised? CV19 spreads fast and silently, with outbreaks blooming almost overnight in communities that were fine before, filling up emergency wards in hospitals


This is what they said would happen, but reality was quire different.


----------



## Regex

artie said:


> This is what they said would happen, but reality was quire different.



Are you referring to the wards filling up? At the time they were looking to Italy and China, which did indeed have this problem. I remember seeing footage from fraught hospital staff showing videos of patients lining corridors and extra buildings. Do you remember China's publicity stunt where they live streamed building a new hospital in record time?

Overall I am not completely clued up on how the capacity situation was here in the UK.

Even in hindsight it is hard to say what should have been the correct course of action, so even the following scenarios seem plausible:
- Would it have been a lot worse with no lockdown?
- Was the lockdown an overreaction?
- Did the lockdown work as intended? (ergo the nhs could get by and still manage to treat other non related issues?)


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> How can you say we are out of proportion to this virus?
> 
> Deaths from all other causes aren't preventable
> With Covid, the R value can be reduced by simple social distancing and infection control measures.



This isn't necessarily true. The virus could be simply following a typical virus curve anyway.

Also if lockdowns worked why has there not be a corresponding decline in other respiratory diseases?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Also if lockdowns worked why has there not be a corresponding decline in other respiratory diseases?


I presume you are referring to communicable diseases, in which case there has:

"Global social distancing rules targeting coronavirus have pushed influenza infection rates to a record low, early figures show, signalling that the measures are having an unprecedented impact on other communicable diseases."








Seasonal flu reports hit record lows amid global social distancing


The World Health Organization estimates there are some 3 to 5 million severe illnesses and up to 500,000 deaths annually linked to seasonal influenza globally.




www.weforum.org


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Where is your scientific basis for what we are doing now? Show us your peer reviewed studies?


Hitchens Razor 

The majority of governments around the world are following the best advice available for reducing the virus spread: ie social distancing and infection control.

you are challenging that, so the burden of proof lies with you

So, in your own time......


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> How can you claim herd immunity hasn't been reached when folk cannot get a test and the track and trace system is on a ventilator.
> What scientific evidence do you have to prove its not been reached


because all scientific modelling says it has not been reached

the largest anti body study suggest 6% of people have been infected:
"under 6% of the population may have antibodies for the virus by the end of June – an estimated 3.4 million people"




__





Largest study on home coronavirus antibody testing publishes first findings


More than 100,000 people across England have tested themselves for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at home as part of a major national research programme supported by staff at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.




www.imperial.nhs.uk






Is herd immunity possible even with Covid?

short answer: we don't know, there is insufficient evidence as yet.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I didn't claim it had been reached? When did I say that?



here:


Rorschach said:


> shows that anyone who was going to die with C19 has already done so


because that would be the only reasonable conclusion.

you could claim that everybody susceptible to covid has already had or has immunity, but since the number of vulnerable people far exceeds that, it must be ruled out


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> I'll back pedal a little and say I haven't been able to find one, maybe you can show me?


I am sorry I dont know what you are asking?

in a previous post you said "there is no test for covid 19"

but there clearly is:
"Currently there are two types of diagnostic tests which detect the virus – *molecular *tests, such as RT-PCR tests, that detect the virus’s genetic material, and *antigen* tests that detect specific proteins on the surface of the virus."


If you claim there isnt a test, perhaps you could elaborate.......


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> here:
> 
> because that would be the only reasonable conclusion.
> 
> you could claim that everybody susceptible to covid has already had or has immunity, but since the number of vulnerable people far exceeds that, it must be ruled out



No you are attributing meaning to something I did not say. Saying everyone who was going to die does not imply we have reached herd immunity, simply that the most vulnerable have succumbed already, that's a totally different thing to herd immunity. I know that there are still plenty of people who have not yet caught it (but they will eventually) but they are younger, healthier and will not die from it, they are the people that need to get it in order that the more vulnerable will be protected later on.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I presume you are referring to communicable diseases, in which case there has:
> 
> "Global social distancing rules targeting coronavirus have pushed influenza infection rates to a record low, early figures show, signalling that the measures are having an unprecedented impact on other communicable diseases."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seasonal flu reports hit record lows amid global social distancing
> 
> 
> The World Health Organization estimates there are some 3 to 5 million severe illnesses and up to 500,000 deaths annually linked to seasonal influenza globally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.weforum.org



Seasonal flu could also be lower because the people who would have caught/died from flu have already died from C19. I predicted earlier this year that we would see a lower mortality this winter due to the harvesting effect of C19.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Lots of contentious views out there. The idea that the PCR test is of questionable value is explored here: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

The idea that herd immunity may not require 80% infection of the population has been extensively reported even in mainstream publications - here's one example: Opinion | Herd Immunity May Be Closer Than You Think

The problem is that the media have a habit of lying, misrepresenting or ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative. A lot of people have worked this out, and are seeking the truth in places not controlled by the gatekeepers, which has its own dangers.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

TN - A quick search on the authors of the paper to which you refer - Torsten Englebrecht has a background in economics and finance and now works as an independant journalist. The other, Konstantin Demeter, I can find nothing of substance about.

I think I will go with the scientific consensus, and ignore the outlier theories which are more likely corruptions of reality . Anybody with a bit of time, intelligence and creativity can selectively join bits of "evidence" together to drive entirely questionable conclusions.

Flu - right now more are dying of flu than Covid, but there are some fundamental differences which are conveniently ignored:

The reproduction rate for flu is estimated at ~ 1.3 compared with 2.5-3.0 for Covid pre lockdown
Incubation rate for flu is ~ 2 days vs ~ 5 days for Covid
Flu vaccine for the old and vulnerable limits flu infections
Mortality for flu is ~ 0.1%. Covid mortality allowing for estimated asymptomatic cases is currently estimated at ~0.5 - 1%. 
There is substance to the argument that we over-react to Covid as a new threat, but Covid is a far greater threat if left uncontrolled than flu.

The only positive is that herd immunity through either vaccine or community infection is now lower than in March if behaviour changes (hands, face, space, constraints etc) become embedded - eg:

March R ~2..5 - 60% of the population is required for a herd
R at (say) 1.5 - 33% of the population are required for a herd


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry I dont know what you are asking?
> 
> in a previous post you said "there is no test for covid 19"
> 
> but there clearly is:
> "Currently there are two types of diagnostic tests which detect the virus – *molecular *tests, such as RT-PCR tests, that detect the virus’s genetic material, and *antigen* tests that detect specific proteins on the surface of the virus."
> 
> 
> If you claim there isnt a test, perhaps you could elaborate.......


As "The Donald" says "I'm no scientist" but All I can find are tests which detect, antibodies, proteins, nucleic acid, any and all of which can be found in any of us and if amplified enough will give the desired result.
Look up the current amplification used in the testing.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> No you are attributing meaning to something I did not say. Saying everyone who was going to die does not imply we have reached herd immunity, simply that the most vulnerable have succumbed already, that's a totally different thing to herd immunity. I know that there are still plenty of people who have not yet caught it (but they will eventually) but they are younger, healthier and will not die from it, they are the people that need to get it in order that the more vulnerable will be protected later on.



The point when all those that would've died, have died is the same point as herd immunity.
There is no logical argument that can separate them




Rorschach said:


> will not die from it, they are the people that need to get it in order that the more vulnerable will be protected later on



You are making the assumption that infection creates immunity.....scientific research hasn't proven that.
As things stand herd immunity by natural infection is not a valid option



Rorschach said:


> the most vulnerable have succumbed already



There are 2 million most vulnerable, so I think we are a bit short


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> As "The Donald" says "I'm no scientist" but All I can find are tests which detect, antibodies, proteins, nucleic acid, any and all of which can be found in any of us and if amplified enough will give the desired result.
> Look up the current amplification used in the testing.


Research shows Covid tests are sufficiently accurate to be worthwhile.

What you are saying is risk of false positives, sure no doubt a % will be.

You have conflated: "there isn't a 100% accurate test for covid
With "there is no test for Covid"


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Seasonal flu could also be lower because the people who would have caught/died from flu have already died from C19. I predicted earlier this year that we would see a lower mortality this winter due to the harvesting effect of C19.



Social distancing and infection control procedures have involved a high percentage of the entire population, whereas the percentage of those vulnerable to flu that have died from Covid would seem to be much lower.

Flu is less infectious than Covid, so it is logical that social distancing has reduced the spread of flu.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Social distancing and infection control procedures have involved a high percentage of the entire population, whereas the percentage of those vulnerable to flu that have died from Covid would seem to be much lower.
> 
> Flu is less infectious than Covid, so it is logical that social distancing has reduced the spread of flu.



If that is the case, why are more people dying with flu than C19 at the moment (possibly as much as 5x). Surely the mitigation methods are giving even more protection from flu, there should be hardly any flu deaths.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> The problem is that the media have a habit of lying, misrepresenting or ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative



Most mainstream media has not been lying or misrepresenting Covid as far as I can see.

However those wanting to believe in conspiracy theories quickly seek out the outlier research.

Science isn't black or white, we have to go with the direction of the bulk of research direction.

Orange twits and QAnon conspiracy nut jobs don't help


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Research shows Covid tests are sufficiently accurate to be worthwhile.


What exactly does that mean?


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> so it is logical that social distancing has reduced the spread of flu.



Sorry but logic and covid don't belong in the same sentence.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> What you are saying is risk of false positives, sure no doubt a % will be.


Between 10 and 30% according to msm


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> If that is the case, why are more people dying with flu than C19 at the moment (possibly as much as 5x). Surely the mitigation methods are giving even more protection from flu, there should be hardly any flu deaths.



Because there is no evidence more people are dying from flu than C19

Some MSM reports of 5x greater have been rather dishonest. (Sun newspaper, Spectator etc)

As yet the only ONS figures are not broken down beyond: "influenza and pneumonia"


Info here:
"This publication contains provisional 2020 death data, which includes deaths where influenza and pneumonia have been mentioned on the death certificate. A full breakdown of mortality data for 2020 is expected to be available in our annual deaths publication, which is provisionally scheduled to be released in July 2021"



Influenza deaths in 2019 and 2020 - Office for National Statistics


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Between 10 and 30% according to msm



I'm sorry to be pedantic but you did say: "there is no test for Covid 19"

Not quite the same as "70% to 90% accuracy"


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Sorry but logic and covid don't belong in the same sentence.



Conspiracy theories and logic don't belong in the same sentence.

Government policies on Covid may have political agendas or self interest profit motivation.
Neither of those belong in the same sentence as logic.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Here's a nice chart I found this morning: excess mortality from all causes.
The full link:








Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)


Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.1 In this case, we’re interested in how the number of deaths during the COVID-19...




ourworldindata.org





Just the chart, for brevity:








Excess mortality: Deaths from all causes compared to average over previous years


The percentage difference between the reported number of weekly or monthly deaths in 2020–2022 and the average number of deaths in the same period over the years 2015–2019. The reported number might not count all deaths that occurred due to incomplete coverage and delays in reporting.




ourworldindata.org


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Most mainstream media has not been lying or misrepresenting Covid as far as I can see.


Well, that's good to know. Except they have lied, about the masks not being useful, until suddenly they were vital, but it's OK because "we lied for your own good". You may say it wasn't the media, it was the government doing the lying, but to my mind they are inseparable. I now don't believe anything from anyone, which means I'm somewhat at a disadvantage. Nothing is dependable. If you lied intentionally, and admit to it openly, but insist that now you are telling the unvarnished truth, honest, I am going to struggle to believe anything you have ever said, at any point.

So we are left with mainstream view that there is no innate defence to this virus, there can be no herd immunity, even if everyone catches it, and we should all seal ourselves off from each other for ever more. It really is a novel virus - there has never been anything like it in the history of the world.

Or you can use Occams Razor, which would suggest that the most likely nature of this coronavirus is that it is pretty much like all the other coronaviruses that our immune systems have evolved to deal with over millions (or billions?) of years. In other words, most people already have immune systems that can deal with it. The recent university outbreak had 90% with no symptoms, or in other words, 90% of the infected had such strong defences, they never even knew they had come into contact with it. Such a dangerous virus.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> What exactly does that mean?


It means what it says.

Covid tests identify outbreaks
Covid tests are a meaningful way of reducing the R value.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Except they have lied, about the masks not being useful


I don't think so, why do you think that?



Trainee neophyte said:


> until suddenly they were vital, but it's OK because "we lied for your own good


The media didn't lie
The advice changed, have a look at the WHO advice.....they updated their advice as the science research indicated some benefit.



Trainee neophyte said:


> I now don't believe anything from anyone, which means I'm somewhat at a disadvantage. Nothing is dependable. If you lied intentionally, and admit to it openly, but insist that now you are telling the unvarnished truth, honest, I am going to struggle to believe anything you have ever said, at any point


The media didn't lie, your interpretation gave you that impression.



Trainee neophyte said:


> So we are left with mainstream view that there is no innate defence to this virus


That isn't true.

The media repeatedly discusses the impact the virus has on different age groups.
I've not seen the media say young people don't have an innate defence.



Trainee neophyte said:


> there can be no herd immunity, even if everyone catches it, and we should all seal ourselves off from each other for ever more


Really?
There have been numerous media article discussing whether herd immunity is possible or not.

Here's one








Covid-19 herd immunity could develop at 20%, study claims


Researchers led by Dr Gabriela Gomes of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine suggested that immunity among the people most likely to spread the virus would protect others.




www.dailymail.co.uk








Trainee neophyte said:


> most likely nature of this coronavirus is that it is pretty much like all the other coronaviruses that our immune systems have evolved to deal with over millions (or billions?) of years


No the virus jumped from bats, it didn't develop to use humans as a host.

It isn't the intention of a virus to kill a host.



Trainee neophyte said:


> The recent university outbreak had 90% with no symptoms, or in other words, 90% of the infected had such strong defences, they never even knew they had come into contact with it. Such a dangerous virus



We already know Covid doesn't make that age group ill.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
I imagine you are trying to use the argument that since Covid doesn't affect a particular age group, it can't be dangerous.........I think you might be able to appreciate the error in that.


----------



## Rorschach

I am going to throw the MSM a bit of a bone, I don't think they deliberately lied, but I do think they pushed a fearmongering agenda in order to create hysteria with the information they did have and failed to hold the government to account (as have MP's)


----------



## Anthraquinone

*Trainee neophyte*
Thank you for those graphs. There is nothing like a mix of rational facts vs. crazy conspiracy theories to set you smiling up for the day.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> I'm sorry to be pedantic but you did say: "there is no test for Covid 19"


But don't you understand that I can post about other things too.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> but I do think they pushed a fearmongering agenda in order to create hysteria



Where is this hysteria? -I haven't seen it anywhere.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> Where is this hysteria? -I haven't seen it anywhere.



Now you are just being silly.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Now you are just being silly.


seriously where is this hysteria?

All I see is people doing what they can to mitigate risk by following social distancing and infection control.....doing simple things to mitigate risk, however small, seems just sensible. 


there are people demonstrating because they dont want to wear a mask -those people are suffering hysteria.
there are some people who claim covid is no worse than flu, despite lots of evidence to the contrary -those people are suffering hysteria.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Where is this hysteria? -I haven't seen it anywhere.


From Know more. Live brighter.
When someone responds in a way that seems disproportionately emotional for the situation, they are often described as hysterical.

I see a lot of hysterical behaviour.


----------



## Petehpkns

An emotive subject, with equally emotive language. Acknowledging that anonymous forums are an ideal way for folk to manage emotion, particularly where their view diverges from the majority view, as here.

Stay safe whatever you view!


----------



## artie

Anyone read the daily mail today?
It's a 6 mile drive for me to get one so won't bother.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> I see a lot of hysterical behaviour.



Would you be able to give some examples of how it manifests itself.

I honestly haven't seen anything I could describe as hysterical.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Would you be able to give some examples of how it manifests itself.
> 
> I honestly haven't seen anything I could describe as hysterical.


Locking down the world because of a virus with a 99.4% survival rate is just one thing that comes to mind.


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> All I see is people doing what they can to mitigate risk by following social distancing and infection control.....doing simple things to mitigate risk, however small, seems just sensible.



West sussex, nice area .................. go to shiiite hole and have a look in a pub frequented by alcoholic clientele. this is the reason for the sweeping measures.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> in a previous post you said "there is no test for covid 19"
> 
> but there clearly is:
> "Currently there are two types of diagnostic tests which detect the virus – *molecular *tests, such as RT-PCR tests, that detect the virus’s genetic material, and *antigen* tests that detect specific proteins on the surface of the virus."
> 
> 
> If you claim there isnt a test, perhaps you could elaborate.......


Here's a video,



it's a bit long, but persevere for just the first 5 minutes.
The inventor of the pcr test is explaining about it.


----------



## Regex

artie said:


> Here's a video,
> 
> it's a bit long, but persevere for just the first 5 minutes.
> The inventor of the pcr test is explaining about it.



Be wary of people who mince words to influence your emotions.

"Driving factor of the *fear campaign*, that is being driven by the media, the *corrupt media *[...]"
Emphasis mine.

He is appealing as to whether restrictions are constitutional, as opposed to whether they are effective or not.

The clip from the PCR test creator Kary Mullis doesn't prove anything, he just explains that PCR tests work by amplifying molecules to detectable levels.

The video creator then summarises the Mullis clip with this conclusion: Because the test cannot detect if you are "sick" (notice how he refers to symptoms here as opposed to having the virus), it should not be used as a test. What about if you have the virus (but are not sick), then inferred from having seen this video that tests are useless, but then pass it on to your granny later that night, who does end up becoming "sick"?

The video creator then wonders what Mullis might say about PCR being used for CV19 diagnostics. Impossible since he died August 2019. He then presents a clip about Mullis talking about his struggle to find scientific evidence for the idea that HIV causes AIDS. The ensuing 6 minute interview clip has absolutelty nothing to do with the discussion at hand, yet the video creator tries to draw some conclusion or relevance to discredit the use of PCR tests.* He then goes on to insinuate that Mullis death was somehow related to this whole coronavirus thing, *and that *they *(that nebulous entity in the sky) don't want dissenters like Mullis around, implying he was killed for this corona virus situation.

This is the point in the video at which major alarm bells should be ringing in your head. Various other clips are selectively cut and put into this video, from doctors (appealing to authority here), which have all been taken out of context to make you draw some conclusion.

The next clip is an interview from Dr Thomas Cowan, that sounds highlighly convincing and persuasive. However if you look this person up, it appears this is the same guy that claimed 5G is what is causing the corona virus pandemic.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fact-check-viral-video-coronavirus-1.5506595



The entire video is highly manipulative. Please please please do extra fact checking when you see claims like those presented in this video, as spreading misinformation is not the way forward.

What is the purpose for fighting against diagnostic tests exactly? They will get better with time, and they can help save lives.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Locking down the world because of a virus with a 99.4% survival rate is just one thing that comes to mind.


The survival rate of Covid is unknown. But in any case it is a meaningless statistic.

A virus that has the potential to spread so quickly it can overwhelm hospitals and it has.
A virus that has killed over 1 million globally
A virus that so far has killed 7000 health workers

And that is despite the massive efforts to reduce the virus spreading.

The global drop in GDP is forecast to be 2.5% in 2020

What specifically do you consider to be "hysterics"


----------



## doctor Bob

Most report 5%. 
Where do you stop, is 10% OK, 15 or 20.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> The survival rate of Covid is unknown. But in any case it is a meaningless statistic.
> 
> A virus that has the potential to spread so quickly it can overwhelm hospitals and it has.
> A virus that has killed over 1 million globally
> A virus that so far has killed 7000 health workers
> 
> And that is despite the massive efforts to reduce the virus spreading.
> 
> The global drop in GDP is forecast to be 2.5% in 2020
> 
> What specifically do you consider to be "hysterics"


That my friend is bordering on hysteria.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> The media didn't lie
> The advice changed, have a look at the WHO advice.....they updated their advice as the science research indicated some benefit.


The question is whether we pretend that the media are honest investigators searching for truth, or accept that they are just purveyors of government propaganda. Part of the worldwide corporate facist system, if you like. The government lied, and yet no heads roll, no questions asked, no one held accountable, because "it was for our good"?



> Fauci was asked yesterday by financial news outlet The Street why the U.S. government didn’t promote masks early on during the pandemic. Fauci, who sits on the Trump regime’s zombie-like coronavirus task force, hinted that he knew masks worked, he just wanted any available masks to be saved for health care workers. Dr. Fauci Made the Coronavirus Pandemic Worse by Lying About Masks
> 
> “Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N-95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply,” Fauci said. “And we wanted to make sure that the people, namely the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected.”
> 
> Fauci didn’t just fail to promote masks early on, he actively discouraged the use of masks, saying they didn’t work. Americans are now paying the price because too many people think masks are useless to combat the coronavirus. In reality, masks have been shown to help prevent the spread of covid-19, as the CDC now admits.



I suppose you could argue that Fauci is a yank, therefore it doesn't count. The UK government did exactly the same, but were just inept, rather than outright lying? Or is the lie now that masks work? Which is true? All the research before 2020 suggests masks are futile without a full hospital protocol to go with it, and all the research since March says masks, even homemade bits of tea towel draped over your face are brilliant. Which is correct? 

The technical term for this sort of thing is "hyper-reality", and Karl Rove explained it rather well:


> _We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004)._




Reality is what they say it is. Julian Assange ' s extradition hearing is as fine an example of alternate realities as you could ever want to see. What is actually happening, and what is reported as happening (if reported at all) are two very different things. Which is odd, because if he is extradited, it sets the precedent for all journalists, worldwide, to be liable to be jailed by America should they ever release a US secret. You might think that journalists would have a vested interest in not letting him be kangaroo courted into oblivion.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> No the virus jumped from bats, it didn't develop to use humans as a host.
> 
> It isn't the intention of a virus to kill a host.


It's a virus. Our primordial ancestors had to deal with new viruses jumping from other hosts even before they climbed out of the ooze. This is not a new, unique, never-before-in-the-history-of-the-universe phenomenon. You don't have to have already had exposure to a specific virus before you can defend yourself against it otherwise no organism would ever survive the first encounter. Antibodies are not the only mechanism.

How else do so many people have symptomless infections (but absolutely NOT immunity, because it goes again the narrative)?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

@RobinBHM I won't go through the rest of your commentary on my post, because mostly Poe's Law applies. Entirely my fault, as I was apparently feeling a bit peevish when I wrote what I did. Most of what you pulled out was me being sarcastic, which never works well on the internet. In other words, yes, herd immunity will probably come into play at around 20% of the population being infected. We won't know until we get there, and we won't get there if everyone hides under their beds. 

(This was supposed to be an edit to my previous post, but here it is, cluttering up the place as a standalone post. No idea what happened)


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> That my friend is bordering on hysteria.


I agree, claiming "locking down the world" does seem hysterical when the hit to GDP is 2.5%


That shows why using subjective, emotive adjectives such as "fearmongering" and "hysterical" is of no value.

I have asked Rorschach and you, who are using those terms, to qualify them, which allow the opportunity to have value in this debate........but neither of you do.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Here's a video,
> 
> 
> 
> it's a bit long, but persevere for just the first 5 minutes.
> The inventor of the pcr test is explaining about it.




Thank you for posting that, it's an interesting video.

Unfortunately it tells us rather more about the motivation of spiro skouras, than it does about the PCR test.

The video builds its case on a false premise: “PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences" -which is incorrect.

Because:
” PCR tests do not indiscriminately amplify any DNA in a sample; they are designed to target only the nucleic acid sequence from the microorganism of interest (specificity), in this case SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19









PCR tests for COVID-19 are specific for the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and do not detect other coronaviruses, contrary to claims in viral article and video


The PCR tests for COVID-19 are designed to be highly specific for the novel coronavirus—they can detect this virus unequivocally and differentiate it from other members of the coronavirus family. These PCR tests are also capable of measuring viral load (amount of virus) in patient samples, which...




sciencefeedback.co






Spiro Skouras
We need to be careful with his assertions, Spiro is a conspiracist, he posts articles and videos about:
The Great Reset Plan Revealed: How COVID Ushers In The New World Order. He talks about Bill Gates, Soros, Elon Musk and the New World Order.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> Most report 5%.
> Where do you stop, is 10% OK, 15 or 20.


The science is emerging in parallel with governments decisions on control.

Back in March most countries put some form of partial lockdown to reduce R rate and to try and stop hospitals from being overwhelmed.
It would be a difficult argument to make, that governments should've just let the virus run.

Since then, more science is emerging, doctors have better treatment plans and most organised countries have quite effective testing programmes.

So any lockdowns should be restricted to local areas or sectors.

Countries with comprehensive testing seem to have less of an economic hit and less lockdown. 


It's easy to simplify argument down an appeal to extremes fallacy, but that doesn't provide any answers. We can't ignore the virus, so we have to live with it, some form of restriction of the economy where needed to maintain social distancing seems reasonable.


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> I agree, claiming "locking down the world" does seem hysterical when the hit to GDP is 2.5%



Sorry to repeat but most reckon it's 5% not 2.5%. Can I assume therefore I can reduce the death toll by half to make it seem more acceptable?


----------



## FatmanG

If anyone is interested finally proper public health scientists from across the world are offering a real plan, one that is achievable that works that's based on pure science and doesn't involve any further lockdown. 
Great Barrington Declaration


----------



## Rorschach

FatmanG said:


> If anyone is interested finally proper public health scientists from across the world are offering a real plan, one that is achievable that works that's based on pure science and doesn't involve any further lockdown.
> Great Barrington Declaration



I posted a video about it a couple of days ago, not that anyone watched it I assume.


----------



## GrahamF

I've just returned to the UK after being in Portugal since early June and find very different attitudes. On the Algarve, we were in a low virus area and being aboard a boat for much of the time reduced our risk even further. People just accept the mandatory requirement to wear a mask indoors is sensible and don't moan about it and every shop has hand sanitiser at the entrance/exit. Further north in Lisbon, far more cases and many people wearing masks on the streets and more noticeable distancing. Local lockdowns in some areas.

Back here in the UK, I can't understand the resistance to wearing masks and distancing, a friend even saw one guy take his mask off to sneeze - silly person! Watching TV reports, can't believe the crowds of youngsters outside pubs and clubs, without masks or distancing. Don't they realise that although most will only show mild symptoms if any, they will transmit to those at risk? With these attitudes, what's going to happen when winter coughs and colds are around to spread the virus even faster?

I'm not a Boris fan but doubt anyone else would have done much better due to everyone's practical inexperience of pandemics. I don't however understand why all four countries of the UK can't sing from the same hymn sheet and standardise restrictions with targeted local lockdowns so everyone can understand the rules. Stupid that I can't go to Sainsburys 5 miles away over the county boundary but English from high risk areas are coming to their caravans.

P.S. Why does idi*t get changed to silly person? PC gone mad!


----------



## Woody2Shoes

FatmanG said:


> If anyone is interested finally proper public health scientists from across the world are offering a real plan, one that is achievable that works that's based on pure science and doesn't involve any further lockdown.
> Great Barrington Declaration


It should - if we're getting all scientific - better be called the Barrington Hypothesis.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

I'm having a slack Friday afternoon, as we have a virus-ridden child off from school. Impressive given that masks are worn at all times during school classes, and only 5 minutes between each class outside without masks to get to the next class. Masks are obviously vital, and protect like anything.

Anyway, it's not Covid19 (probably), so nothing to worry about and I am drinking coffee and reading odd articles. I found this: 









Danny Dorling | How many more will be dead by Christmas? · LRB 5 October 2020


In the week after the schools went back in England and Wales, an extra 538 people died (77 a day). Over the previous...




www.lrb.co.uk


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> If anyone is interested finally proper public health scientists from across the world are offering a real plan, one that is achievable that works that's based on pure science and doesn't involve any further lockdown.
> Great Barrington Declaration



I am sorry but I don't really think the Great Barrington Declaration can be accurately described as
"Proper health scientists"
"Pure science"

Great Barrington Declaration was signed at the Great Barrington Headquarters of the American Institute for Economic Research.......a right wing libertarian group which has nothing to do with epidemiology and a lot to do with vested interest.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I posted a video about it a couple of days ago, not that anyone watched it I assume.


Yes I watched it and Ive looked into the Great Barrington Declaration.

it would appear to have a political motivation

It doesnt address the problem that there is no scientific research that proves immunity is acquired through natural infection, or if it is, for how long.

There have been some studies that give a bit of hope that immune cells do recognise the virus and persist for some months after infection. So far there is no peer reviewed study.


----------



## Rorschach

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry but I don't really think the Great Barrington Declaration can be accurately described as
> "Proper health scientists"
> "Pure science"
> 
> Great Barrington Declaration was signed at the Great Barrington Headquarters of the American Institute for Economic Research.......a right wing libertarian group which has nothing to do with epidemiology and a lot to do with vested interest.



Did you see the 3 main signatories? Not proper scientists? You have representatives of the 3 most important medical schools in the world!
I give up with you and will not engage any more, you are wasting our time.


----------



## Bacms

Amazing 26 pages and the discussion is still the same folks denying any evidence that goes against their world view. Although I do appreciate the effort of those who have been trying to educate the rest with scientific evidence, at this point it should be obvious they don't care. So put your feet up and just let this thread die or become an echo chamber of denialism


----------



## Rorschach

Bacms said:


> Amazing 26 pages and the discussion is still the same folks denying any evidence that goes against their world view. Although I do appreciate the effort of those who have been trying to educate the rest with scientific evidence, at this point it should be obvious they don't care. So put your feet up and just let this thread die or become an echo chamber of denialism



You just described both sides! lol


----------



## Bacms

Rorschach said:


> You just described both sides! lol


Only if you believe that opinions and scientific data and evidence holds the same value


----------



## Rorschach

Bacms said:


> Only if you believe that opinions and scientific data and evidence holds the same value



Both sides have provided scientific evidence and opinion. The problem is there is no scientific consensus (quite right too as that is how science works) so personal opinion and interpretation is added as well as views that cannot be determined by science such as the ethical discussions over acceptable risk and deaths.


----------



## selly

We all now the virus can be a serious. What we don't agree on is whether it is worth letting more people die not of covid to protect people from dying of covid


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> I agree, claiming "locking down the world" does seem hysterical when the hit to GDP is 2.5%



What does GDP have to do with millions of people not being allowed to visit their granny?



RobinBHM said:


> That shows why using subjective, emotive adjectives such as "fearmongering" and "hysterical" is of no value.



What exactly is an emotive adjective?
I wasn't the best scholar, I must admit, but I have no memory of our english teacher ever mentioning such a thing.



RobinBHM said:


> I have asked Rorschach and you, who are using those terms, to qualify them, which allow the opportunity to have value in this debate........but neither of you do.



You should pay more attention, I gave you a definition of hysteria but you obviously didn't notice.


----------



## Rorschach

selly said:


> We all now the virus can be a serious. What we don't agree on is whether it is worth letting more people die not of covid to protect people from dying of covid



Bingo.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Some entertainment for the weekend.









WHO says 10% of world population may have been infected with Covid


A tenth of the world's populaton may have been infected with the novel coronavirus, leaving the "vast majority" of people at risk, according to the World Health Organisation.




www.standard.co.uk





According to Off-guardian.org this proves that the Coronavirus has exactly the same fatality rate as your average influenza epidemic - around 0.14%

I appreciate that you may not want to visit such a scary, conspiracy-theory-ridden site so here is their thinking:


> The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that is 780 million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is 1,061,539.
> 
> That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with seasonal flu and the predictions of many experts from all around the world.
> 
> 0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional figure” of 3.4% back in March. This figure was used in the models which were used to justify lockdowns and other draconian policies.



I wonder if the BBC will run with this logic?

The link to the page is here, if you are brave enough: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/08...EQduLl1QEIUhjiQz_WjmPdggzTFdUCOtzo7zLVHZFk2SA


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Did you see the 3 main signatories? Not proper scientists? You have representatives of the 3 most important medical schools in the world!
> I give up with you and will not engage any more, you are wasting our time.


Please can you explain to me how they can be called scientists if they sign up to something not based on science.


“Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable, even if a high proportion of the population were to become infected. We know that responses to natural infection wane, and that reinfection occurs and can have more severe consequences than the first. It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity. Moreover, in the US, with its high end (albeit restrictive) healthcare system, over seven million confirmed infections have occurred to date, yet this represents only a small percentage of that population and no evidence of herd immunity is apparent despite over 200K deaths and untold morbidity


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Both sides have provided scientific evidence and opinion



I am sorry but that is no really correct.

Both sides do not use equivalence in terms of scientific evidence.

For example, you have claimed that Covid is no worse than flu.....which science has proven to be incorrect, Covid is far worse in every metric.

The Great Barington Declaration is also not backed up by science.


We need to be very careful to avoid making claims " Covid isn't that bad because not many people have died" because all those arguments ignore the fact huge global efforts have been made to reduce infection spreading.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Please can you explain to me how they can be called scientists if they sign up to something not based on science.
> 
> 
> “Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable, even if a high proportion of the population were to become infected. We know that responses to natural infection wane, and that reinfection occurs and can have more severe consequences than the first. It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity. Moreover, in the US, with its high end (albeit restrictive) healthcare system, over seven million confirmed infections have occurred to date, yet this represents only a small percentage of that population and no evidence of herd immunity is apparent despite over 200K deaths and untold morbidity



Because they know how viral curves work. Covid 19 looks to be no different from any viral curve. 

So they may not have gathered "enough" evidence about this epidemic because epidemics are most easily viewed with hindsight but they know enough from other virus (sars, mersm, swine flu, bird flu) etc that the a disporoportionate response will have other unintended consequences. WHO does not advocate lockdown - it makes poor people poorer which is seemingly what you want to see


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Off-Guardian is being used as if it is some sort of authoritative source.

The oppositite seems to be the case - it was formed by three people who were previously banned from the real Guardian online comments.

The names of the individuals editing the site are believed to be psuedonyms. The ownership and funding is unclear.

It has a history of promoting conspiracy theories, some of which have subsequently been proved wrong and most unverifiable.

Believe it if you want, it's a free world. My view - it probably gets equal space in the WC for cleansing ones buttocks!


----------



## Bm101

Sometimes it surprising just how insightfully accurate a historic quote from a figure of recognised reknown can be when applied to a modern context.

_'Dont believe it just because you read it. It's probably true if you read it on the internet though.'_
Mark Twain.
1066


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> - it makes poor people poorer which is seemingly what you want to see



I am not sure how helpful strawman logical fallacies are in debates. 

From what research I've done, the Barington declaration seems to be based on ideology rather than science. 

“We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year. It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays.

“The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made. Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero. I suspect the public would like to know this.

“A working description of vulnerability is not given, the Goldacre paper in Nature assigned probabilities, what is the personal score threshold being advocated?

“From a public health point of view, it would have been useful to estimate the gains with different assumptions of the timing of the arrival of the vaccine.





__





expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’ | Science Media Centre






www.sciencemediacentre.org


----------



## RobinBHM

It seems that the Great Barrington Declaration has a hidden agenda.

As always with fact checking it pays to follow the money

*The ‘think-tank’ behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch, reports Nafeez Ahmed*

Documents seen by _VICE_ and _Byline Times_ confirm that the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a ‘herd immunity’ approach to the COVID-19 pandemic has been sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries.

On 3 October 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian free-market think-tank in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, hosted a private gathering of scientists, economists and journalists to discuss responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them was the distinguished Oxford University epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta, among the most vocal proponents of a ‘herd immunity’ strategy.


----------



## RobinBHM

I am certainly not adverse to taking a different route for Covid, herd immunity should be explored.

What I don't advocate is making a change for ideological reasoning.

If herd immunity is going to be given serious consideration, those in favour need to provide both reasoning and expectations.

Herd immunity will kill people, we need to know how many
And we need to know how the vulnerable can be protected

The argument "we must have herd immunity because of lockdown isn't working"..... that's not acceptable reasoning.


----------



## RobinBHM

Terry - Somerset said:


> Off-Guardian is being used as if it is some sort of authoritative source


I've not heard of off guardian before.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> For example, you have claimed that Covid is no worse than flu.....which science has proven to be incorrect, Covid is far worse in every metric.


You are very fond of asking for proof, so would you mind providing proof to back up that statement?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I am not sure how helpful strawman logical fallacies are in debates.
> 
> From what research I've done, the Barington declaration seems to be based on ideology rather than science.
> 
> “We do not know yet how long immunity will last, so achieving herd immunity may not be simple. We do not have herd immunity to the common cold despite many of us having one or more each year. It would have helped had the leading scientists who signed this declaration estimated achievability of herd immunity with different immune response decays.
> 
> “The desired range for herd immunity is not stated nor how far away we are from it, thus no estimate of the number of deaths or the life changing complications that will result in the lower vulnerability group is made. Whilst these numbers are much lower than in the elderly, they are not zero. I suspect the public would like to know this.
> 
> “A working description of vulnerability is not given, the Goldacre paper in Nature assigned probabilities, what is the personal score threshold being advocated?
> 
> “From a public health point of view, it would have been useful to estimate the gains with different assumptions of the timing of the arrival of the vaccine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’ | Science Media Centre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemediacentre.org



Lockdowns are based on ideology and not on science though.

Of course they don't "know" for certain until after the event. But the evidence that this coronavirus is different to all the others appears not to be strong. Which is why they have come to some of their conclusions.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I am certainly not adverse to taking a different route for Covid, herd immunity should be explored.
> 
> What I don't advocate is making a change for ideological reasoning.
> 
> If herd immunity is going to be given serious consideration, those in favour need to provide both reasoning and expectations.
> 
> Herd immunity will kill people, we need to know how many
> And we need to know how the vulnerable can be protected
> 
> The argument "we must have herd immunity because of lockdown isn't working"..... that's not acceptable reasoning.



Lockdown kills people too. Currently we have about 1 death per million in the UK. It is not a lot - those deaths are probably racked with comorbidities too.


----------



## AJB Temple

RobinBHM said:


> I am certainly not adverse to taking a different route for Covid, herd immunity should be explored.
> 
> What I don't advocate is making a change for ideological reasoning.
> 
> If herd immunity is going to be given serious consideration, those in favour need to provide both reasoning and expectations.
> 
> Herd immunity will kill people, we need to know how many
> And we need to know how the vulnerable can be protected
> 
> The argument "we must have herd immunity because of lockdown isn't working"..... that's not acceptable reasoning.



I don't generally participate but just a couple of points:


Herd exposure is inevitable over time, whether by direct or vaccine exposure. At present we do not have vaccine access. 
Herd immunity is not a given. We do not know whether exposure will result in temporary, permanent, long term or zero immunity. We will not know for some years. 
We cannot possibly know how many will die as a result of "herd immunity" because that is a forecast, otherwise known as a guess. 
In the absence of a vaccine, the vulnerable logically can only be protected by isolating themselves (which is better than forced isolation).


----------



## Rorschach

Lockdowns/measures kill people, no lockdowns/measures kill people. Everything we do will kill people, we just have to decide how many and who will die. Would we prefer to see young people die/suffer for decades or would we prefer older people (average age of a C19 victim is 84) die instead?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> I've not heard of off guardian before.


I avoided off-guardian.org for years because they had the name "guardian" in the title, and I can't be doing with insane, extremist weirdo news reporting such as that found in The Guardian. However, off-guardian.org does have some interesting things to say, sometimes.

I see no one has actually addressed the pretty basic maths, but just tried to rubbish the source either out of general fear of the non-mainstream (scary) bits of the internet, or perhaps a desire to not have to consider that Covid19 _may not _be as bad as we have all been led to believe.

So, the WHO have announced that they estimate a total infection rate of 10% of the world population. This isn't a conspiracy theory; they really did announce it. I checked, and everything. We can talk about whether they are mistaken, misled, lying or just incompetent, but in their opinion, backed up by some research, 10% is the number they came up with.

We know how many people there are in the world, and we know how many have been declared dead by covid19, so divide one by the other to get a percentage. Is that percentage better, worse, or about the same as, for example...influenza deaths? 780,000,000 ish people have had the coronavirus. Of these, 1,1,061,539 according to Off-guardian.org have died. I make that 0.136% fatality rate, which we can charitably round up to 0.14%.

Wikipedia claims that the average seasonal influenza ifr is "<0.1", and that the 1918 Spanish 'flu epidemic was 2%-3%. 

0.14% seems to be much more in the ballpark of seasonal 'flu than world shattering pandemic chaos.


----------



## artie

Trainee neophyte said:


> We know how many people there are in the world, and we know how many have been declared dead by covid19,


We know how many people there are in the world, and we know how many have been declared dead WITH covid19, 

Which may skew the numbers quite a bit, since I don't see figures for people who died WITH flu or other viruses.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> 0.14% seems to be much more in the ballpark of seasonal 'flu than world shattering pandemic chaos



Unfortunately that is not based on equivalence, for 2 main reasons

Firstly you are comparing seasonal flu, where there has been no attempt to reduce infection rate

Versus Covid where huge effort has been made with social distancing and infection control

Secondly the data on flu mortality isn't very good. Indeed the media have made claims of flu this year, using ONS figures that are actually " pneumonia and influenza"


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Unfortunately that is not based on equivalence, for 2 main reasons
> 
> Firstly you are comparing seasonal flu, where there has been no attempt to reduce infection rate
> 
> Versus Covid where huge effort has been made with social distancing and infection control
> 
> Secondly the data on flu mortality isn't very good. Indeed the media have made claims of flu this year, using ONS figures that are actually " pneumonia and influenza"



The infection controls for flu and covid are the same. The data on covid mortality isn't very good either - most deaths with covid didn't have post mortems mainly because they were 80'odd year old and so there was no real point


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Lockdowns/measures kill people, no lockdowns/measures kill people. Everything we do will kill people, we just have to decide how many and who will die. Would we prefer to see young people die/suffer for decades or would we prefer older people (average age of a C19 victim is 84) die instead?


We would prefer the minimum deaths and minimum economic damage.


In America people in their 80s account for less than half of all covid-19 deaths; people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, meanwhile, account for a significantly larger share of those who die. The median covid-19 sufferer in America is a 48-year-old; in Italy it is a 63-year-old


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Versus Covid where huge effort has been made with social distancing and infection control


Anecdotally I can confirm that these mostly placebo measures don't work: I have a snot oozing child languishing on the sofa right now with a cold, despite having enforced mask wearing and distancing rules that are much stricter than the UK. How on earth do you manage to catch a cold when fully masked up at all times in public?

Greece has its Covid infection numbers climbing now, because the virus has made it into the population, and it will do its thing until it is over. Masks or no masks.

Edit: And another thing  

It just struck me that the number of infections is irrelevant: how many people have caught the disease is not at issue; how many people have died after contracting the disease is what we are looking at. On that basis, it seems to be similar to influenza. Masks and social distancing don't affect the course of the disease once you have got it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> The infection controls for flu and covid are the same



I have no doubt that is true.

But I am sure you appreciate that is not relavent.

No government has ever put infection control or social distancing measures in place for flu.

There has been massive intervention globally to reduce R value of Covid, so making any comparisons is using non comparable data sets. I.e. It's a false equivalence.

And there has been a flu vaccine in place for around 20 years


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I have no doubt that is true.
> 
> But I am sure you appreciate that is not relavent.
> 
> No government has ever put infection control or social distancing measures in place for flu.
> 
> There has been massive intervention globally to reduce R value of Covid, so making any comparisons is using non comparable data sets. I.e. It's a false equivalence.
> 
> And there has been a flu vaccine in place for around 20 years



Well it is relavent actually. The most relavant thing about it all is that unless you go North Korea style or are an island nation like NZ who seems to want to let no one in then you will not stop a virus doing its thing. We are virus, virus came from us in the swamp all those years ago. 

The R value doesn't mean much in the great scheme of things. What really matters are how ill people are getting and what numbers of people are getting ill.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Unfortunately that is not based on equivalence, for 2 main reasons
> 
> Firstly you are comparing seasonal flu, where there has been no attempt to reduce infection rate
> 
> Versus Covid where huge effort has been made with social distancing and infection control


You do talk such utter nonsense. 
Is it your opinion that because no one said "the measures" were directed at flu that they would have no effect, but because "the measures were announced to tackle covid, that is what they tackle. My mind is well and truly boggled.
Surely a sane person would see that IF they work for one they would work for both.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

artie said:


> Surely a sane person would see that IF they work for one they would work for both.


I assume the argument is that Covid19 numbers are current, with lockdown, whereas influenza numbers are all historic (and much more "accurate", or at least there is a lot more not very good data) pre-lockdown. Either way, it makes no difference because the ifr is all about having caught the disease, what are the chances of death or survival. A mask is not going to help with getting better. It's not in any way therapeutic.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> You do talk such utter nonsense.
> Is it your opinion that because no one said "the measures" were directed at flu that they would have no effect, but because "the measures were announced to tackle covid, that is what they tackle. My mind is well and truly boggled.
> Surely a sane person would see that IF they work for one they would work for both.



No because most of the arguments regarding flu are based on historical figures
UK isnt in a flu season whilst covid has been around so comparisions are rather pointless 

And youve ignored the point regarding a flu vaccine

on the subject of flu -we dont test for flu, so statistics arent know anyway, it is recorded as FLI: flu like illness


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> then you will not stop a virus doing its thing


I dont understand how that can be true

if a virus does its own thing regardless of what social distancing and infection control measures are put in place, then are some people arguing for her immunity



Selwyn said:


> The R value doesn't mean much in the great scheme of things


It is important it tells us the rate at which the virus spreads.
lower the value below one the virus dies out
over 1 it starts to multiply exponentially



Selwyn said:


> What really matters are how ill people are getting and what numbers of people are getting ill.


that is important, but it doesnt mean the R value is not a valuable metric in the tool to reduce mortality as well as govt decision making


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> I assume the argument is that Covid19 numbers are current, with lockdown, whereas influenza numbers are all historic (and much more "accurate", or at least there is a lot more not very good data) pre-lockdown. Either way, it makes no difference because the ifr is all about having caught the disease, what are the chances of death or survival. A mask is not going to help with getting better. It's not in any way therapeutic.


a mask is an infection control measure, nothing to do with mortality or treatment.

it is a simple measure to reduce somebody infected spreading virus.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> On that basis, it seems to be similar to influenza.


no, because of the massive social distancing and infection control put in place to reduce covid
and there is a vaccine for flu
and people arent tested for flu so deaths are recorded as flu like illness
so you cant compare the data.


----------



## doctor Bob

Robin it seems strange you question figures yet never acknowledged that your figure for GDP was incorrect by 100%?
I did point it out quite politely, and of course it's your privilage to ignore it, however it potentially could make you look silly when you pick up others "incorrect figures", some may even say that you are picking and choosing to suit, others may not, who knows?


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> I dont understand how that can be true
> 
> if a virus does its own thing regardless of what social distancing and infection control measures are put in place, then are some people arguing for her immunity
> 
> 
> It is important it tells us the rate at which the virus spreads.
> lower the value below one the virus dies out
> over 1 it starts to multiply exponentially
> 
> 
> that is important, but it doesnt mean the R value is not a valuable metric in the tool to reduce mortality as well as govt decision making



Social distancing could slow the spread or reduce viral load. Not prevent it. No one has a problem with keeping distance or washing hands generally


----------



## doctor Bob

Apparantly a UK google search for the Great Barrington Declaration does not bring it up anymore, just news articles on it.
Use a VPN and it comes up, so it is being geographically blocked, I'm amazed by this, this sort of thing happens in China not uk.
Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> Apparantly a UK google search for the Great Barrington Declaration does not bring it up anymore, just news articles on it.
> Use a VPN and it comes up, so it is being geographically blocked, I'm amazed by this, this sort of thing happens in China not uk.
> Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so.



It doesn't appear to be blocked, but it would appear google is purposely pushing away from top rankings. Either that or the articles are getting more hits and so appearing higher in the rankings, more people talking about it than actually reading it maybe.









Great Barrington Declaration and Petition


As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection




gbdeclaration.org


----------



## doctor Bob

Ok, I'll take my tinfoil hat off .........................


----------



## Jake

Tufton Street mob again.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> No because most of the arguments regarding flu are based on historical figures
> UK isnt in a flu season whilst covid has been around so comparisions are rather pointless


Lets just focus on this years figures then.



RobinBHM said:


> And youve ignored the point regarding a flu vaccine



You didn't mention a flu vaccine in that post. 
I won't be having one anyway.



RobinBHM said:


> on the subject of flu -we dont test for flu, so statistics arent know anyway, it is recorded as FLI: flu like illness


Statistics aren't known for covid either.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

The difficulty we face is that if covid is allowed to rip through our population without restraint, our healthcare system will blow up. Most winters it runs dangerously 'hot'. Things are alteady looking potentially dicey in the north west.
Flu vaccine is effective in reducing the number of people needing hospital treatment each winter - unless the strains are wrongly predicted.
We are starting to find effective therapies for covid - vitamin D and dexamethasone. If we can find a few more/better it seriously takes the pressure off finding a vaccine. It would be wrong to ignore long covid which seems to affect a lot of otherwise healthy and relatively young people.
Anyone over 50 or with long term health issues, or who works with others who are, who doesn't get a flu jab is a selfish numpty IMHO.


----------



## Droogs

This is all going in round-abouts. Not enough is known to do the best thing other than logical guesswork. The biggest problem in stopping the disease spreading is that people are being told a hankie will stop you giving it to someone else. What a load of bovine groin gristle. 

Yes, wearing masks will stop it but only if you and evryone else wears the correct type of mask. A fully sealing face mask fitted with at a mininum FFP3 filters though preferably full CBRN activated charcoal 1mu filters are what is needed. You must also protect the mucus areas of the eyes as well. Anything less than this with full decontamination procedures on entering any building will fail to stop it's spread. This is indeed the only way that a biological weapon can be nullified and the only difference between Covid-19 and a recognised bio weapon is the delivery method


----------



## Jake

That's kind of true if the aim is to protect yourself (although overstated, as there is some evidence that initial viral load can effect severity of disease), but that is not the point of the sort of mask wearing that the public is asked to do, and even simple masks dramatically reduce your own droplet/aerosol emissions.


----------



## Droogs

If all did it, then none would become infected and the virus exhaled by those infected would die without finding new hosts. Et voila epidemic over - after say a month


----------



## Trainee neophyte

doctor Bob said:


> Apparantly a UK google search for the Great Barrington Declaration does not bring it up anymore, just news articles on it.
> Use a VPN and it comes up, so it is being geographically blocked, I'm amazed by this, this sort of thing happens in China not uk.
> Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so.


You really, really shouldn't be using Google. I use Duckduckgo.com, not because they don't track everything (which is a nice bonus), but because the search results are what I want, not what Google wants to charge their advertisers for showing me.

As a test, see how this compares with Google: Great Barrington Declaration at DuckDuckGo


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> no, because of the massive social distancing and infection control put in place to reduce covid
> and there is a vaccine for flu
> and people arent tested for flu so deaths are recorded as flu like illness
> so you cant compare the data.


You're losing me here. How people catch it, and what stops them catching it, are not part of the discussion. The survival rate having caught it is the topic at hand. Everything else is extraneous. If you want to have a conversation about how the lockdown may or may not reduce the number of infections then we can do that, but everything I posted today is about survival _after_ catching the disease, not ways to avoid catching it in the first place. Very basic: deaths after infection of Coronavirus seems to be similar to deaths after infection of influenza virus. Lockdown is completely irrelevant to this.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## artie

Just want to touch on the almighty R number, which gets mentioned with appropriate solemnness and tones full of dread.
According to the BBC..

*How is R calculated?*
You can't capture the moment people are infected. Instead, scientists work backwards.
Data - such as the number of people dying, admitted to hospital or testing positive for the virus over time - is used to estimate how easily the virus is spreading.

And they can do this on a day to day basis?
Another load of spherical objects from the people who tell us to use antibacterial hand sanitiser to stop a virus.


----------



## artie




----------



## Jake

artie said:


> Another load of spherical objects from the people who tell us to use antibacterial hand sanitiser to stop a virus.



Alcohols dissolve the outer layers of the virus, like soap. It also isn't great for bacteria, there is no contradiction to be found in that.


----------



## artie

Jake said:


> Alcohols dissolve the outer layers of the virus, like soap. It also isn't great for bacteria, there is no contradiction to be found in that.


And kills the beneficial bacteria on our hands.


----------



## Jake

OK that's one perspective I guess.


Droogs said:


> If all did it, then none would become infected and the virus exhaled by those infected would die without finding new hosts. Et voila epidemic over - after say a month



That is probably true, but unfortunately impractical.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

doctor Bob said:


> Ok, I'll take my tinfoil hat off .........................


I'd keep it on - you're not the only one to have noticed that Google are playing games and trying to manage the debate. It seems that Reddit are also pretending it doesn't exist.

The alt - media are a bit excited by it this morning - I wonder when the Guardian et al will pick it up?





__





google censors great barrington at DuckDuckGo


DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




duckduckgo.com


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> Robin it seems strange you question figures yet never acknowledged that your figure for GDP was incorrect by 100%?
> I did point it out quite politely, and of course it's your privilage to ignore it, however it potentially could make you look silly when you pick up others "incorrect figures", some may even say that you are picking and choosing to suit, others may not, who knows?



Bob, you are correct the latest GDP forecast is typically a 5% drop in GDP. World bank for example 5.2%

However the higher spas atill relavent in the context of the point I was making.

When people make statements like "the whole world has locked down" it is useful to apply some context to them.
5% doesn't sound like a total lockdown to me.

From an economists viewpoint this financial crash is different to any other, usually overheated financial market crash leading to fall in demand which leads to supply side problems. This time the supply side fell due to work being stopped then leading to a demand side fall. Provided a vaccine comes along soon, pent up demand should see a bounce back......but sadly not in hospitality sectors.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Lets just focus on this years figures then


They include pneumonia so meaningless 



artie said:


> Statistics aren't known for covid either


Yes they are.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> deaths after infection of Coronavirus seems to be similar to deaths after infection of influenza virus.


No they aren't.

Mortality of Covid is around 10x greater.

And as an illness it is far more severe for survivors.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Masks and social distancing don't affect the course of the disease once you have got it



Yes they do.

Somebody who is positive for virus won't spread it as much if they wear a mask and social distance.

No it won't affect the course of their illness, but what point are making?


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> everything I posted today is about survival _after_ catching the disease, not ways to avoid catching it in the first place



Yeah, that's not true, is it? 




Trainee neophyte said:


> , despite having enforced mask wearing and distancing rules that are much stricter than the U



But good effort in trying to isolate the bit that suits


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> appropriate solemnness and tones full of dread


Do you think the emotive embellishments add weight to your argument?



artie said:


> people who tell us to use antibacterial hand sanitiser to stop a virus


The term "anti bacterial hand sanitiser" is the commonly used term to distinguish it from just hand soap.

The recommendations to use it do specify the alcohol content required to kill viruses......you seem to have forgotten to mention that.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Just want to touch on the almighty R number, which gets mentioned with appropriate solemnness and tones full of dread.
> According to the BBC..
> 
> *How is R calculated?*
> You can't capture the moment people are infected. Instead, scientists work backwards.
> Data - such as the number of people dying, admitted to hospital or testing positive for the virus over time - is used to estimate how easily the virus is spreading.
> 
> And they can do this on a day to day basis?
> Another load of spherical objects from the people who tell us to use antibacterial hand sanitiser to stop a virus.



Politics has adopted the R value because it provides an easy metric.

In reality calculating the R value is very difficult, so using numbers isn't all that meaningful.

That doesn't discredit the importance of infection rates, the exponential nature of infections is an important consideration in decision making.


----------



## FatmanG

doctor Bob said:


> Apparantly a UK google search for the Great Barrington Declaration does not bring it up anymore, just news articles on it.
> Use a VPN and it comes up, so it is being geographically blocked, I'm amazed by this, this sort of thing happens in China not uk.
> Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so.


I've being trying to expose this for months. The narrative is being controlled and anything going against is shut down, removed and the author cancelled. This is facism! If what is said is rubbish, debate, evidence etc will expose it but it has the right to be said.

As for Robin he is part of the problem. He rubbishes GBD on the basis its funded by a right wing political supporter yet totally ignored the fact that the WHO biggest funder is Bill Gates but I suppose that's OK. The fact its politicized at all makes me question everything.


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> Provided a vaccine comes along soon, pent up demand should see a bounce back......but sadly not in hospitality sectors.



Sorry the damage is done and getting worse. Unemployment is going to be massive. Debt beyond anything we have seen since WW2.
You're just wishful thinking that a vaccine is a cure all.


----------



## artie

doctor Bob said:


> You're just wishful thinking that a vaccine is a cure all.


There's been a flu vaccine for many years, yet the flu hasn't gone away.


----------



## Rorschach

Vaccine is also pointless without long term immunity which the pro lock downers keep saying we don't have.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> No they aren't.
> 
> Mortality of Covid is around 10x greater.
> 
> And as an illness it is far more severe for survivors.



How is it more severe for survivors if it seems most of the people who get it aren't even aware they had it? 

It could be the case that many people have a bad dose of what can be a serious and what is a novel virus and so do struggle to get over it. Mortality of Covid is currently pretty steady at one person in a million per day (out of hospital) but once you go into hospital your chances of survival get worse even if you went in without covid. Stats say a 0.04-5% chance of death which is a little over flu. But again a novel virus and back in April it may have a killed a good deal of people who were very old and very ill anyway.

No one is saying it is not for some people a very serious virus. But we have lost a lot of sense of perspective and we seem to have diverted from the science now especially with these kneejerk lockdowns


----------



## Rorschach

Comparing to flu is tricky. I know I have said it before that is similar (which it is from stats) but we don't test for flu very often and we also have a vaccine.

So flu could be a lot less deadly than we think (as we don't test) but it also could be a lot more deadly (but mitigated by the fact we have a vaccine). Certainly to the best of our knowledge the Spanish flu of 1919ish was a lot more deadly than C19 is and even worse than that it "targeted" the young and the healthy whereas we know for certain that C19 kills almost exclusively the very old or those with chronic conditions.


----------



## artie

It's very long, but interesting.


----------



## Dibs-h

doctor Bob said:


> Sorry the damage is done and getting worse. Unemployment is going to be massive. Debt beyond anything we have seen since WW2.



Totally agree - more is to come and it isn't going to be pretty.


----------



## Droogs

I think this long covid thing could be a lot worse for the long term than the immediate death toll









Doctors with long COVID


Doctors who contracted COVID, and thought the symptoms would be over in weeks, tell Jennifer Trueland about their continuing pain, exhaustion and – sometimes – struggle to be believed




www.bma.org.uk





If it's like this for Drs what about everyone else who ends up like this, over 100k in UK alone so far


----------



## Jake

FatmanG said:


> I've being trying to expose this for months. The narrative is being controlled and anything going against is shut down, removed and the author cancelled. This is facism! If what is said is rubbish, debate, evidence etc will expose it but it has the right to be said.
> 
> As for Robin he is part of the problem. He rubbishes GBD on the basis its funded by a right wing political supporter yet totally ignored the fact that the WHO biggest funder is Bill Gates but I suppose that's OK. The fact its politicized at all makes me question everything.



Good to see you back Fatman, I was a bit concerned after you disappeared after that rash. Did you have COVID? Hope your family is bearing up. 

Sorry to hear you have contracted that weird boggly-eyed gates conspiracy syndrome though.


----------



## alex_heney

Selwyn said:


> Lockdown kills people too. Currently we have about 1 death per million in the UK. It is not a lot - those deaths are probably racked with comorbidities too.


Utter rubbish.

If we had 1 death per million, we would have about 60 or so deaths. We actually have over 40,000.


----------



## Rorschach

alex_heney said:


> Utter rubbish.
> 
> If we had 1 death per million, we would have about 60 or so deaths. We actually have over 40,000.



1 death per million per day obviously.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> Sorry the damage is done and getting worse. Unemployment is going to be massive. Debt beyond anything we have seen since WW2.
> You're just wishful thinking that a vaccine is a cure all.



Sure, in this country.
Not in countries that locked down faster and use mass test and trace.

We are going to have to learn to live with Covid, now and even once we get a vaccine.


If you think herd immunity is the solution, let's hear how it would work.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> How is it more severe for survivors if it seems most of the people who get it aren't even aware they had it


Whataboutery. 

It is more severe for survivors.....that's simple fact.

Would you like a list of the long term issues Covid survivors are experiencing..


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Mortality of Covid is currently pretty steady at one person in a million per day (out of hospital) but once you go into hospital your chances of survival get worse even if you went in without covid. Stats say a 0.04-5% chance of death which is a little over flu



That is not the mortality of Covid. 

And you are repeating the same mistake of many others by comparing to flu.

you are comparing Covid deaths in which a massive global effort has been to reduce deaths to flu where there hasn't. And they aren't deaths from flu but FLI flu like symptoms


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> There's been a flu vaccine for many years, yet the flu hasn't gone away.


Covid won't go away with a vaccine, but it allow a return to normality.


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> As for Robin he is part of the problem. He rubbishes GBD on the basis its funded by a right wing political supporter



I rubbish GBD because it isn't based on science. It's based on ideology.
How about you provide some answers as to how you think the vulnerable can protected enough to allow herd immunity.


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> ignored the fact that the WHO biggest funder is Bill Gates but I suppose that's OK


Whataboutery.

If you would like a discussion about Bill Gates, fine, let's have one.


----------



## doctor Bob

-----


----------



## Rorschach

And you thought I was bad for ranting about rubbish!


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Vaccine is also pointless without long term immunity which the pro lock downers keep saying we don't have.



That's a false argument, any vaccine that gets to market will have been tested to ensure reasonable immunity period.

you can't assume natural immunity timeframe and vaccine immunity timeframe would be the same.


Mass vaccination and naturally acquired immunity do not have the same results.

Also please don't assume those against herd immunity are pro lock downers.


----------



## FatmanG

Jake said:


> Good to see you back Fatman, I was a bit concerned after you disappeared after that rash. Did you have COVID? Hope your family is bearing up.
> 
> Sorry to hear you have contracted that weird boggly-eyed gates conspiracy syndrome though.


That rash was an infection in my mangled old legs. I developed a fever and was pretty poorly but I'm here, well and as strong as an ox physically and mentally thanks for asking.
As for Gates my eyes are wide open. I'm not as arrogant as the majority of society to think I know everything but I'm old enough and have enough life experience to know when 2+2 makes 5. You spend your whole life learning and your success usually depends on the quality of the teaching and the information hey teach. Hitler was so successful in conning the German people because of his total ownership of the media. Ministry of Propaganda. He tore up the Versailles treaty and put starving people to work rebuilding the military. I bet the Jews who were sounding the alarm back then were mocked as conspiracy theorists and we saw how that turned out. There are a hell of a lot of basic questions that need answering. There is a money trail that leads to Gates but even without that the main question the world needs to know how does a software tyrant end p being one of the biggest influencers in the WHO? Influencing the pandemic response. He's the 2020 JD Rockerfella, philanthropist my japs optic sphere.


----------



## Selwyn

alex_heney said:


> Utter rubbish.
> 
> If we had 1 death per million, we would have about 60 or so deaths. We actually have over 40,000.



Running at one per 1 Million per day away from the very obvious spike at the beginning. That doesn't mean just 60 per day die or whatever. Its the actual death rate from Covid trend once its endemic. I'll let you into a secret - people die every day from lots more than covid


----------



## artie

artie said:


>




Not one comment???


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Whataboutery.
> 
> It is more severe for survivors.....that's simple fact.
> 
> Would you like a list of the long term issues Covid survivors are experiencing..



Given that we have already had 604k cases of covid and probably many more unregistered the vast majority of whom had no or minor symptoms then overall I'd say the vast majority of the "survivors" have not found it severe at all. Simple fact

Out of all this some didn't notice they had it
Some got mildly ill for a few days
Some felt very ill for a few days
Some went to hospital and came out
Some went to ICU, got very sick and came out
Some died.

Of those who died. A good 25-30% were in care homes where any life expectancy is limited (average stay in care home is about 6-8 months), Another 30-40% of these would have been over 70. Not all spring chickens but probably a lot not in fine fettle. 

The rest were a mixture of known comorbidities, unknown comorbidities, extremely high exposure (ie health staff) and then another very small portion of people who were just very very unlucky being young and fit but got unlucky.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> That is not the mortality of Covid.
> 
> And you are repeating the same mistake of many others by comparing to flu.
> 
> you are comparing Covid deaths in which a massive global effort has been to reduce deaths to flu where there hasn't. And they aren't deaths from flu but FLI flu like symptoms



Its mortality is slightly higher than flu at the moment and it is of course more virulent. Flu still appears to be the bigger killer by a vast majority and how you think you can reduce covid yet not reduce flu as if you think we know how to let one circulate and not the other leaves me flummoxed.

No one is saying Covid is not a serious disease for some of the vulnerable. What they are saying is 1. is the reaction proportionate 2. is the reaction effective. I also want to know how to keep an endemic virus out of the population


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> you think you can reduce covid yet not reduce flu as if you think we know how to let one circulate and not the other leaves me flummoxed



Where did I say that?
flu statistics are all historical, there are no meaningful statistics for flu deaths 2020

the only statistics available are the ONS figures which cover "flu like illness + pneumonia"


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Where did I say that?
> flu statistics are all historical, there are no meaningful statistics for flu deaths 2020
> 
> the only statistics available are the ONS figures which cover "flu like illness + pneumonia"



Often when someone is very old they die. The final cause of death can be varied - pneumonia, flu etc because as the body starts to die/ slow down these things take a hold. Pneumonia used to known as "old mans friend". I would imagine a lot of Covid was put on death certificates before because people tested for Covid in hospital but they may have hung on a bit longer (months/ weeks/ who knows) but the novel virus would have hurried it along (along with care home staff not being around so much ,not seeing anyone etc)


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Its mortality is slightly higher than flu



the mortality of covid is higher than flu DESPITE massive interventions to reduce covid.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> how you think you can reduce covid yet not reduce flu


I havent said that.

and social distancing has reduced flu:

*The Southern Hemisphere skipped flu season this year, likely because of social distancing*



Flu season in the Southern Hemisphere, though, came and went with so few cases that there was "virtually no influenza circulation," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDC experts believe that efforts like social distancing, mask-wearing and school closures might have critically crippled flu season in countries in the Southern Hemisphere.









The Southern Hemisphere skipped flu season this year, likely because of social distancing


CDC experts believe that social distancing, mask-wearing and school closures might have critically crippled flu season in Southern Hemisphere countries. They hope similar efforts will have the same impact in the Northern Hemisphere.




edition.cnn.com












Influenza update - 390







www.who.int












Flu Season Never Came to the Southern Hemisphere


Mask wearing and social distancing for COVID-19 may have cut influenza cases south of the equator




www.scientificamerican.com












Decreased Influenza Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic ...


After recognition of widespread community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), by mid- to late February 2020, indicators of influenza activity ...




www.cdc.gov








__





Science | AAAS







www.sciencemag.org


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> the mortality of covid is higher than flu DESPITE massive interventions to reduce covid.



In absolute terms no its not. Flu kills a lot more. Covid is the 24th most common cause of death is August 2020 in the UK.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I havent said that.
> 
> and social distancing has reduced flu:
> 
> *The Southern Hemisphere skipped flu season this year, likely because of social distancing*
> 
> 
> 
> Flu season in the Southern Hemisphere, though, came and went with so few cases that there was "virtually no influenza circulation," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
> CDC experts believe that efforts like social distancing, mask-wearing and school closures might have critically crippled flu season in countries in the Southern Hemisphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern Hemisphere skipped flu season this year, likely because of social distancing
> 
> 
> CDC experts believe that social distancing, mask-wearing and school closures might have critically crippled flu season in Southern Hemisphere countries. They hope similar efforts will have the same impact in the Northern Hemisphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edition.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Influenza update - 390
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.who.int
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flu Season Never Came to the Southern Hemisphere
> 
> 
> Mask wearing and social distancing for COVID-19 may have cut influenza cases south of the equator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decreased Influenza Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic ...
> 
> 
> After recognition of widespread community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), by mid- to late February 2020, indicators of influenza activity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org



Flu seasons ebb and flow. Also flu seasons depend totally on the climatic conditions and humidity of the area - a flue season in the tropics acts differently to northen europe. We have data that sometimes flu is bad and sometimes its not - the virus is the same though. In the UK as we come into the summer months the deaths from flu tend to decline rapidly for a range of reasons (and yes social distancing no doubt makes a difference) and then increase again from now. Have you ever known the hospitals not to be full of patients this time of year?


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> I rubbish GBD because it isn't based on science. It's based on ideology.
> How about you provide some answers as to how you think the vulnerable can protected enough to allow herd immunity.
> [/QUOT
> Everything you post Robin is based on fear linked to nothing more than what you are spoon fed. You keep going on about science but you pick and choose which science suits the problem is there is contradictory science and scientists that are putting forward a different narrative but they are shut down, censored cancelled and slurred. You did the exact same thing citing a right wing funder as some sort of reason for it to be disregarded. You have journalists calling for corporations like Facebook,google etc to censor any dissenting voices which should set massive alarm bells ringing. There's been the shutdown of drs who used hydroxychloroquine and zinc and had actual proof it worked on real people yet the machine went into overdrive publishing studies that got the treatment banned. Why? Its been used for 50+ years. Its banned because there's no money in it for big pharma. Why financially incentivise hospitals to diagnose and intubate patients? Why register a death as 'with covid 19' if tested positive within 28 days? Why are we testing people who are healthy who have no symptoms who have nothing wrong with them and calling that a case and using them in the figures as positive cases which is then used to justify more restrictions and lockdowns and demonized in the media. These are legitimate questions that need answering but you are classed as a but, smeared and cancelled if you ask them.
> You Robin are like a frightened little boy who can't think for himself. You would grass on your best friend to the authorities. You Sir are why dangerous people can get away with peddling their agendas without question. History is repeating itself and you are a co conspirator. Take the blindfold off lad


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Often when someone is very old they die. The final cause of death can be varied - pneumonia, flu etc because as the body starts to die/ slow down these things take a hold. Pneumonia used to known as "old mans friend". I would imagine a lot of Covid was put on death certificates before because people tested for Covid in hospital but they may have hung on a bit longer (months/ weeks/ who knows) but the novel virus would have hurried it along (along with care home staff not being around so much ,not seeing anyone etc)




flu deaths as reported by ONS are for "Flu like symptoms + pneumonia" 

So do agree that means trying to compare flu deaths with covid deaths as some newspapers has done and some on here, is pointless?


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Not one comment???


yes, he means false negative


*Coronavirus testing at airports may give a "false sense of security", Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said, after suggestions it could be used to cut quarantine times for travellers.*
Mr Johnson said testing on arrival would only identify 7% of virus cases.










Coronavirus: Airport tests 'give false sense of security', says Johnson


Boris Johnson says testing travellers arriving in the UK would only identify 7% of coronavirus cases.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> flu deaths as reported by ONS are for "Flu like symptoms + pneumonia"
> 
> So do agree that means trying to compare flu deaths with covid deaths as some newspapers has done and some on here, is pointless?




Not at all. Not least because sometimes someone who is 87 may have a combination of flu/covid/ pneumonia/ cancer/ dementia etc within them yet if they test positive for Covid it goes down as a covid death regardless of these other issues. 

I'm saying Covid is very likely overstated. 24th biggest killer in august, mostly killing those with comorbidities or near the departure lounge in life. I'm all about the data, this is not the great plague


----------



## doctor Bob

RobinBHM said:


> Sure, in this country.
> Not in countries that locked down faster and use mass test and trace.


You have lost me...........
We are talking about GDP here, New zealand locked down faster................... projected GDP -12%


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Flu seasons ebb and flow. Also flu seasons depend totally on the climatic conditions and humidity of the area - a flue season in the tropics acts differently to northen europe. We have data that sometimes flu is bad and sometimes its not - the virus is the same though. In the UK as we come into the summer months the deaths from flu tend to decline rapidly for a range of reasons (and yes social distancing no doubt makes a difference) and then increase again from now. Have you ever known the hospitals not to be full of patients this time of year?


Thank you for agreeing with me that its not possible to compare 2020 flu statisitcs with covid.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> yes, he means false negative
> 
> 
> *Coronavirus testing at airports may give a "false sense of security", Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said, after suggestions it could be used to cut quarantine times for travellers.*
> Mr Johnson said testing on arrival would only identify 7% of virus cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coronavirus: Airport tests 'give false sense of security', says Johnson
> 
> 
> Boris Johnson says testing travellers arriving in the UK would only identify 7% of coronavirus cases.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk



No such thing as a false negative


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me that its not possible to compare 2020 flu statisitcs with covid.



I'm actually having a bit of a problem following your train of thought. So I'm not sure I agree with you or not as I can't ascertain exactly what you mean.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Not at all. Not least because sometimes someone who is 87 may have a combination of flu/covid/ pneumonia/ cancer/ dementia etc within them yet if they test positive for Covid it goes down as a covid death regardless of these other issues.
> 
> I'm saying Covid is very likely overstated. 24th biggest killer in august, mostly killing those with comorbidities or near the departure lounge in life. I'm all about the data, this is not the great plague



and as I said, the excess death figure agrees with the covid death figure

and you keep avoiding the obvious thing: that is the deaths from covid despite massive intervention
the vast majority of vulnerable people -=especially the elderly, or those with conditions shielded during the first wave.

So the argument you keep repeating is based on a false premise.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> No such thing as a false negative



false negative

_noun_


a test result which wrongly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is absent.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> false negative
> 
> _noun_
> 
> 
> a test result which wrongly indicates that a particular condition or attribute is absent.



You cant get a false negative pcr


----------



## SammyQ

PCR: a.k.a. *Polymerase Chain Reaction*...it does what it says on the tin. It amplifies what is there. Your statement " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " is conflating facts mightily and does little save exhibit your ignorance. Go work for Trump.

For those who are not following, PCR only makes what DNA is present in the test sample more plentiful. If, for some reason, covid DNA is not in said test sample, it will not be amplified. So, in a universe, far, far, removed from probability, a Corona-virus carrier, who (miraculously) gives a blood sample free of C19DNA, *will* "test negative". This scenario is specious, utterly so, so the " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " statement is pseudo-science and complete tosh.

Sam


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> and as I said, the excess death figure agrees with the covid death figure
> 
> and you keep avoiding the obvious thing: that is the deaths from covid despite massive intervention
> the vast majority of vulnerable people -=especially the elderly, or those with conditions shielded during the first wave.
> 
> So the argument you keep repeating is based on a false premise.



Oh no I would agree that when covid first came out that it definitely contributed to an awful lot of deaths. That is obvious

I can't understand your middle sentence. What is my false premise? You need to write a bit more clearly and I will definitely respond with clarity to make my point


----------



## Selwyn

SammyQ said:


> PCR: a.k.a. *Polymerase Chain Reaction*...it does what it says on the tin. It amplifies what is there. Your statement " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " is conflating facts mightily and does little save exhibit your ignorance. Go work for Trump.
> 
> Sam



But if is not there and you are not showing symptoms how on earth can you call it a covid "Case". We are all constantly under attack from virus and we can find all sorts in us - we don't say we are ill when we don't feel ill and the tests show we don't have an illness


----------



## SammyQ

See my edit above. 

S.


----------



## FatmanG

SammyQ said:


> PCR: a.k.a. *Polymerase Chain Reaction*...it does what it says on the tin. It amplifies what is there. Your statement " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " is conflating facts mightily and does little save exhibit your ignorance. Go work for Trump.
> 
> For those who are not following, PCR only makes what DNA is present in the test sample more plentiful. If, for some reason, covid DNA is not in said test sample, it will not be amplified. So, in a universe, far, far, removed from probability, a Corona-virus carrier, who (miraculously) gives a blood sample free of C19DNA, *will* "test negative". This scenario is specious, utterly so, so the " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " statement is pseudo-science and complete tosh.
> 
> Sam


What you fail to point out in your ignorance that it cant detect whether the virus is active or not. And your go work for Trump comment what's that all about? Totally irrelevant!


----------



## SammyQ

FatmanG? Ignorance is "not knowing"? Really? I am a Biologist, have been for 39 years. *PCR is not a test*, its a tool - to make more covid DNA - to enable a subsequent covid test.
Using "PCR" and "test" conflated together is balderdash. They are two separate procedures, admittedly used one after t'other in some medical scenarios.
To mangle them.together is symptomatic of the bluster and pseudoscience the Trump administration employs to manufacture announcements designed to appeal.to their voters.
I consider two trolls now fed.

Sam


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> yes, he means false negative


No no no.
I don't mind if you are scared, I don't mind if you misunderstand, I don't mind if you stick to your guns even when you're wrong, but don't tell me that positive means negative, that's a step too far, even for you.


----------



## Selwyn

SammyQ said:


> FatmanG? Ignorance is "not knowing"? Really? I am a Biologist, have been for 39 years. *PCR is not a test*, its a tool - to make more covid DNA - to enable a subsequent covid test.
> Using "PCR" and "test" conflated together is balderdash. They are two separate procedures, admittedly used one after t'other in some medical scenarios.
> To mangle them.together is symptomatic of the bluster and pseudoscience the Trump administration employs to manufacture announcements designed to appeal.to their voters.
> I consider two trolls now fed.
> 
> Sam



Er, I think you were trolling me. I'm all about the data - the data isn't there to support the reaction. If we stopped testing people without actual symptoms and changed the pcr cycles to 30-35 then most of this nonsense wouldn't exist and we could just see things for what they really are


----------



## Trainee neophyte

I've been hiding for the last day or so, and things seem to have moved on on a bit here. Backing up to the point I was trying trying to make, rather badly it would seem, I put up a worldwide fatality rate for covid 19 being 0.14%, based on 10% of the world population being infection, and the million known deaths. @RobinBHM tells me categorically that influenza death rate is 10 times lower than this, Ie. 0.014%, presumably. 

The font of all truth and wisdom, also known as wikipedia, suggests that the _average_ influenza infects 300,000 to one billion people, and the death rate death rate worldwide is 290,000–650,000/year. If the coronavirus has currently infected 800,000ish people, and killed one million, then it is less than twice as deadly as the _average_ influenza. We haven't even started looking at bad years. I therefore dispute the 10 times more deadly epithet for our novel coronavirus. 

I fully accept that a lot of people are being infected, and there are a lot of measures to try and stop this, but the rates of death once infected look to be in about the same ballpark, as they say in America. You could get me to agree that they are a _bit_ higher, but not significantly so. So the question is - if I am out by a factor of ten, what did I do wrong?


----------



## SammyQ

[/QUOTE]


Selwyn said:


> If we stopped testing people without actual symptoms


Oh dear...ever heard of "asymptomatic,"???


----------



## Rorschach

SammyQ said:


> Oh dear...ever heard of "asymptomatic,"???



If they are asymptomatic they are not sick are they? Counting them is just to add to the fear.
As to how much asymptomatic spread the disease, well pretty low chance since they are not coughing and presumably not producing much virus either since they are not ill.


----------



## Selwyn

Oh dear...ever heard of "asymptomatic,"???
[/QUOTE]

I have and we are making an excessive reaction to the asymptomatics.


----------



## artie

Oh dear...ever heard of "asymptomatic,"???
[/QUOTE]
Not until recently.

It used to be that if you felt poorly you went to the doctor.

Nowadays even though you are on top of the world, you need to go and get tested, to see if you have an assortment of cancers or virus. Even though you might live out your life quite happily without being impacted.


----------



## FatmanG

SammyQ said:


> FatmanG? Ignorance is "not knowing"? Really? I am a Biologist, have been for 39 years. *PCR is not a test*, its a tool - to make more covid DNA - to enable a subsequent covid test.
> Using "PCR" and "test" conflated together is balderdash. They are two separate procedures, admittedly used one after t'other in some medical scenarios.
> To mangle them.together is symptomatic of the bluster and pseudoscience the Trump administration employs to manufacture announcements designed to appeal.to their voters.
> I consider two trolls now fed.
> 
> Sam


Once again a know all calling out anyone who disagrees with them a troll. Grow up! A PCR test can only identify the presence of material namely HIV. Its not meant as a weapon to test healthy asymptomatic young people then blame them for killing Granny. I don't give a damn about Trump and your political views but I do care about my children and grandchildren and what's the future for them and any imbecile can see this virus is being used to create fear and change our whole way of life all because the poorly and old are in danger! They were before the virus and always will be. World economic destruction for WHAT?
From where I can see Trumps the only one to remotely tell the truth


----------



## SammyQ

*"I have and we are making an excessive reaction to the asymptomatics. "*

OK, all you Long-Covid sufferers, step right up and tell Selwyn et al how you would rather have had YOUR asymptomatic 'spreader' detected by testing, rather than given YOU the disease...Of course, he/she/it would have had to self-isolate and then you would not have contracted Cov-19 from them?....

Sam


----------



## SammyQ

*" A PCR test can only identify the presence of material namely HIV "*

Words fail me....


----------



## Selwyn

SammyQ said:


> *"I have and we are making an excessive reaction to the asymptomatics. "*
> 
> OK, all you Long-Covid sufferers, step right up and tell Selwyn et al how you would rather have had YOUR asymptomatic 'spreader' detected by testing, rather than given YOU the disease...Of course, he/she/it would have had to self-isolate and then you would not have contracted Cov-19 from them?....
> 
> Sam



Long Covid is not a proven thing. Its just a fact that some people will take a long time to recover from a nasty viral infection. Jeez, do you have long flu and long pneumonia? No

The rest of what you say adds to the hysteria. You think you can stop a virus?!!!


----------



## FatmanG

SammyQ said:


> *"I have and we are making an excessive reaction to the asymptomatics. "*
> 
> OK, all you Long-Covid sufferers, step right up and tell Selwyn et al how you would rather have had YOUR asymptomatic 'spreader' detected by testing, rather than given YOU the disease...Of course, he/she/it would have had to self-isolate and then you would not have contracted Cov-19 from them?....
> 
> Sam


Who isn't to say that long covid isn't a reaction/consequence to being traumatized by the fear mongering about covid in the beginning? Either way those included does not justify the response


----------



## FatmanG

SammyQ said:


> *" A PCR test can only identify the presence of material namely HIV "*
> 
> Words fail me....


It was created to detect HIV


----------



## SammyQ

FatmanG said:


> It was created to detect HIV


Totally incorrect.


----------



## Rorschach

SammyQ said:


> *"I have and we are making an excessive reaction to the asymptomatics. "*
> 
> OK, all you Long-Covid sufferers, step right up and tell Selwyn et al how you would rather have had YOUR asymptomatic 'spreader' detected by testing, rather than given YOU the disease...Of course, he/she/it would have had to self-isolate and then you would not have contracted Cov-19 from them?....
> 
> Sam



How do you know that asymptomatic people gave them C19? You are making a silly assertion there.


----------



## artie

SammyQ said:


> PCR: a.k.a. *Polymerase Chain Reaction*...it does what it says on the tin. It amplifies what is there. Your statement " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " is conflating facts mightily and does little save exhibit your ignorance. Go work for Trump.
> 
> For those who are not following, PCR only makes what DNA is present in the test sample more plentiful. If, for some reason, covid DNA is not in said test sample, it will not be amplified. So, in a universe, far, far, removed from probability, a Corona-virus carrier, who (miraculously) gives a blood sample free of C19DNA, *will* "test negative". This scenario is specious, utterly so, so the " _You can't get a false negative pcr_ " statement is pseudo-science and complete tosh.
> 
> Sam


You can't get a false negative, you can't get a true negative, all you can get is positive or not.

In much the same way as you can't be found innocent of a crime, just guilty, or not.


----------



## artie

SammyQ said:


> Totally incorrect.


That's what the inventor said he invented it for.


----------



## SammyQ

Artie, it was invented to increase the amount of DNA in any given sample. Once a sufficient amount of DNA was accumulated, THEN a conventional test for HIV could be carried out. Up to then, the amount of DNA available was too little to reliably test. PCR is a technique, not a test.

HTH. Sam


----------



## FatmanG

artie said:


> That's what the inventor said he invented it for.


I guess that is why he spent 30 years in biology and not virology. I also assert the social and economic destruction matters less to a retired, financially secure person as it wont affect them. We need to have these conversations. As I type no doubt Boris is inflicting further devastating restrictions on freedoms and liberties while at his side rich Richy from Richmond dishes out nothing for the worker but money and power locally to collect in their 10k fines. Its a disgrace


----------



## doctor Bob

All looking like it's going to be a very bleak winter for everyone, health and economically. 
I suspect it's going to get a lot worse on all fronts.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> All looking like it's going to be a very bleak winter for everyone, health and economically.
> I suspect it's going to get a lot worse on all fronts.



As at the beginning of all this, I think you are right .


----------



## FatmanG

The 3 tier response just been announced is only going to be effective in inflicting 3 levels of increasing destruction. Whitty admitted actually admitted there's no science behind closing hospitality down. There's plenty of evidence that children catch everything in winter. We are getting told of new infections at my daughters school daily with a plea not to phone and swamp the switchboard. No School closure though. Just 2 instances which cause the total undermining of confidence in the decision makers. Then we have journalists who do not ask any meaningful questions letting them off the hook. Joe Biden gets tougher ones and he's senile. 
I truly despair.


----------



## Selwyn

doctor Bob said:


> All looking like it's going to be a very bleak winter for everyone, health and economically.
> I suspect it's going to get a lot worse on all fronts.



Entirely self inflicted. For one death per million per day.....


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Fun thought: "We have to follow the science". Unfortunately the scientists appear to be revolting. Not only do we have the Great Barrington Declaration going against the lockdown narrative, now we have the WHO coming out against lockdown, too, too. Dr David Nabarro on Radio 4:

"I want to say it again: We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus."

Well, that's awkward. Now what do we do? We have to follow the science, but we have to not do what the alleged scientists allegedly said will allegedly make us safe. Does not compute. 

Perhaps it's time to start investigating Bill Gates after all...


----------



## artie

Has anyone heard of MR _BRIAN ROBERT AMLEY_

Might be worth a quick google search.

On second thoughts duck duck go might be better.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> You can't get a false negative, you can't get a true negative, all you can get is positive or not.
> 
> In much the same way as you can't be found innocent of a crime, just guilty, or not.


That is incorrect





What causes false negatives?


 
 
Poor sampling technique. Nasopharyngeal sampling is invasive and can feel unpleasant. It may be less effective when carried out unsupervised, so the false negative rate may increase as sampling at home becomes more common.

 
 
Sample degradation. Samples may degrade when stored or while being transported.

 
 
Sampling too early. Viral shedding from individuals peaks just before, or at the onset of

symptoms [4,5]. If samples are taken early in infection (1-4 days after infection) they have an

increased false negative rate.

 
 
Sampling too late. Viral shedding declines after symptoms have peaked [6]. Samples taken at

this stage of infection will show an increased false negative rate


----------



## FatmanG

Trainee neophyte said:


> Fun thought: "We have to follow the science". Unfortunately the scientists appear to be revolting. Not only do we have the Great Barrington Declaration going against the lockdown narrative, now we have the WHO coming out against lockdown, too, too. Dr David Nabarro on Radio 4:
> 
> Perhaps it's time to start investigating Bill Gates after all...


Gate,faucci and others need looking at for their conflict of interests as a bare minimum. As I said previously Gates is the 2020 JD Rockerfella. Corporate bully to Philanthropist extraordinaire. He's increased his fortune 200% since he started his foundation. He stands to make a trillion dollars down to this pandemic. He makes out of testing, vaccines his grubby fingers are everywhere but not a single dime to help with ppe or his fellow citizens. Mark my words he will be ruined eventually tyrants always are


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> Who isn't to say that long covid isn't a reaction/consequence to being traumatized by the fear mongering about covid in the beginning? Either way those included does not justify the response



You are implying long Covid is simply in people's heads.....gee

Do you think the following is a lie then:

Persistent health problems reported following acute COVID-19 disease include:


respiratory symptoms and conditions such as chronic cough, shortness of breath, lung inflammation and fibrosis, and pulmonary vascular disease
cardiovascular symptoms and disease such as chest tightness, acute myocarditis and heart failure
protracted loss or change of smell and taste
mental health problems including depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties
inflammatory disorders such as myalgia, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, or neuralgic amyotrophy
gastrointestinal disturbance with diarrhoea
continuing headaches
fatigue, weakness and sleeplessness
liver and kidney dysfunction
clotting disorders and thrombosis
lymphadenopathy
skin rashes

My niece works in NHS, 2 colleagues have long term health issues from Covid, one has heart damage and the other has lung damage, one is on long term sick leave the other has had to give up work.


----------



## Jake

Trainee neophyte said:


> Fun thought: "We have to follow the science". ...now we have the WHO coming out against lockdown, too, too. Dr David Nabarro on Radio 4:
> 
> "I want to say it again: We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus."
> 
> Well, that's awkward. Now what do we do? We have to follow the science, but we have to not do what the alleged scientists allegedly said will allegedly make us safe. Does not compute.



It only doesn't compute if you are intentionally distorting or failing completely to understand. He was saying that WHO does not advise reliance on lockdowns where they can be avoided, because they are a blunt brute force measure with really bad side-effects. That's what 'primary' means - they should be a back-up last resort. In the first wave, we did not have many other tools. WHO has always advocated TTI as the primary policy, as do all the scientists you are railing about. The problem is that this incompetent government (and its contractors) spaffed £12bn of money and 9 months of time up the wall on its failed T&T infrastructure, so now they are going to need to rely on the blunt instrument of lockdown.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> You are implying long Covid is simply in people's heads.....gee
> 
> Do you think the following is a lie then:
> 
> Persistent health problems reported following acute COVID-19 disease include:
> 
> 
> respiratory symptoms and conditions such as chronic cough, shortness of breath, lung inflammation and fibrosis, and pulmonary vascular disease
> cardiovascular symptoms and disease such as chest tightness, acute myocarditis and heart failure
> protracted loss or change of smell and taste
> mental health problems including depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties
> inflammatory disorders such as myalgia, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, or neuralgic amyotrophy
> gastrointestinal disturbance with diarrhoea
> continuing headaches
> fatigue, weakness and sleeplessness
> liver and kidney dysfunction
> clotting disorders and thrombosis
> lymphadenopathy
> skin rashes
> 
> My niece works in NHS, 2 colleagues have long term health issues from Covid, one has heart damage and the other has lung damage, one is on long term sick leave the other has had to give up work.



More that recovering from any respiratory disease can be hard for an unlucky few. Nothing controversial about that


----------



## Jake

Selwyn said:


> More that recovering from any respiratory disease can be hard for an unlucky few. Nothing controversial about that



It's not only a respiratory disease. It attacks all sorts of organs.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> No no no.
> I don't mind if you are scared, I don't mind if you misunderstand, I don't mind if you stick to your guns even when you're wrong, but don't tell me that positive means negative, that's a step too far, even for you.



May I respectfully suggest you think a little longer before posting.

Raab clearly misspoke, this is Boris Johnson discussing the same subject:

PM Boris Johnson has said airport tests would identify only 7% of cases and so could give a "false sense of security".

And Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said testing was not a "silver bullet".

"That's why we have the quarantine," Mr Raab told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.


----------



## Selwyn

Jake said:


> It's not only a respiratory disease. It attacks all sorts of organs.



I'm sure for some people it does


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> More that recovering from any respiratory disease can be hard for an unlucky few. Nothing controversial about that


Please can you give me some examples of "any respiratory disease" which:

1. Overloads hospitals and critical care
2. Has managed to kill 6000 health care workers globally
3 May lead to Cytokine storm


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> You are implying long Covid is simply in people's heads.....gee
> 
> Do you think the following is a lie then:
> 
> Persistent health problems reported following acute COVID-19 disease include:
> 
> 
> respiratory symptoms and conditions such as chronic cough, shortness of breath, lung inflammation and fibrosis, and pulmonary vascular disease
> cardiovascular symptoms and disease such as chest tightness, acute myocarditis and heart failure
> protracted loss or change of smell and taste
> mental health problems including depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties
> inflammatory disorders such as myalgia, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, or neuralgic amyotrophy
> gastrointestinal disturbance with diarrhoea
> continuing headaches
> fatigue, weakness and sleeplessness
> liver and kidney dysfunction
> clotting disorders and thrombosis
> lymphadenopathy
> skin rashes
> 
> My niece works in NHS, 2 colleagues have long term health issues from Covid, one has heart damage and the other has lung damage, one is on long term sick leave the other has had to give up work.


I said who is to know what the cause of long covid is and gave a possible scenario and since nobody knows why it occurs it could be down to picking their nose GEE
I have bilateral DVTs in my legs as a consequence of a car accident, passengers on long flights suffer dvts regularly but I don't see travel being banned. Life holds risk it has to be managed. Nothing and I mean not a single solitary word you have typed has convinced me that the response to SARS cov 2 has been right or proportionate at any stage. Emptying hospitals of the elderly into nursing homes condemning 1000s to death. Locking down and crippling the economy ruining small businesses and no help for the self employed.. The constant fear mongering in daily death tolls using manipulated data. The use of the number of cases to continue the fear when the deaths disappeared for the summer and from the TV screens. Now its the testing of perfectly healthy young people and calling them cases and the ogregious act of now blaming them for spreading and killing Granny. Now its up to 10k fines to keep you in line. You Robin are a mouth mouthpiece for all of the above. I have nothing further to say to you except open your f###### eyes lad


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> he rest were a mixture of known comorbidities, unknown comorbidities, extremely high exposure (ie health staff) and then another very small portion of people who were just very very unlucky being young and fit but got unlucky.



You seem to have forgotten the 600 hospital and social care workers that died.

And the people suffering long term effects from covid

From the Telegraph: 
"Long Covid" is genuine and leaves patients suffering debilitating symptoms for many months ... tracker app showed that between 200,000 and 500,000 people in the UK are currently living.....


And that is despite huge interventions to prevent spread.


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> I said who is to know what the cause of long covid is and gave a possible scenario and since nobody knows why it occurs it could be down to picking their nose



Errr the cause of long Covid is.....Covid.

Are you trying to claim the serious long term problem people are having after Covid, is somehow mistaken for some other cause.

You seem to be clutching at straws


----------



## Terry - Somerset

This topic is full of self delusion and denial, short on honesty, selective statistics, questionable minority theories, and simple political point scoring disguised as rational debate.

Simplistic claims like "it's no worse than flu" are demonstrable rubbish.

The elderly and vulnerable cannot be permanently shielded or isolated.

The virus does kill - probably less than the first wave but it still kills, mainly the elderly. Long covid is still largely an unknown.

Lock down has severe consequences for jobs and the economy. It disadvantages particularly the young and families. 

Let it rip will lead to deaths. We don't know with precision, but possibly in a range of 25-200k over the next 12 months. 

The NHS is not an infinite resource. Whilst we can build Nightigales quickly, we can't train the extra staff in short order. Diverting NHS resources to treat Covid denies the capacity to other needs.

IMHO a middle path is the correct one to follow - explicitly acknowledge that there will be excess deaths and that there will be significant disruption to economic and social activity. 

Without an explicit policy on Covid treatment, the outcome is a random who shouts loudest, where you happen to live lottery. 

Very clear priorities need to be agreed/set - is treating Covid more important thant (say) cancer treatment. At what point is Covid treatment denied - eg: over 85 years old and you are simply made comfortable whilst nature takes its course.

Or perhaps I am entirely naive - rather than honesty most may prefer the illusory - do what you are told and it will all be ok.


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> Errr the cause of long Covid is.....Covid.
> 
> Are you trying to claim the serious long term problem people are having after Covid, is somehow mistaken for some other cause.
> 
> You seem to be clutching at straws


That blindfold is rendering you illiterate.


----------



## Cabinetman

Terry - Somerset said:


> This topic is full of self delusion and denial, short on honesty, selective statistics, questionable minority theories, and simple political point scoring disguised as rational debate.
> 
> Simplistic claims like "it's no worse than flu" are demonstrable rubbish.
> 
> The elderly and vulnerable cannot be permanently shielded or isolated.
> 
> The virus does kill - probably less than the first wave but it still kills, mainly the elderly. Long covid is still largely an unknown.
> 
> Lock down has severe consequences for jobs and the economy. It disadvantages particularly the young and families.
> 
> Let it rip will lead to deaths. We don't know with precision, but possibly in a range of 25-200k over the next 12 months.
> 
> The NHS is not an infinite resource. Whilst we can build Nightigales quickly, we can't train the extra staff in short order. Diverting NHS resources to treat Covid denies the capacity to other needs.
> 
> IMHO a middle path is the correct one to follow - explicitly acknowledge that there will be excess deaths and that there will be significant disruption to economic and social activity.
> 
> Without an explicit policy on Covid treatment, the outcome is a random who shouts loudest, where you happen to live lottery.
> 
> Very clear priorities need to be agreed/set - is treating Covid more important thant (say) cancer treatment. At what point is Covid treatment denied - eg: over 85 years old and you are simply made comfortable whilst nature takes its course.
> 
> Or perhaps I am entirely naive - rather than honesty most may prefer the illusory - do what you are told and it will all be ok.


Unfortunately Terry is probably right and we need to follow a middle path, Personally, I’m of the let it rip side of the argument as long as we protect the elderly as best we can, it’s the dishonesty and the control that I really hate.
And no I’m not young!


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> May I respectfully suggest you think a little longer before posting.
> 
> Raab clearly misspoke, this is Boris Johnson discussing the same subject:
> 
> PM Boris Johnson has said airport tests would identify only 7% of cases and so could give a "false sense of security".
> 
> And Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said testing was not a "silver bullet".
> 
> "That's why we have the quarantine," Mr Raab told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.


I always think before I post, do you?
Are you now saying that testing misses 93% of infected people tested?
Are the tests proposed at airports different from other tests?


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> I always think before I post, do you?
> Are you now saying that testing misses 93% of infected people tested?
> Are the tests proposed at airports different from other tests?


It does rather seem that you don't think before you post.

This is the comment he made: 
" airports is 'the very high false positive rate' and adds 'only 7% of tests will be successful in identifying those who have the virus"

I am not sure what interpretation you are making, I think you are claiming it means the test is only 7% accurate, although it doesn't actually say that. In fact what he says is contradictory.

Do you realise there is a difference between test accuracy and operational test accuracy?


----------



## SammyQ

May I please thank Jake, Robin and Terry for presenting, very patiently and thoroughly, the calm voice of reason in the face of nigh-rabid denial and polarised, delusional opinion.

Sam


----------



## RobinBHM

Cabinetman said:


> dishonesty and the control that I really hate.



I certainly doesn't help when some governments aren't honest with the public. 
Neither does it help with public support for government when they are seen to be not following the rules....I'm thinking the other side of the Atlantic.

Control- the problem is reducing the spread of the virus requires a collective effort. A collective effort ignores personal choice, which many people don't like.

For example: in a full lockdown, we may be told to " stay at home", well you might argue: "if I pop down town, what difference can it make, the place is empty".........Bournemouth beach


----------



## RobinBHM

SammyQ said:


> May I please thank Jake, Robin and Terry for presenting, very patiently and thoroughly, the calm voice of reason in the face of nigh-rabid denial and polarised, delusional opinion.
> 
> Sam


Nobody on any side of the pandemic debate wants lockdowns, economic destruction, or other illnesses being left untreated.

We all want it over, but there are no magic solutions. 
There is no point claiming herd immunity is the great answer unless it is backed up with realistic proposals explaining how vulnerable people can be protected. All evidence so far says they can't. 


The main frustratration I have is the use of subjective words used to build an argument: "fearmongering" "hysterical".....and the misrepresentation of stats used to make dishonest comparisons with influenza.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Please can you give me some examples of "any respiratory disease" which:
> 
> 1. Overloads hospitals and critical care
> 2. Has managed to kill 6000 health care workers globally
> 3 May lead to Cytokine storm



Well certainly influenza sometimes, comes close to overwhelming the NHS in a bad year. Of course you may like to pretend hospitals are usually empty


----------



## selly

SammyQ said:


> May I please thank Jake, Robin and Terry for presenting, very patiently and thoroughly, the calm voice of reason in the face of nigh-rabid denial and polarised, delusional opinion.
> 
> Sam



The data isn't there though.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> You seem to have forgotten the 600 hospital and social care workers that died.
> 
> And the people suffering long term effects from covid
> 
> From the Telegraph:
> "Long Covid" is genuine and leaves patients suffering debilitating symptoms for many months ... tracker app showed that between 200,000 and 500,000 people in the UK are currently living.....
> 
> 
> And that is despite huge interventions to prevent spread.



I think you will find I mentioned the health staff straight away


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> I certainly doesn't help when some governments aren't honest with the public.
> Neither does it help with public support for government when they are seen to be not following the rules....I'm thinking the other side of the Atlantic.
> 
> Control- the problem is reducing the spread of the virus requires a collective effort. A collective effort ignores personal choice, which many people don't like.
> 
> For example: in a full lockdown, we may be told to " stay at home", well you might argue: "if I pop down town, what difference can it make, the place is empty".........Bournemouth beach



But places that did your desired full lockdown in extremis still had problems after. The virus is now endemic. Just accept this. Lockdown and release is a poor tool.

It is also no longer a pandemic but just a nasty new virus. If you think you can stop a virus then I look forward to you stopping the wind too. Its a seasonal coronavirus arrived last October or November built up massively and will now always ebb and flow


----------



## selly

SammyQ said:


> May I please thank Jake, Robin and Terry for presenting, very patiently and thoroughly, the calm voice of reason in the face of nigh-rabid denial and polarised, delusional opinion.
> 
> Sam




Delusional about saying locking everyone up is a poor tool to try and control a virus that kills 1 per million per day? Of which there is a 95% chance they are over 75 and with Comorbidities


----------



## SammyQ

I beg to disagree Selly. There certainly is a paucity of long term data, no doubt. But, 8 -10 months in, we DO have "trends" and they are indicative enough for precautions to be taken. Indicators like the 60+ age group vulnerability vs 18-30 (!) less susceptibility. Indicators like men more vulnerable than women.
There most certainly are possibilities that will only crystallise with time; the continuing blood group conundrum for example. What is confounding is the sheer number of variables in play: ethnicity, age, social norms, population density, innoculation histories, and so on.
You are perfectly correct in one respect, in that we have not yet enough information to seive out these influences that skew the data vis-a-vis direct comparisons from country to country for example, but we DO havevenough to go on to spot incremental factors. Social mixing is a stand-out one. Which would you rather have? A pint or a (live, healthy) person?

Sam.


----------



## selly

SammyQ said:


> I beg to disagree Selly. There certainly is a paucity of long term data, no doubt. But, 8 -10 months in, we DO have "trends" and they are indicative enough for precautions to be taken. Indicators like the 60+ age group vulnerability vs 18-30 (!) less susceptibility. Indicators like men more vulnerable than women.
> There most certainly are possibilities that will only crystallise with time; the continuing blood group conundrum for example. What is confounding is the sheer number of variables in play: ethnicity, age, social norms, population density, innoculation histories, and so on.
> You are perfectly correct in one respect, in that we have not yet enough information to seive out these influences that skew the data vis-a-vis direct comparisons from country to country for example, but we DO havevenough to go on to spot incremental factors. Social mixing is a stand-out one. Which would you rather have? A pint or a (live, healthy) person?
> 
> Sam.



We know loads more than that., it's not a great mystery of a virus. It's a seasonal coronavirus, it's not the Great Plague at all. 

To ask whether you want a pint or social mixing is just facile. It's not just about a pint at all. Does that you mean you prefer the coming suicides of unemployed young men and a missed mammogram and cancer death over the death of an 89 year old who is pretty close to death anyway? If I take your strand of argument and what you are advocating then you must do


----------



## FatmanG

Th


SammyQ said:


> May I please thank Jake, Robin and Terry for presenting, very patiently and thoroughly, the calm voice of reason in the face of nigh-rabid denial and polarised, delusional opinion.
> 
> Sam


There you go again a differing opinion is delusional. Where is the reason in that statement. Typical woke behaviour. I'm right and if you don't agree that makes you (insert your adjective) and now I understand your Trump comment.


----------



## FatmanG

Robin you mention across the Atlantic and not following the rules. What rules? Who's rules? Yours! The USA is known as the land of the free as it is all about personal responsibility. Now since you mention them the treatment Trump received, antibodies via a drip looks like a way to get to herd immunity with minimal damage. If the left didn't politicise evenything to do with Trump I'm sure the FDA would of made it available under the emergency provision by now.


----------



## SammyQ

selly said:


> We know loads more than that., it's not a great mystery of a virus. It's a seasonal coronavirus, it's not the Great Plague at all.
> 
> To ask whether you want a pint or social mixing is just facile. It's not just about a pint at all. Does that you mean you prefer the coming suicides of unemployed young men and a missed mammogram and cancer death over the death of an 89 year old who is pretty close to death anyway? If I take your strand of argument and what you are advocating then you must do



Selly:
1. "It's a seasonal coronavirus" No. Absolutely not. Equating C-19 with 'colds' is not valid. And, a great deal about it is as yet 'unquantifiable', as opposed to "unknown", so in some respects, it IS a mystery, hence my "ethnicity" and "blood" references above.
2. "Does that you mean you prefer the coming suicides...you must do" Get real. Who in their right mind would wish death on anyone? I find your interpretation of what I posted extremely offensive, apart from the fact is is so convoluted a misinterpretation as to be staggering. 

I am out on this discussion. I find those who will not listen, but impose their own biases and agendas basically unhelpful and probably employing inflaming opinion to assuage their egos. 
Hard, straightforward facts and analyses seem to be in short supply here. 

Sam


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Do you realise there is a difference between test accuracy and operational test accuracy?


It's been a long thread, but I don't recall any previous mention of operational test accuracy.

Are you moving the goal posts?


----------



## Rorschach

Well according to Pratrick Valance we should have 50k cases today. Yesterday was 14k so they better pull their finger out if they are going to find an extra 36k for today, unless of course they were purposely trying to scare us?


----------



## FatmanG

Of 50k cases 45k will be young and asymptomatic. Since when has that been a case? Fear mongering, manipulation of data for 60/70 deaths its a total and utter disgrace


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> It's been a long thread, but I don't recall any previous mention of operational test accuracy.
> 
> Are you moving the goal posts?


Do you not understand why operational test accuracy is relevant to your quote of the Dominic Raab tweet?

Do you agree that what Dominic Raab said is contradictory and only makes sense if he really meant false negative.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Delusional about saying locking everyone up is a poor tool to try and control a virus that kills 1 per million per day? Of which there is a 95% chance they are over 75 and with Comorbidities


A virus that has killed 6000 healthcare workers, 600 in the UK, none of which were over 75

People that were healthy enough to work in a full time job.

A virus that quickly overwhelms the capacity of critical care beds.

Please could you explain where you get your figure of 1 per million per day? - we need to see the context, as in isolation it doesn't mean much


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Well according to Pratrick Valance we should have 50k cases today. Yesterday was 14k so they better pull their finger out if they are going to find an extra 36k for today, unless of course they were purposely trying to scare us?


Please could you stop misrepresenting quotes

Patrick Valance did not say that.
I would be grateful if you quoted what Valance actually said


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Well certainly influenza sometimes, comes close to overwhelming the NHS in a bad year. Of course you may like to pretend hospitals are usually empty



Yes that is certainly true, some years have seen hospitals almost overwhelmed with influenza.
But that occurred in periods when hospitals operated normally with all departments still functioning.

This year hospitals were virtually turned into Covid treatment centres. All routine operations and outpatients were largely cancelled. Wards for the elderly were emptied....discharged.



Please could you provide some data for how many NHS staff have died from flu in any of the years where NHS was almost overwhelmed?


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> A virus that has killed 6000 healthcare workers, 600 in the UK, none of which were over 75
> 
> People that were healthy enough to work in a full time job.
> 
> A virus that quickly overwhelms the capacity of critical care beds.
> 
> Please could you explain where you get your figure of 1 per million per day? - we need to see the context, as in isolation it doesn't mean much



1 million per day is the current death rate average. Actually its less but even if it was 2 or 3 million per day it wouldnt be a big deal in the great scheme from a data point of view. It was never in isolation it was always in context. 

The figure for health workers is sad but we need to remember the virus was circulating for a long time, healthcare accounts for a huge sector of employees too and it was a new virus and we were unprepared for a lot of it. We cannot undo that side of things now.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Yes that is certainly true, some years have seen hospitals almost overwhelmed with influenza.
> But that occurred in periods when hospitals operated normally with all departments still functioning.
> 
> This year hospitals were virtually turned into Covid treatment centres. All routine operations and outpatients were largely cancelled. Wards for the elderly were emptied....discharged.



They were turned into covid treatment centres but based on a (totally wrong) projection of deaths. I think people will forgive that once as we didn't know what we were dealing with, now we do. We have way better data. But are still pretending this is the great plague

Why would I have flu data according to job from 2018?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Please can you give me some examples of "any respiratory disease" which:
> 
> 1. Overloads hospitals and critical care
> 2. Has managed to kill 6000 health care workers globally
> 3 May lead to Cytokine storm


Well, the one that immediately springs to mind would be influenza. I'm sure that there are others, but influenza would be top of the list.

1. Overloads hospitals and critical care: 

Some random links:








Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents


Across the country, medical centers are taking extraordinary measures.




time.com












French hospitals overwhelmed by flu epidemic


French hospitals are being stretched to their limits by a major flu epidemic sweeping the country, France's health authorities warn.




medicalxpress.com












California hospitals look like a flu 'war zone'


Several hospitals in Southern California have set up emergency tents in their parking lots to treat the influx of flu patients as this year's deadly strand infects thousands.




www.dailymail.co.uk





2017 seems to have been a tricky winter in the USA, 2015 was bad for the UK. Italy seems to get overwhelmed every year, and other countries have their own issues. Influenza does seem to get the better of the health care planners. Being overwhelmed says more about the lack of competence of the planning system than it does about how virulent or otherwise a disease is. 

2. Managed to kill 6000 health workers worldwide (and 600 from the UK, you added in a later post.) The NHS has 1.1 million members of full-time-equivalent staff, apparently, which probably means more actual bodies, as some work part time. If your 6,000 dead were purely from the NHS that would be an IFR of 0.5%, which is higher than influenza, but not dramatically so. Just the 600 who actually were in the UK gives us an easy to calculate 0.05% fatality rate. If you include all health workers worldwide (a very quick search gave me 40 million health workers worldwide in 2013 - no idea if it is accurate) you get an IFR of 0.015% - quite a mild influenza indeed. Health workers are people too: they are perfectly entitled to catch and die from diseases that "ordinary" people also catch and die from. Unless my numbers are significantly wrong (always a possibility) then the coronavirus looks to be no more agressive than your average influenza when it comes to health workers- which we already know because the vast majority of "victims" are people over 70. It might even be said that health workers are actually getting off lightly this year, as normal influenza is more fatal at lower age ranges. It would seem that this is an emotive argument without much relevance to the disease and it's actual fatality rate.

3. May lead to Cytokine storm. Wikipedia tells us: Cytokine storm - Wikipedia

"Cytokine storms can be caused by a number of infectious and non-infectious etiologies, especially viral respiratory infections such as H5N1 influenza, SARS-CoV-1,[2][3] and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 agent). Other causative agents include the Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and group A streptococcus, and non-infectious conditions such as graft-versus-host disease.[4]"

It's that sneaky influenza in the list again. The more I look into this, the more evident it becomes that, by any metric you care to use, our novel coronavirus is not worth the damage being done in order to fight it. And more to the point, it really isn't any more deadly than a bad influenza outbreak.


----------



## Rorschach

I find all these requests for data on flu rather amusing. We don't have detailed data on Flu because we don't get our knickers in a twist over it. Most years we just tick along with 15 to 20k deaths being treated as perfectly normal. Some years it gets worse but we never complain about the numbers of deaths, all we care about is the hospitals being overwhelmed which stops OTHER treatments, that is always the news story at the time.

As I pointed out before, we rarely if ever test for flu, but we know that's what causes a majority of winter deaths, that's why we have a mass vaccination programme every year and yet still we treat thousands of deaths as normal. We don't even get worked up about the fact that flu kills young people including children and babies, hence why toddlers get a flu vaccine every year. C19 does not kill children or babies.


----------



## doctor Bob

SammyQ said:


> Selly:
> 
> 2. "Does that you mean you prefer the coming suicides...you must do" Get real. Who in their right mind would wish death on anyone? I find your interpretation of what I posted extremely offensive, apart from the fact is is so convoluted a misinterpretation as to be staggering
> 
> Sam



I'm not fighting anyones corner but you did say "what would you rather have a pint or a healthy person" implying equally offensive message to the poster, so may I suggest everyone calms down.


----------



## doctor Bob

I think we can agree that in this country it's related to seasonal conditions, by the fact that if it's brass monkeys people go indoors and decrease social distancing.
Chaps you're all splitting hairs to gain one upmanship, some give and take is necessary unless you are all experts.


----------



## Noel

I've no problem with discussions on most issues but with that comes a degree of responsibility, especially with regards to health and wellbeing. And furthermore a good measure of respect toward other members as opposed to insults and the usual passive/aggressive commentary and innuendo.
If the thread continues on the course it's currently heading it'll be early closing time.

So please bear the above in mind.


----------



## doctor Bob

I'm now coming to the conclusion that this must be far more serious than I have thought in the past or why else would we destroy the entire economy for decades / generations.
The youth will pay for this ultimately. Yet they are beingb treated like dirt at present.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> They were turned into covid treatment centres but based on a (totally wrong) projection of deaths.



that is partially true, I do agree.

But I am sure you will appreciate that does not discount my point:

hospital critical cares units were almost overwhelmed, despite the stopping routine clinical work and redeploying staff to deal with covid.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I find all these requests for data on flu rather amusing.


The reason for the requests on flu data is because yourself and some others claim that covid is no worse than flu.

So in order to reach a conclusion based on facts and evidence, we need to establish what the facts are.

I think that is reasonable, dont you?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> We don't have detailed data on Flu because we don't get our knickers in a twist over it. Most years we just tick along with 15 to 20k deaths being treated as perfectly normal



Do you think those 2 sentences are rather contradictory?

if we dont have detailed data on flu, how do we know there are 15 to 20k deaths from flu?

I am wondering if there is some selective use of interpreting the data between flu and covid

the arguments seems to be: "we cant trust the number of deaths from covid"

but we can trust the number of deaths from flu, even though "most _people_ who _die_ from _flu_-related complications are not _tested_ for _flu_ "





__





Frequently Asked Questions about Estimated Flu Burden | CDC


Links to key resources on the burden of influenza - CDC




www.cdc.gov


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Unless my numbers are significantly wrong (always a possibility) then the coronavirus looks to be no more agressive than your average influenza when it comes to health workers



I am sorry I dont understand what point you are making?

you seem to be conflating rather a lot of numbers to make your argument.



Trainee neophyte said:


> normal influenza is more fatal at lower age ranges


would you be able to provide the evidence for that?

my research says this: "The majority (72%) of _influenza_-attributable _deaths_ in hospital occurred in 65+ year olds with co-morbidities"

how many NHS staff are older than 65?


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> The more I look into this, the more evident it becomes that, by any metric you care to use, our novel coronavirus is not worth the damage being done in order to fight it. And more to the point, it really isn't any more deadly than a bad influenza outbreak.



Every argument that claims covid is no worse than flu, always fall down because it always makes the same mistake

metric used for covid are based on outcomes *despite the huge intervention of governments*

Please please please can you all stop repeating this same error in your arguments.


----------



## Selwyn

SammyQ said:


> Selly:
> 1. "It's a seasonal coronavirus" No. Absolutely not. Equating C-19 with 'colds' is not valid. And, a great deal about it is as yet 'unquantifiable', as opposed to "unknown", so in some respects, it IS a mystery, hence my "ethnicity" and "blood" references above.
> 2. "Does that you mean you prefer the coming suicides...you must do" Get real. Who in their right mind would wish death on anyone? I find your interpretation of what I posted extremely offensive, apart from the fact is is so convoluted a misinterpretation as to be staggering.
> 
> I am out on this discussion. I find those who will not listen, but impose their own biases and agendas basically unhelpful and probably employing inflaming opinion to assuage their egos.
> Hard, straightforward facts and analyses seem to be in short supply here.
> 
> Sam



Cheerio then. 

As I have consistently said I'm looking at the data and the data alone, I don't have an agenda beyond is the reaction consistent with the data. I am not equating it with a "cold" but of the family of coronavirus' one of which is the common cold (and can kill by the way). We have the data showing Covid-19 is seasonal enough like all the other Coronavirus' before it. We know vitamin D is important for example. 

You have implied I want to have a pint over keeping people alive so I have shot it straight back at you and you don't like it. So quit it.


----------



## Noel

Noel said:


> I've no problem with discussions on most issues but with that comes a degree of responsibility, especially with regards to health and wellbeing. And furthermore a good measure of respect toward other members as opposed to insults and the usual passive/aggressive commentary and innuendo.
> If the thread continues on the course it's currently heading it'll be early closing time.
> 
> So please bear the above in mind.



Just in case it was missed.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> The reason for the requests on flu data is because yourself and some others claim that covid is no worse than flu.
> 
> So in order to reach a conclusion based on facts and evidence, we need to establish what the facts are.
> 
> I think that is reasonable, dont you?



Covid seems to be a bit worse than flu. But not massively so. Remember on some of these deaths (probably a lot of them for people over 70 plus) they would have been able to find both flu virus and covid virus in the bodies yet the death is recorded as covid death. Which is true enough but only part of the picture.


----------



## FatmanG

The issues Robin that every day Joe blogs are concerned about are the following?
1, is this the killer disease that the media,government, public health, World health has portrayed?
2, has the response been consistent, measured and proportionate?
3 why are the measures becoming more draconian as its clear the measures make no sense are no longer based on science and more and conflict is happening between scientists?
4, why are you censored and shut down by the media for questioning the response?

Politely I say to you nothing not a single word or piece of data, science, has convinced me that this is a killer of like we've never seen nor is the damage the response has inflicted on every single part of our lives has been proportionate.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> We have the data showing Covid-19 is seasonal enough



I understand you are "all about the data", so I hope you don't mind me asking if you could provide some evidence.

I have been unable to find such evidence beyond small studies which indicate small percentage changes.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Covid seems to be a bit worse than flu. But not massively so.



I am sorry to be pedantic but what evidence are you using to reach that conclusion?

All the data that has been collected, is from this year, where every country in the world has take huge interventions to lower the spread of the virus.

I don't understand how you are comparing it to flu, where zero social distancing or infection control measures have been put in place.

I am sure you would agree, you are comparing apples with pears.


If Covid is not massively worse than flu, please could explain how:

The hospitals in Spain, Italy and America have been overwhelmed by Covid 
6000 healthcare workers have died from Covid globally.
Significant numbers of people are experiencing long terms symptoms from covid

If Covid is "not massively worse than Covid" It would be reasonable to expect similar Problems in the years where there have been severe flu outbreaks. Please could you explain why that doesn't appear to be the case


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I understand you are "all about the data", so I hope you don't mind me asking if you could provide some evidence.
> 
> I have been unable to find such evidence beyond small studies which indicate small percentage changes.



Coronavirus seasonality: Is the spread likely to vary?. Also look at the Gompertz curve of it. 

We have seen massive seasonal fluctuations even in the UK. It was non existent in the summer. Even amongst those areas where they kept working and social contact.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry to be pedantic but what evidence are you using to reach that conclusion?
> 
> All the data that has been collected, is from this year, where every country in the world has take huge interventions to lower the spread of the virus.
> 
> I don't understand how you are comparing it to flu, where zero social distancing or infection control measures have been put in place.
> 
> I am sure you would agree, you are comparing apples with pears.
> 
> 
> If Covid is not massively worse than flu, please could explain how:
> 
> The hospitals in Spain, Italy and America have been overwhelmed by Covid
> 6000 healthcare workers have died from Covid globally.
> Significant numbers of people are experiencing long terms symptoms from covid
> 
> If Covid is "not massively worse than Covid" It would be reasonable to expect similar Problems in the years where there have been severe flu outbreaks. Please could you explain why that doesn't appear to be the case



I'm not comparing it to flu. They are two different types of disease however with many similarities. Some people could die of flu over covid or covid over flu.

Influenza has been endemic for some time and Covid 19 is now endemic. It was circulating in the UK since November. In fact it was on the decline before the lockdown came in. Look at the dates of lockdown vs deaths. But it is no surprise a novel virus is a little bit more contagious. A lot of covid death certificates had influenza too. In fact Influenza and pneumonia was mentioned on more death certificates than COVID-19, however COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death in over three times as many deaths between January and August 2020. So there is an element of overlapping the death data.

Some years we have huge flu deaths.

Not all hospitals were overwhelmed at all. Some hot spots were. Bergamo was one, New York another. We weren't really overwhelmed in the UK.

I've told you already. Long Covid isn't a defined llness. Its people who are quite naturally struggling to get over a serious infection which is not unreasonable.

Someone has already informed you about the healthcare workers stats - I'm not repeating it, read it.

Anyway Robin you tell me how you think we should control a virus?


----------



## Rorschach

Noel said:


> Just in case it was missed.


Given the way people are behaving here at the moment (very well I think) it would be very unwise to close this thread. You will do more harm than good. Remove posts as needed but don't close the thread, you will be overstepping the mark.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> . I am not equating it with a "cold" but of the family of coronavirus' one of which is the common cold



For the purpose of clarification, there are 7 coronavirus that affect humans

HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2

The first 4 present themselves as the common cold.

Although it seems that common cold symptoms maybe caused by coronavirus, rhinovirus or RSV. There are upto 200 different viruses that cause the common cold. Upto 50% are rhinovirus.

influenza viruses are negative sense RNA viruses that make up four of the seven genera of the family *Orthomyxoviridae*: Influenzavirus A. *Influenzavirus B*. *Influenzavirus C*.

Type B is most common, it only uses humans as the host. It doesn't cause pandemics

Type A is humans, birds and swine. Spanish flu was type A


----------



## SammyQ

Selwyn said:


> It was non existent in the summer. Even amongst those areas where they kept working and social contact.





29th June: 19 deaths
22nd June: 20 deaths
15th June: 28 deaths
8th June: 59 deaths
1st June: 108 deaths
25th May: 59 deaths*
18th May: 122 deaths
11th May: 209 deaths
4th May: 204 deaths
27th of April: 329 deaths
20th April: 429 deaths
13th April: 667 deaths
Q.E.D.


----------



## RobinBHM

Noel said:


> Just in case it was missed.


I do hope the thread can be kept open, I appreciate threads which are emotive can quickly lead to abusive posts, lets hope that doesnt happen (continue?)


----------



## Terry - Somerset

Selwyn said:


> In fact it was on the decline before the lockdown came in. Look at the dates of lockdown vs deaths.



This is not true.

Lockdown came on 23rd March. At that time there were 661 daily new cases and 38 deaths based on a 7 day rolling average to avoid weekend impacts).

Cases peaked on 14th April at 4999, 22 days later. They did not decline below 4000 until 13th May.

Deaths also peaked on 14th April at 943 and then started to decline. By 13th May they were 401.

Deaths increased after lockdown 25 fold. This suggests a doubling every 4 days.

Cases recorded after lockdown increased 8 fold. 

It is unlikely that cases and deaths would peak at the same time - a lag would be expected. However I suspect many cases were only tested on emergency hospital admission.

Cases may therefore be materially understated as capacity which was ~10k at lockdown increased to only 20k at "peak cases".


----------



## Rorschach

Terry - Somerset said:


> This is not true.



Sorry Terry you post a lot of sense mostly but you are completely wrong here. The peak of deaths was far too soon after lockdown started for lockdown to have been the cause of the decline. If you look at the curve of the graph it was already plateauing before lockdown started. Lockdown increased the speed of the decline but it was not the cause of it.
You only have to look at countries that didn't have a strict lockdown such as Sweden to see the same curve dropping off at almost the exact same moment, the different is because they didn't have a strict lockdown their decline was slower than ours.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> they didn't have a strict lockdown



Neither did the UK


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> For the purpose of clarification, there are 7 coronavirus that affect humans
> 
> HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2
> 
> The first 4 present themselves as the common cold.
> 
> Although it seems that common cold symptoms maybe caused by coronavirus, rhinovirus or RSV. There are upto 200 different viruses that cause the common cold. Upto 50% are rhinovirus.
> 
> influenza viruses are negative sense RNA viruses that make up four of the seven genera of the family *Orthomyxoviridae*: Influenzavirus A. *Influenzavirus B*. *Influenzavirus C*.
> 
> Type B is most common, it only uses humans as the host. It doesn't cause pandemics
> 
> Type A is humans, birds and swine. Spanish flu was type A



Sars and Mers came and went by the way, no second wave. Coronavirus don't tend to mutate like influenza virus.

Lots of speculation that Spanish flu was in fact two virus or at least a mutated virus. But that was 100 years ago so we don't know enough. Covid is not flu we know that much anyway. Stick to the science and it may sink in with you soon!


----------



## Selwyn

SammyQ said:


> 29th June: 19 deaths
> 22nd June: 20 deaths
> 15th June: 28 deaths
> 8th June: 59 deaths
> 1st June: 108 deaths
> 25th May: 59 deaths*
> 18th May: 122 deaths
> 11th May: 209 deaths
> 4th May: 204 deaths
> 27th of April: 329 deaths
> 20th April: 429 deaths
> 13th April: 667 deaths
> Q.E.D.



As i say non existent in the great scheme of things. 10 deaths a day in a country of 70 odd million may as well be zero. 

Anyway I thought you'd flounced out of the debate because you didn't like being accused of what you accuse others of?


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> The peak of deaths was far too soon after lockdown started for lockdown to have been the cause of the decline



Please could you back that up with some evidence.

I'm not sure how just saying it makes it true, I would hesitate to suggest your track record (as somebody who's claims Covid is not worse than flu) doesn't give much confidence.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Sars and Mers came and went by the way, no second wave. Coronavirus don't tend to mutate like influenza virus.
> 
> Lots of speculation that Spanish flu was in fact two virus or at least a mutated virus. But that was 100 years ago so we don't know enough. Covid is not flu we know that much anyway.



I'm not sure what your point is.




Selwyn said:


> . Stick to the science and it may sink in with you soon


Whilst I have no personal interest in ad hominem attacks, as they merely serve to highlight your need to use them as a means to deflect from the weakness of your argument, I would appreciate it if you would try your best to avoid them in the interests of keeping the thread open.

Unfortunately for you, you haven't been able to provide any evidence that backs up your claim that Covid is not much worse than flu.

For example, you still haven't provided any valid explanation why so many healthcare workers have died as a result of Covid. When do you think you might be able to do that?


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Please could you back that up with some evidence.
> 
> I'm not sure how just saying it makes it true, I would hesitate to suggest your track record (as somebody who's claims Covid is not worse than flu) doesn't give much confidence.



Here we are clever clogs


https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I have no personal interest in ad hominem attacks, as they merely serve to highlight your need to use them as a means to deflect from the weakness of your argument, I would appreciate it if you would try your best to avoid them in the interests of keeping the thread open.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you haven't been able to provide any evidence that backs up your claim that Covid is not much worse than flu.
> 
> For example, you still haven't provided any valid explanation why so many healthcare workers have died as a result of Covid. When do you think you might be able to do that?




I don't think you've understood the posts the other people have explained to you so I don't think there's any need to explain to you again. If the virus is as bad as you think then why haven't more health workers died would be my question, are health workers not allowed to die like the rest of us?


----------



## FatmanG

RobinBHM said:


> Please could you back that up with some evidence.
> 
> I'm not sure how just saying it makes it true, I would hesitate to suggest your track record (as somebody who's claims Covid is not worse than flu) doesn't give much confidence.


Can you produce any evidence it is worse than flu?
If you take out the number of deaths from the nursing homes and the numbers of true covid deaths, defined by covid 19 being the only cause listed on the death then I suspect the number is the evidence you seek from Rorschach


----------



## doctor Bob

how many times will people be willing to lock down or reduce their wages?
I'm guessing that if you are already on the breadline, not too many times.
I think it's very easy to call for more restrictions if your doing OK, WFH, retired, etc not so easy when lifes tough.
My parents are 87, dad is chair bound due parkinsons, no help offered due covid restrictions, my 87 year old mum is his carer, again housebound, I will break travel rules to help them and did during last lockdown.
As a business I have received no personel help as a director, yet know plenty who have done very well due fraud and are rubbing their hands together looking forward to extra income if more handouts are made readily available. My outlook is keep my nose out of others business lest you get involved but it really boils my phish.


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> how many times will people be willing to lock down or reduce their wages?
> I'm guessing that if you are already on the breadline, not too many times.
> I think it's very easy to call for more restrictions if your doing OK, WFH, retired, etc not so easy when lifes tough.
> My parents are 87, dad is chair bound due parkinsons, no help offered due covid restrictions, my 87 year old mum is his carer, again housebound, I will break travel rules to help them and did during last lockdown.
> As a business I have received no personel help as a director, yet know plenty who have done very well due fraud and are rubbing their hands together looking forward to extra income if more handouts are made readily available. My outlook is keep my nose out of others business lest you get involved but it really boils my phish.



I heard on the radio that HMRC has identified £10 billion of fraud through furlough etc and that is just in their first investigation.


----------



## Selwyn

FatmanG said:


> Can you produce any evidence it is worse than flu?
> If you take out the number of deaths from the nursing homes and the numbers of true covid deaths, defined by covid 19 being the only cause listed on the death then I suspect the number is the evidence you seek from Rorschach



The thing is hospitals don't really test for flu at death if the patient had other issues even if that or another resipiratory disease did the final blow. But they do do this for Covid. So it is skewing the figures somewhat.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Please could you back that up with some evidence.
> 
> I'm not sure how just saying it makes it true, I would hesitate to suggest your track record (as somebody who's claims Covid is not worse than flu) doesn't give much confidence.


Could say the same for you, you ignore questions or points that you can't/won't answer and fail to back up your claims. when asked. 
Repeating the same stuff even when your error has been pointed out.

Have you ever thought of standing for parliament?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

@RobinBHM

I wrote a long, involved reply, but having watched the BBC this evening, I realise that it is completely irrelevant, so I deleted it. No matter which of us is is right, no matter how benign or destructive the virus is, they are still going to intentionally wreck the economy. From what I can make out Boris and chums have decided not to have a lockdown for three weeks now, because they want a lockdown next month for much, much longer. A better way to be spending our energies is to try and work out why.

It may be time to enter into the realm of conspiracy theories, so perhaps first of all we should look at some conspiracy facts. There is a very weird group of people who want to "reset" the world economy. The Green New Deal and sundry associated climate change policies have been part of their attempt to rework the world economy, but they are openly moving now to just have their "reset" and be done. In case you don't know who these people are, it is the Davos crowd, also known as the World Economic Forum. There are endless books, videos, websites etc that they have produced explaining their intentions, so it is hardly a theory. In essence, they want to stop any pretense at free market economics, and go planned economy. In other words, communism, although it won't be sold as such. I'm sure it will be sold as benefiting the working man, but I guarantee we will all be poorer, and the billionaires will all be richer at the end of it.








The Great Reset


There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.




www.weforum.org












Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ world leaders’ radical plan to transform the economy


America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe, not in spite of them.




thehill.com








__





world economic forum great reset at DuckDuckGo


DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




duckduckgo.com





Anyway, the entire point of this tin foil hat diatribe is to ask if Boris is on board, and therefore is Boris trying to disassemble the current system, in order to bring on the new. Or is Boris just misled? Or am I seeing things? Turns out I'm not having an original thought here - the scary Russians have beaten me to it: As Boris Johnson announces Britain’s ‘great reset’, were the Covid ‘conspiracy theorists’ right all along?

There's nothing we can do to stop it, but it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines as a dystopian planned world economy emerges. Think of it as the eu on steroids. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## artie

It is reported today in NI that there were 877 positive cases from 4430 individuals tested in the past 24 hours.

What really does this tell us, thinking of false positives etc?


----------



## FatmanG

Trainee neophyte said:


> @RobinBHM
> 
> I wrote a long, involved reply, but having watched the BBC this evening, I realise that it is completely irrelevant, so I deleted it. No matter which of us is is right, no matter how benign or destructive the virus is, they are still going to intentionally wreck the economy. From what I can make out Boris and chums have decided not to have a lockdown for three weeks now, because they want a lockdown next month for much, much longer. A better way to be spending our energies is to try and work out why.
> 
> It may be time to enter into the realm of conspiracy theories, so perhaps first of all we should look at some conspiracy facts. There is a very weird group of people who want to "reset" the world economy. The Green New Deal and sundry associated climate change policies have been part of their attempt to rework the world economy, but they are openly moving now to just have their "reset" and be done. In case you don't know who these people are, it is the Davos crowd, also known as the World Economic Forum. There are endless books, videos, websites etc that they have produced explaining their intentions, so it is hardly a theory. In essence, they want to stop any pretense at free market economics, and go planned economy. In other words, communism, although it won't be sold as such. I'm sure it will be sold as benefiting the working man, but I guarantee we will all be poorer, and the billionaires will all be richer at the end of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Reset
> 
> 
> There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.weforum.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ world leaders’ radical plan to transform the economy
> 
> 
> America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe, not in spite of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> world economic forum great reset at DuckDuckGo
> 
> 
> DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> duckduckgo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the entire point of this tin foil hat diatribe is to ask if Boris is on board, and therefore is Boris trying to disassemble the current system, in order to bring on the new. Or is Boris just misled? Or am I seeing things? Turns out I'm not having an original thought here - the scary Russians have beaten me to it: As Boris Johnson announces Britain’s ‘great reset’, were the Covid ‘conspiracy theorists’ right all along?
> 
> There's nothing we can do to stop it, but it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines as a dystopian planned world economy emerges. Think of it as the eu on steroids. What could possibly go wrong?


I was ridiculed months ago as being conspiracy theorist after mentioning 'lizard man) David Icke (no moderator stepped in to my defence) but I'm thick skinned as well as thick I'm told. He set out exactly what was going to happen many many months ago. He also pointed how those who speak out are slurred and discredited as a means of making them out to be liars. Judy Mickovic. Is a case in point. David Martin is amazing he has put together proof of the agenda and followed the money. Anyone with half a brain can see this is isn't right on so many levels if it stinks then something is rotten. There are huge issues at stake right now. If biden wins then China is on our doorstep.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> Could say the same for you, you ignore questions or points that you can't/won't answer and fail to back up your claims. when asked.
> Repeating the same stuff even when your error has been pointed out.
> 
> Have you ever thought of standing for parliament?


Please you kindly point precisely what I have ignored.

Please can you point to "errors" you claim I have made. I have made no errors in response to your posts.



artie said:


> Have you ever thought of standing for parliament?


As I have mentioned, ad hominem attacks do not further the debate at all, It is a commonly used method used to disguise a lack of a counter argument. 

Please can you refrain from further ad hominems as some of us would like to continue the debate rather than have the thread locked.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I don't think you've understood the posts the other people have explained to you so I don't think there's any need to explain to you again. If the virus is as bad as you think then why haven't more health workers died would be my question, are health workers not allowed to die like the rest of us?


Thank you for your response.

You claim that Covid is not much worse than flu but you can't answer why 6000 healthcare staff have died as a result of Covid but none from flu.

Also many hospitals in Italy, Spain and America were overwhelmed by Covid, which has never happened with flu.
You can't provide an answer to that either.


Thank you for confirming that Covid is far worse than flu, we got there eventually.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Please you kindly point precisely what I have ignored.
> 
> Please can you point to "errors" you claim I have made. I have made no errors in response to your posts.
> 
> 
> As I have mentioned, ad hominem attacks do not further the debate at all, It is a commonly used method used to disguise a lack of a counter argument.
> 
> Please can you refrain from further ad hominems as some of us would like to continue the debate rather than have the thread locked.



You ignored the explanation of the 600 healthcare workers for a start.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for your response.
> 
> You claim that Covid is not much worse than flu but you can't answer why 6000 healthcare staff have died as a result of Covid but none from flu.
> 
> Also many hospitals in Italy, Spain and America were overwhelmed by Covid, which has never happened with flu.
> You can't provide an answer to that either.
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming that Covid is far worse than flu, we got there eventually.



Because if you have flu and covid it gets all called "covid". If you had motor neurone disease, terminal cancer dementia and were aged 105 and had been in a care home for 25 years you would be called a covid death if you happened to test postive for covid. However that wouldn't have been the case if it was flu - they wouldn' have tested for it. I know you are struggling with this but it is really important in the context of understanding how impactful the virus would be. 

This is why it is misleading to claim that Covid is worse than flu - not least because coronavirus' don't tend to mutate like flu virus do. So I would say by and large I would always see a flu virus as more dangerous than covid virus' - it certainly tends to kill more year in year out. Coronavirus' appear to tend to rock up quickly then follow the gompertz curve. 

Italys outbreak was relatively concentrated that's why the hospitals were busy. As was USA's ie New york. And of course hospitals have got overwhelmed with flu in the past. But very often we choose not to keep octogenarians alive in ICU with flu because the therapy is too intrusive. Everyone will have some immunity to flu virus as it has been around for longer but now that covid 19 is endemic only a silly old fool would claim that covid is worse than flu, flu has the potential for a lot of damage. 

You think no health staff have ever died from influenza?? Now I know you are pulling my chain!


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> Here we are clever clogs
> 
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf


Thank you for posting that.

The results of that study don't prove what Rorsach is claiming.

It says:

"This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days"

Also the public, hospitals and care homes were putting social distancing in place well before lockdown 

and

There never was a full lockdown


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for posting that.
> 
> The results of that study don't prove what Rorsach is claiming.
> 
> It says:
> 
> "This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days"
> 
> Also the public, hospitals and care homes were putting social distancing in place well before lockdown
> 
> and
> 
> There never was a full lockdown



You can't prove that 6000 healthcare workers have died as a result of Covid yet you keep parroting it. They may have died with a positive covid test but that is not proof that they died as a result of covid. Proof please old boy

Furthermore Spain did have a full lockdown. Masks in and out and lots of fines etc. They still have covid! How much of a lockdown after a disease has become endemic do you want?? 3 years?


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> ecause if you have flu and covid it gets all called "covid". If you had motor neurone disease, terminal cancer dementia and were aged 105 and had been in a care home for 25 years you would be called a covid death



I don't believe the ONS has recorded Covid deaths like that.

This is what the ONS say:

"The ONS provides figures based on all deaths registered involving COVID-19 according to death certification, whether in or out of hospital, for England and Wales"

So your statement is incorrect


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> I don't believe the ONS has recorded Covid deaths like that.
> 
> This is what the ONS say:
> 
> "The ONS provides figures based on all deaths registered involving COVID-19 according to death certification, whether in or out of hospital, for England and Wales"
> 
> So your statement is incorrect



No I am quite correct thankyou. In fact you have just proven my point.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> They may have died with a positive covid test but that is not proof that they died as a result of covid


Yes, they could've done.

Most unlikely.

Let's look at situation in UK: every death of a healthcare worker is being investigated to see where they caught Covid and whether they had sufficient protective equipment.

"Ministers have asked medical examiners in England and Wales to review all deaths of frontline health and social care staff infected with the virus to determine whether the infection was caught as a result of their work.
The review, which started last month, is likely to cover more than 620 deaths including nurses, doctors and care home staff across England and Wales, since the beginning of March.

It could trigger a number of investigations by hospitals, the Health and Safety Executive, and coroners into the protection, or lack of, for staff during the pandemic when many hospitals ran out of protective masks and clothing for staff.

Hospitals have already been ordered to risk assess workers who may be more susceptible to the virus, such as those from a black and minority ethnic backgrounds or those with existing health conditions."


I'm not sure what you think healthcare workers might have randomly died from. Why would you think a non Covid death would be recorded as Covid. 

And whatever the number, we know healthcare workers died from Covid, especially those receiving high viral loads in ICU.

There has never been a death of a healthcare worker recorded as being flu caught from a patient.

Which proves Covid is far worse than flu.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> No I am quite correct thankyou. In fact you have just proven my point.


Unfortunately you have not.

The post you made directly contradicts what it says on the ONS site.

I can only conclude either you or the ONS site is wrong.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> Unfortunately you have not.
> 
> The post you made directly contradicts what it says on the ONS site.
> 
> I can only conclude either you or the ONS site is wrong.



No. If a patient tested with covid within 60 days then they went down as a covid death. Govt then reduced it to 28 days. 

It's not the full picture especially as sometimes bad flu can cause deaths to ebb and flow too. A 90 year old with comorbidities full of cancer is still a covid death.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> So there is an element of overlapping the death


I cant see how you can reach that conclusion

The ONS are very clear:

"The analysis of COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia deaths in this bulletin focuses on deaths where these conditions were the underlying cause of death (deaths “due to”), rather than deaths where the conditions were either the underlying cause or mentioned as a contributing factor (deaths “involving”). "

death occurrences between Jan and Aug 2020:

48,168 coronavirus
13619 pneumonia
394 influenza

The highest number of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia occurred in January 2020, 

Where is the overlap, there isnt one?

most covid deaths occurred outside of the flu season, so its not true to claim some may have dies of flu not covid.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> No. If a patient tested with covid within 60 days then they went down as a covid death. Govt then reduced it to 28 days



That is incorrect.

"The ONS provides figures based on all deaths registered involving COVID-19 according to death certification, whether in or out of hospital, for England and Wales" 





__





Comparison of weekly death occurrences in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics


This article accompanies the weekly deaths release and explains the differences between various data sources that report on coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths.



www.ons.gov.uk





you are talking about the govts recording methods, not the ONS -who use death certificate for their data.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> I heard on the radio that HMRC has identified £10 billion of fraud through furlough etc and that is just in their first investigation.


are you claiming that means covid is not real?


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> I cant see how you can reach that conclusion
> 
> The ONS are very clear:
> 
> "The analysis of COVID-19, influenza and pneumonia deaths in this bulletin focuses on deaths where these conditions were the underlying cause of death (deaths “due to”), rather than deaths where the conditions were either the underlying cause or mentioned as a contributing factor (deaths “involving”). "
> 
> death occurrences between Jan and Aug 2020:
> 
> 48,168 coronavirus
> 13619 pneumonia
> 394 influenza
> 
> The highest number of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia occurred in January 2020,
> 
> Where is the overlap, there isnt one?
> 
> most covid deaths occurred outside of the flu season, so its not true to claim some may have dies of flu not covid.



Because they didn't test for influenza they don't routinely do this for octogenarians. People of a certain age will die of a myriad of infections. But if the test said covid it would be a covid death. There is no overlap because nearly all of it is attributed to covid which is just daft. I knew a 85 year old granny with dementia who went down as a covid death. 

No one is denying covid caused extra deaths., what they are saying is the same likely to happen again? Is the reaction proportionate?

Now that covid is endemic it appears not be as voracious as before.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> That is incorrect.
> 
> "The ONS provides figures based on all deaths registered involving COVID-19 according to death certification, whether in or out of hospital, for England and Wales"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparison of weekly death occurrences in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics
> 
> 
> This article accompanies the weekly deaths release and explains the differences between various data sources that report on coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ons.gov.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are talking about the govts recording methods, not the ONS -who use death certificate for their data.



They say themselves "deaths involving covid". And they are constantly saying "with comorbidities". But of course you don't seem think comorbidities can kill someone!


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> Please you kindly point precisely what I have ignored.



It's been explained repeatedly to you by different posters that the death figures are with covid not from covid, yet you continue to repeat the same stuff. It doesn't matter how often you repeat it it's still wrong



RobinBHM said:


> Please can you point to "errors" you claim I have made. I have made no errors in response to your posts.



You claim that vast measures have been introduced to counter act covid but none to counteract flu.
Again different posters have pointed out that the measures to counteract covid would also counteract flu, but still you repeat it.




RobinBHM said:


> As I have mentioned, ad hominem attacks do not further the debate at all, It is a commonly used method used to disguise a lack of a counter argument.
> 
> Please can you refrain from further ad hominems as some of us would like to continue the debate rather than have the thread locked.


I have not attacked you I bear you no ill will, I merely added a throwaway remark at the end of my post.
I would also like to continue the debate but repeating the same nonsense after it's been repeatedly pointed out to you is not debate.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Excess mortality for USA from all sources:





__





Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19


Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.




www.cdc.gov





The yellow line shows the threshold for excess deaths - notice that the actual rate is significantly below the line for most of the period shown: lots of people still alive, just waiting for for a helpful push? Looks like it's all over bar the shouting - but there is a lot of shouting. I haven't found a UK equivalent yet...if anyone knows where to look, it would be interesting to see similar data.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> I've told you already. Long Covid isn't a defined llness


I did not suggest it was.

Long Covid is the term used to describe the long term effects that Covid has on some people.

And yes that does happen
And it does happen in significant number
No it is not typical of less serious infections like flu


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> You claim that vast measures have been introduced to counter act covid but none to counteract flu.
> Again different posters have pointed out that the measures to counteract covid would also counteract flu, bu



I repeat it because it is correct.

You are using dishonest debating to make your point
because:

1 all comparisons with flu are using historical data for flu deaths when no measures have been used to stop flu

2. If you want use this year for data then great, rates of flu are very low.....because of social distancing and because it's not the flu season.

How about you stop your dishonest arguments and give me a direct answer to the above.
If you don't answer, I shall politely be asking until you give a straight answer.

It is getting rather tiresome seeing you and others squirm and wriggle over this.

You argue Covid is not much worse than flu, but can provide no evidence whatsoever that it true.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> I have not attacked you I bear you no ill will


I did not say attack

I said ad hominem attack.



artie said:


> I would also like to continue the debate but repeating the same nonsense


Another ad hominem attack.

You are the one making claims but cannot back them up with evidence, not me.

Now please answer my post regarding comparisons of flu with Covid, which you refuse to give a straight answer


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Excess mortality for USA from all sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
> 
> 
> Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The yellow line shows the threshold for excess deaths - notice that the actual rate is significantly below the line for most of the period shown: lots of people still alive, just waiting for for a helpful push? Looks like it's all over bar the shouting - but there is a lot of shouting. I haven't found a UK equivalent yet...if anyone knows where to look, it would be interesting to see similar data.
> 
> View attachment 94192



That is meaningless.


----------



## Rorschach

Flogging a dead horse comes to mind chaps, a certain person is wilfully ignoring answers that go against his preconceived ideas and asking for evidence that either cannot exist or is meaningless in order to somehow appear superior. I stopped engaging as it was pointless, he reply about furlough fraud says it all really.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> I did not suggest it was.
> 
> Long Covid is the term used to describe the long term effects that Covid has on some people.
> 
> And yes that does happen
> And it does happen in significant number
> No it is not typical of less serious infections like flu



Give me some proof of that please


----------



## FatmanG

You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink comes to my mind. 
The WHO has changed its position on lockdowns now I believe TN first mentioned. Tedross the top man has said that we will never return to normal even with a vaccine citing climate change demands as the reason. Gates last week posted an essay saying the same on his website. Biden is running on the green new deal. The world is run by corrupt people who do not care about the population. Its a swamp filled with predators feeding off humanity. If biden wins the presidency the USA will become a 3rd world country and we will follow. I honestly believe the crippling and destruction of the west is the play and funny how it would be achieved by a virus originating in China. I think Trump is the only hope to save the west from communism. I truly truly hope I'm wrong.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> I did not say attack
> 
> I said ad hominem attack.
> 
> 
> Another ad hominem attack.
> 
> You are the one making claims but cannot back them up with evidence, not me.
> 
> Now please answer my post regarding comparisons of flu with Covid, which you refuse to give a straight answer


We've been down this road before and it was pointed out to you that you cannot prove a negative.

Others have realised the futility of debating with you, I too am approaching that point.


----------



## SammyQ

FatmanG said:


> The WHO has changed its position on lockdowns


 Please don't repeat Murray's selective use of a much longer quotation. Out of contex, as you have 'quoted' it, this statement is fallacious, and like Murray, selectively chosen to give some tatters of credence to your viewpoint.

Sam


----------



## SammyQ

artie said:


> it was pointed out to you that you cannot prove a negative.


 Artie, if you are referring to my PCR-based intervention, please recheck my posts. That 'negative' was, and remains, a hodge-podge of pseudoscience.

Sam


----------



## Jonzjob

I have read parts of this thread and all it seems to be doing is getting peoples backs up?

Isn't it time the knives were put away and the thread closed?


----------



## Jonzjob

I forgot to say, don't bother with the knife for me as I won't be watching this any more


----------



## artie

SammyQ said:


> Artie, if you are referring to my PCR-based intervention, please recheck my posts. That 'negative' was, and remains, a hodge-podge of pseudoscience.
> 
> Sam


If I had been referring to you, I would have quoted your post.


----------



## SammyQ

I thoroughly agree John. 

Sam


----------



## artie

Jonzjob said:


> I have read parts of this thread and all it seems to be doing is getting peoples backs up?
> 
> Isn't it time the knives were put away and the thread closed?


You don't have to read it.


----------



## Rorschach

Jonzjob said:


> I have read parts of this thread and all it seems to be doing is getting peoples backs up?
> 
> Isn't it time the knives were put away and the thread closed?



Sharpening threads do the same thing but we don't lock those (much) lol.


----------



## SammyQ

We had a 'rant' thread that started civilly enough, then deteriorated into gutter accusations, wilful mistruths and other garbage. It polarised the readership of this forum and finally both assuaged the egos of the dung-stirrers and offended those of us who try to maintain fact in the face of confected fiction. before it was locked. - and then removed!!

This thread went down that same road many posts ago and I am formally requesting Angie, Noel (and whoever is left on the Mods Team) to do the same with this one, padlocks please.

Sam


----------



## Rorschach

SammyQ said:


> We had a 'rant' thread that started civilly enough, then deteriorated into gutter accusations, wilful mistruths and other garbage. It polarised the readership of this forum and finally both assuaged the egos of the dung-stirrers and offended those of us who try to maintain fact in the face of confected fiction. before it was locked. - and then removed!!
> 
> This thread went down that same road many posts ago and I am formally requesting Angie, Noel (and whoever is left on the Mods Team) to do the same with this one, padlocks please.
> 
> Sam



You formally request?

Well I formally request that they don't. Angie seems to have been pretty good on the moderation front so far. Noel isn't up the his usual tricks (yet anyway).

You don't have to participate in this, you are welcome to ignore it, do you go up to people in the pub having a chat about a topic you don't like and tell the landlord to shut them down?


----------



## FatmanG

SammyQ said:


> Please don't repeat Murray's selective use of a much longer quotation. Out of contex, as you have 'quoted' it, this statement is fallacious, and like Murray, selectively chosen to give some tatters of credence to your viewpoint.
> 
> Sam


I never quoted anyone but merely observed a change of position.
As for closing the thread once again you want to shutdown an exchange of views because you don't like it. This is exactly why it shouldn't be shutdown, you have every right to contribute, make your point or ignore it but to demand the closure is against our long held principles and goes against democracy. Without being rude history has exposed what happens when such basic rights are taken away.


----------



## SammyQ

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph


No Cookies




www.dailytelegraph.com.au





Play it all.


----------



## FatmanG

I do believe that both sides of the no worse than flu debate have exhausted the point and until new data is released its old news. The response to the virus in terms of measures and proportion etc that's the main focus now and the powers that have advocated policy and why. This is where the focus is now imo


----------



## FatmanG

SammyQ said:


> No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
> 
> 
> No Cookies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailytelegraph.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Play it all.


First time I've seen that but thanks the who bloke confirmed everything I've been saying for months. However that has nothing to do with tedroos and climate change and policy post vaccine.


----------



## lurker

Rorschach said:


> Noel isn't up the his usual tricks (yet anyway).



Didn't your mummy ever tell you not to play with fire


----------



## Lons

FatmanG said:


> I think Trump is the only hope to save the west from communism.


Is this a different Trump rather than the silly person who suggested ingesting bleach could kill off Corvid-19  
The biggest concern was that sales of bleach in the US went through the roof following that revelation.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> I did not suggest it was.
> 
> Long Covid is the term used to describe the long term effects that Covid has on some people.
> 
> And yes that does happen
> And it does happen in significant number
> No it is not typical of less serious infections like flu



You can definitely have a hard time getting over flu. The difference is


SammyQ said:


> We had a 'rant' thread that started civilly enough, then deteriorated into gutter accusations, wilful mistruths and other garbage. It polarised the readership of this forum and finally both assuaged the egos of the dung-stirrers and offended those of us who try to maintain fact in the face of confected fiction. before it was locked. - and then removed!!
> 
> This thread went down that same road many posts ago and I am formally requesting Angie, Noel (and whoever is left on the Mods Team) to do the same with this one, padlocks please.
> 
> Sam



Er no, you were the one that started the gutter accusations and hostility. If you want to debate then debate. If you don't then flounce off like you said you were going to. 

There is a growing realisation that lockdowns don't really achieve a lot and the cost/ benefit of them has never bee done. I've been perfectly civil all along.


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> Is this a different Trump rather than the silly person who suggested ingesting bleach could kill off Corvid-19
> The biggest concern was that sales of bleach in the US went through the roof following that revelation.



I'm no defender of Trump but he didn't actually say that. What he said was using something that could kill the virus inside you like a bleach would.


----------



## Lons

Selwyn said:


> I'm no defender of Trump but he didn't actually say that. What he said was using something that could kill the virus inside you like a bleach would.


I watched the video clip at the time Selwyn and I wasn't trying to quote him word for word but it was sufficiently convincing to prompt rather a lot of Americans to clear the shelves. I'm not getting into an argument of any kind so this is my last comment but it's difficult to deny that the guy regularly opens his mouth before engaging his brain.


----------



## RobinBHM

Rorschach said:


> Flogging a dead horse comes to mind chaps, a certain person is wilfully ignoring answers that go against his preconceived ideas and asking for evidence that either cannot exist or is meaningless in order to somehow appear superior. I stopped engaging as it was pointless, he reply about furlough fraud says it all really.


Rorschach, you keep claiming that covid is no worse than flu

so I asked for evidence to back and now you are saying that evidence doesnt exist

please make you mind up

either covid is worse than flu and you have the evidence to prove it

or you should be honest and admit you are wrong, covid is far worse than flu.

You stopped engaging because you had no counter argument, thats it.


----------



## Selwyn

Lons said:


> I watched the video clip at the time Selwyn and I wasn't trying to quote him word for word but it was sufficiently convincing to prompt rather a lot of Americans to clear the shelves. I'm not getting into an argument of any kind so this is my last comment but it's difficult to deny that the guy regularly opens his mouth before engaging his brain.



Technically bleach can kill off covid. But he wasn't saying "drink bleach to kill covid"


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> Because they didn't test for influenza they don't routinely do this for octogenarians. People of a certain age will die of a myriad of infections. But if the test said covid it would be a covid death. There is no overlap because nearly all of it is attributed to covid which is just daft. I knew a 85 year old granny with dementia who went down as a covid death.



WRONG

the ONS figures state: "The ONS provides figures based on all deaths registered involving COVID-19 according to death certification, whether in or out of hospital, for England and Wales" 

please can you explain to me what the words: *COVID-19 according to death certification *mean?

please can you explain how that is the same as your words: * if the test said covid it would be a covid death*


----------



## lurker




----------



## RobinBHM

Jonzjob said:


> I have read parts of this thread and all it seems to be doing is getting peoples backs up?
> 
> Isn't it time the knives were put away and the thread closed?


It isnt getting my back up one iota, some of us are able to remain polite despite the constant ad homs.


----------



## RobinBHM

lurker said:


> View attachment 94198


it is important those that make false claims should be challenged.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> You can definitely have a hard time getting over flu


not compared to covid


----------



## Cabinetman

I was in America for six months during all that, and to my recollection he was talking about disinfectant but that’s irrelevant, and no don’t try this at home children. 
The vitriol that the left-wing press over there was throwing at him every day was eye-opening. Yes he is divisive, yes he has some very strange facial expressions and he doesn’t always think before he opens his mouth, but he has a huge following and it’s growing, the average American who supports him daren't show that support, as like over here the people that hate him would jump all over them, they can be most unpleasant. Compared to O-bama when, I think it was swine flu killed 80,000 Americans before he actually did anything this president really gone off to a flying start by banning incoming flights from China. The other thing that people really like about him is that he actually tries to do what he said he was going to do. Personally I think he will get back in, in November.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> not compared to covid



So the 635k people who apparently had covid all had a hard time getting over it did they? Or can you just accept that a small select view of people get very ill, an even small amount die and of the amount of survivors the vast majority have no symptoms after 2-3 weeks. 

And everyone who had flu got over it without a problem and all their attendant health issues which they carried with them before that magically improved as well? 

The bigger picture is 99.9+% of people who get covid get over it without an issue even if they didn't know they had it. Those who get seriously ill with Covid still have an extremely good chance of surviving it. Those who die are majorly well over the average age of death and are overwhelmingly likely to have serious attendent comorbidities. And you think the Government can stop this!!


----------



## doctor Bob

Genuine question, can flu be asymptomatic?


----------



## artie

Lons said:


> I watched the video clip at the time Selwyn and I wasn't trying to quote him word for word but it was sufficiently convincing to prompt rather a lot of Americans to clear the shelves


nonsense


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> WRONG
> 
> the ONS figures state: "The ONS provides figures based on all deaths registered involving COVID-19 according to death certification, whether in or out of hospital, for England and Wales"
> 
> please can you explain to me what the words: *COVID-19 according to death certification *mean?
> 
> please can you explain how that is the same as your words: * if the test said covid it would be a covid death*



About 90% plus of people who died of covid had at least one pre existing condition.

Majorly Alzheimers.
Heart Disease
Flu and Pneumonia
Other chronic respiratory diseases
Diabetes

I quote


*In March 2020, there were 3,912 deaths that occurred in England and Wales involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) and 3,372 of these (86%) had an underlying cause of death of COVID-19.

Analysis of the main pre-existing condition showed that ischaemic heart disease was the most common main pre-existing condition among deaths involving COVID-19, with 541 out of 3,912 deaths (14% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in March 2020). Figure 1 shows the most common pre-existing conditions by sex and whether the deceased was aged up to 69 years, or 70 years and over.*

So you can have a heart attack and go to hospital, get covid and then become a covid statistic.


----------



## Selwyn

doctor Bob said:


> Genuine question, can flu be asymptomatic?



Of course!


----------



## Rorschach

doctor Bob said:


> Genuine question, can flu be asymptomatic?



Up to 50% of flu cases can be asymptomatic or very mild symptoms.


----------



## artie

RobinBHM said:


> I repeat it because it is correct.
> 
> You are using dishonest debating to make your point
> because:
> 
> 1 all comparisons with flu are using historical data for flu deaths when no measures have been used to stop flu
> 
> 2. If you want use this year for data then great, rates of flu are very low.....because of social distancing and because it's not the flu season.
> 
> How about you stop your dishonest arguments and give me a direct answer to the above.
> If you don't answer, I shall politely be asking until you give a straight answer.
> 
> It is getting rather tiresome seeing you and others squirm and wriggle over this.
> 
> You argue Covid is not much worse than flu, but can provide no evidence whatsoever that it true.


So now you attack my integrity after complaining so much about ad hominem attacks yourself.

There can be no comparison with flu and covid for previous years because there was no covid.

But it is clear from some previous years statistics that more people died from all causes than this year during a supposed pandemic.

BTW do you know the definition of pandemic? It's not what most people think.


----------



## AJB Temple

artie said:


> BTW do you know the definition of pandemic? It's not what most people think.



It is a touch sweeping to assume mass ignorance. How can any of us know what most people think? Pandemic is regularly explained by the BBC on TV and radio (other news sources are available) and is on the Covid websites.


----------



## FatmanG

Lons said:


> I watched the video clip at the time Selwyn and I wasn't trying to quote him word for word but it was sufficiently convincing to prompt rather a lot of Americans to clear the shelves. I'm not getting into an argument of any kind so this is my last comment but it's difficult to deny that the guy regularly opens his mouth before engaging his brain.


Trump is not a conventional politician far from it which is not a bad thing. I take no interest in how the media portray him, how they twist his words just like lons has done. I look at what he's done re what he said hr would do. Actions speak louder than words. I would rather have a doer than a talker anyday anyday


----------



## artie

AJB Temple said:


> It is a touch sweeping to assume mass ignorance. How can any of us know what most people think?


Thank you.


AJB Temple said:


> Pandemic is regularly explained by the BBC on TV and radio (other news sources are available) and is on the Covid websites.


If you believe msm you may be led astray.


----------



## Selwyn

RobinBHM said:


> Rorschach, you keep claiming that covid is no worse than flu
> 
> so I asked for evidence to back and now you are saying that evidence doesnt exist
> 
> please make you mind up
> 
> either covid is worse than flu and you have the evidence to prove it
> 
> or you should be honest and admit you are wrong, covid is far worse than flu.
> 
> You stopped engaging because you had no counter argument, thats it.




All covid virus' are much less virulent in the healthy elderly and younger people than influenza. Furthermore flu changes strain whereas to all our current knowledge coronavirus' do not. So is a Covid worse than a Flu? Not really. Both can be lethal to the vulnerable


----------



## AJB Temple

Given that we may have a no deal or might as well be no deal Brexit shortly, not taking an interest in the US may be unwise. Based on trump era figures that are pre covid, our two largest trading partners in the UK, for goods and services combined, are the US and Germany. Our trade balance with the US is positive (ie we sell more to them than they buy from us) and they are by far the largest trading partner. Germany is next and there the UK has a trade deficit (cash outflow).

The UK economy is very services focussed, particularly financial services, and our trading links with the US in that area are fundamental to the UK economy. Given the massive sums we are borrowing to pay for furlough schemes etc, we need to be very mindful of protecting trading relationships.

Hence the health of the US economy is quite important to us, and so it seems to me politics matters.


----------



## lurker

Well whatever will be will be.

I would just like our politicians to get it into their thick skulls that there is no special relationship. Well nothing that benefits us anyway.


----------



## FatmanG

AJB Temple said:


> Given that we may have a no deal or might as well be no deal Brexit shortly, not taking an interest in the US may be unwise. Based on trump era figures that are pre covid, our two largest trading partners in the UK, for goods and services combined, are the US and Germany. Our trade balance with the US is positive (ie we sell more to them than they buy from us) and they are by far the largest trading partner. Germany is next and there the UK has a trade deficit (cash outflow).
> 
> The UK economy is very services focussed, particularly financial services, and our trading links with the US in that area are fundamental to the UK economy. Given the massive sums we are borrowing to pay for furlough schemes etc, we need to be very mindful of protecting trading relationships.
> 
> Hence the health of the US economy is quite important to us, and so it seems to me politics matters.


Couldn't agree more. Ignorance is no defense in any way


----------



## artie

lurker said:


> Well whatever will be will be.
> 
> I would just like our politicians to get it into their thick skulls that there is no special relationship. Well nothing that benefits us anyway.


Only when they need our help.


----------



## RobinBHM

Selwyn said:


> So the 635k people who apparently had covid all had a hard time getting over it did they? Or can you just accept that a small select view of people get very ill, an even small amount die and of the amount of survivors the vast majority have no symptoms after 2-3 weeks.
> 
> And everyone who had flu got over it without a problem and all their attendant health issues which they carried with them before that magically improved as well?
> 
> The bigger picture is 99.9+% of people who get covid get over it without an issue even if they didn't know they had it. Those who get seriously ill with Covid still have an extremely good chance of surviving it. Those who die are majorly well over the average age of death and are overwhelmingly likely to have serious attendent comorbidities. And you think the Government can stop this!!


I am sorry but you are avoiding answering the question, your post is engaging in some whataboutery, not direct comparison

We need to be totally clear on this.

You claim Covid Is not much worse than flu?

For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation

The new scientist:

People infected with the coronavirus may be left with permanent lung damage. Doctors are reporting growing numbers of people who still have breathlessness and coughing months after falling ill with covid-19, and whose chest scans show evidence of irreversible lung scarring.

The numbers of people affected aren’t yet known, but estimates are as high as one in five of those who needed intensive care treatment for covid-19. Permanent damage is sometimes seen after other kinds of chest infections that can cause similar lung inflammation to the coronavirus, such as flu and pneumonia.

“We have always seen this before – what’s different is the scale of this,” says James Chalmers, a chest physician and adviser to the British Lung Foundation. Previously, his clinic in Scotland would have seen post-infection scarring of the lungs just once or twice a year, he says. “Now we are seeing dozens of patients coming through.”



Read more: The coronavirus is leaving some people with permanent lung damage


So Covid cause much worse long term damage than flu and to a higher percentage of people.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> If you believe msm you may be led astray


Good advice
A few pages back you linked a video that tried to refute the PCR test.
It was by an Australian journalist who is a known conspiracist and the video made a number of dishonest claims.

I would advise you to consider your own advice....maybe you should fact check.


----------



## RobinBHM

artie said:


> ut it is clear from some previous years statistics that more people died from all causes than this year during a supposed pandemic


No they did not.

Look at excess deaths.

Or are you going to argue the nethodology used by the ONS is wrong because it refutes your argument.


----------



## RobinBHM

FatmanG said:


> I do believe that both sides of the no worse than flu debate have exhausted the point and until new data is released its old news. The response to the virus in terms of measures and proportion etc that's the main focus now and the powers that have advocated policy and why. This is where the focus is now imo



It is not exhausted until those that claim "no worse than flu" stop making dishonest comparisons.

Back in mid March, many vulnerable and old people started to shield, most have done so ever since.
Since then social distancing has been in place extensively.

So Very many people vulnerable people have eliminated or significantly reduced chance of Covid infection.

So it is simply not possible to compare Covid 2020 to flu of any previous year.
And it's not possible to compare with flu this year as cases have been low and the stats include pneumonia.


So when will the "no worse than flu" conspiracists peddling misinformation stand up and admit they are wrong?
Then we can move on.


----------



## selly

RobinBHM said:


> I am sorry but you are avoiding answering the question, your post is engaging in some whataboutery, not direct comparison
> 
> We need to be totally clear on this.
> 
> You claim Covid Is not much worse than flu?
> 
> For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation
> 
> The new scientist:
> 
> People infected with the coronavirus may be left with permanent lung damage. Doctors are reporting growing numbers of people who still have breathlessness and coughing months after falling ill with covid-19, and whose chest scans show evidence of irreversible lung scarring.
> 
> The numbers of people affected aren’t yet known, but estimates are as high as one in five of those who needed intensive care treatment for covid-19. Permanent damage is sometimes seen after other kinds of chest infections that can cause similar lung inflammation to the coronavirus, such as flu and pneumonia.
> 
> “We have always seen this before – what’s different is the scale of this,” says James Chalmers, a chest physician and adviser to the British Lung Foundation. Previously, his clinic in Scotland would have seen post-infection scarring of the lungs just once or twice a year, he says. “Now we are seeing dozens of patients coming through.”
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: The coronavirus is leaving some people with permanent lung damage
> 
> 
> So Covid cause much worse long term damage than flu and to a higher percentage of people.



But you have no data. Just an article. Perhaps it's a result of the ventilation which we know is hugely intrusive.


----------



## RobinBHM

Is the 3 tier system better or worse than a circuit break 2 week lockdown?

Interestingly Ive heard some business argue a total lockdown of 2 or 3 weeks is better because it gives businesses opportunity to plan - use up beer, food etc....then re stock.

I see the 3 tier option confusing as it means a tier 1 follows tier 1 rules in the tier 1 region, but if visiting a tier 3 region then must obey tier 3 rules.


----------



## RobinBHM

selly said:


> But you have no data. Just an article. Perhaps it's a result of the ventilation which we know is hugely intrusive.


Perhaps you need to read at the beginning: "data to date....."

Article in the the new scientist is valid evidence even without any data.....it isn't some conspiracist from a YouTube clip.

Where is your evidence that Covid is no worse than flu........thus far you've produced nothing.
Nothing at all.

All you have is some weak argument around ONS methodology.


----------



## Noel

With that Robin you have timed it well, you have the last word.


----------

