Hancock's Half Hour

[doctor Bob]

Do you know that YouTube breeds an ill-informed person every second?

Where as forums breed people who look down on others because they think they know better. :wink:

 

[Lons]

You do know 1 in 100 people die every year in this country right?

You do know that the estimated EXCESS deaths over the 5 year expected average is 64000 (24%)?
Of course you do it's been mentioned several times on this thread and you pay attention. :wink:

 

[Jake]

Do you know that YouTube breeds an ill-informed person every second?

Where as forums breed people who look down on others because they think they know better. :wink:

Hi Bob how ya doing. I take care of my information space.

 

[Jake]

It's like basic personal hygiene but much more important. And YouTube for news and info rather than entertainment and giggles is the equivalent of using faeces for deodorant. So no, I'm not going to be polite to someone who tries to patronise me from that sort of a starting point.

PS don't know why you are so defensively passive aggressive. Especially as you were doing this same gig previously, but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

It's like basic personal hygiene but much more important. And YouTube for news and info rather than entertainment and giggles is the equivalent of using faeces for deodorant.

I agree about news from YouTube, but therein lies the root of the problem: who to believe?

This then becomes a battle of conspiracy theories, and the mainstream assumption is that a conspiracy theorist will enthusiastically believe six impossible things before breakfast, whilst that same conspiracy theorist will roll their eyes in despair when anyone uses Mainstream Media™ as the source, because it is so hopelessly biased, propagandised and factually incorrect. Which it is.

...but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.

Ah, yes: "Sensibly". Any right-minded person will happily follow the media narrative du jour, which currently depicts Boris as the bumbling buffoon, who couldn't even make a decision, so killed thousands with his ineptitude. But this is, unfortunately, just another narrative. There is science out there to suggest (some may say prove beyond doubt) that the lockdown was unnecessary, the "scientists" never wanted it, and it was a political decision based solely upon media pressure that caused said lockdown. Who is right? Who is wrong/misinformed/lying? Both views can't be right.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

The number of cases has been falling since before lockdown started, so the virus is doing what viruses always do, which peak, and slowly peter out. No help required.

However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind? As per Dr House: "Everyone lies". The trick is to find out who might have told some truth by mistake.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

To continue the theme, here is a big list of facts, all "backed up" by links, but you will probably need to go to the original page to follow the links. You can find it here: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

Apologies for the data dump, but some people might not have seen these "alternative" facts. Some of these facts may even be true. Your choice, if you want, is to see how it fits with your current view of reality, and then to see if makes you uncomfortable enough to either investigate further, or attack with extreme prejudice.

Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

Overview
According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).
Even in global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons develop at most moderate symptoms.
Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from weeks of extreme stress and isolation.
Up to 30% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.
The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.
Regional increases in mortality can occur if there is a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick as a result of infection or panic, or if there are additional risk factors such as severe air pollution. Special regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.
In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and health workers are now being put into quarantine, even if they develop no symptoms.
The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. tiny particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles or smartphones). The main modes of transmission are direct contact and droplets produced when coughing or sneezing.
There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, including many cancer screenings and organ transplants.
Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react positive to other coronaviruses.
Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups.
At no time was there a medical reason for the closure of schools, as children hardly ever transmit the virus or fall ill with it themselves. There is also no medical reason for small classes, masks or ‘social distancing’ rules in schools.
The claim that only severe Covid-19 but not influenza may cause venous thrombosis and pulmonary (lung) embolism is not true, as it has been known for 50 years that severe influenza greatly increases the risk of thrombosis and embolism, too.
Several medical experts described vaccines against coronaviruses as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions.
The number of people suffering from unemployment, depressions and domestic violence as a result of the measures has reached historic record values. Several experts predict that the measures will claim more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN millions of people around the world may fall into absolute poverty and famine.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
More than 500 scientists have warned of an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.
A 2019 WHO study on public health measures against pandemic influenza found that from a medical perspective, “contact tracing” is “not recommended in any circumstances”.

 

[Rorschach]

You do know 1 in 100 people die every year in this country right?

You do know that the estimated EXCESS deaths over the 5 year expected average is 64000 (24%)?
Of course you do it's been mentioned several times on this thread and you pay attention. :wink:

To date they are excess yes. What will that number be in a year from now though. A lot of those people that have died have died early, if they didn't die of C19 they would have died of something else in the next year or so, 80 year olds don't live in care homes for a decade usually :wink:

EDIT: Life expectancy in a care home is 30 months.

 

[Rorschach]

Yes, but as these are extra so what.

Ah I see, you are one of "those people". Good to know.

 

[doctor Bob]

PS don't know why you are so defensively passive aggressive. Especially as you were doing this same gig previously, but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.

Not quite...........

I don't think I've ever said I was against lock down *. Have I said it's a balancing act between lives saved and the economy, yes.
I'm not a save lives at any cost man.

* I didn't trawl back.

I'm passive aggressive because I really dislike the way people are treated in these arguements. The majority belittle the minority in a very mean and superior manner and then get rattled when the reverse is carried out (on purpose)

Bring back Grimsdale

 

[Woody2Shoes]

It's like basic personal hygiene but much more important. And YouTube for news and info rather than entertainment and giggles is the equivalent of using faeces for deodorant.

I agree about news from YouTube, but therein lies the root of the problem: who to believe?

This then becomes a battle of conspiracy theories, and the mainstream assumption is that a conspiracy theorist will enthusiastically believe six impossible things before breakfast, whilst that same conspiracy theorist will roll their eyes in despair when anyone uses Mainstream Media™ as the source, because it is so hopelessly biased, propagandised and factually incorrect. Which it is.

...but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.

Ah, yes: "Sensibly". Any right-minded person will happily follow the media narrative du jour, which currently depicts Boris as the bumbling buffoon, who couldn't even make a decision, so killed thousands with his ineptitude. But this is, unfortunately, just another narrative. There is science out there to suggest (some may say prove beyond doubt) that the lockdown was unnecessary, the "scientists" never wanted it, and it was a political decision based solely upon media pressure that caused said lockdown. Who is right? Who is wrong/misinformed/lying? Both views can't be right.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf

The number of cases has been falling since before lockdown started, so the virus is doing what viruses always do, which peak, and slowly peter out. No help required.

However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind? As per Dr House: "Everyone lies". The trick is to find out who might have told some truth by mistake.

Copying a graph without axes (or source data references) is unhelpful - the author of the paper from which you took that graph goes on to explicitly state: "This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days".

I think you've just proved to me (something I already knew) that fake news is easy to create and disseminate and that people will believe what they want to believe. The real trick, as some manipulative people have discovered, is to make them want to believe that thing in the first place. Also, that the impossible thing is to equip everyone with the brainpower - and the time and inclination - to think for themselves.

 

[Lons]

You do know 1 in 100 people die every year in this country right?

You do know that the estimated EXCESS deaths over the 5 year expected average is 64000 (24%)?
Of course you do it's been mentioned several times on this thread and you pay attention. :wink:

To date they are excess yes. What will that number be in a year from now though. A lot of those people that have died have died early, if they didn't die of C19 they would have died of something else in the next year or so, 80 year olds don't live in care homes for a decade usually :wink:

EDIT: Life expectancy in a care home is 30 months.

There you go stating that as if it is fact - it isn't! There are counter opinions out there for every one of your cherry picked statements posted to support your extremely narrow view, but you know that and just choose to dismiss them or can't be ar*sed to look past the ones that fit your profile, so to save you the effort it took me 30 seconds to find this one, I haven't looked further as I have better things to do with my time than carry out research on your behalf. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... eaths.html

Back to your supported theory in simple terms it suggests that to return to the expected average the actual numbers would have to fall substantially below the average in the next few years to accommodate the people who died maybe a year or two early.

The average reported age of people when they go into a care home is 83, well above the widely accepted start of at risk age of 65 - 70 and if you look further at the figures you'll find that apparently England had a fewer % of care home deaths than most European nations. Only looked at figures to 9th May when it was England 21% compared to Spain 66%, France 50%, Norway 61% and even Germany at 37%. Italy was excluded but would expect to up there, again I look at all that with scepticism as it's not the full story but it is another angle. https://www.carehomeprofessional.com/eu ... me-deaths/

I not so respectfully suggest you take a more lateral view and stop acting like an armchair professor. :wink:

 

[Rorschach]

Lets just wait until we see the mortality figures for 2019/20 as a whole compared to the 5 year average and a bad flu year figure as well. I guarantee (totally my opinion) that we will not see 60,000+ extra deaths on the average and my suspicion is the figure will be slightly higher than a (very) bad flu year.

Of course the tricky bit will be how many of the extra deaths (yes I think there will be some) are cause by C19 and how many of the extra deaths are caused by the effects of the lockdown, eg Cancer deaths.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Bring back Grimsdale

Pretty please, no.

 

[Lons]

I guarantee (totally my opinion)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Rorschach]

I guarantee (totally my opinion)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thought you might like that :mrgreen:

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I think you've just proved to me (something I already knew) that fake news is easy to create and disseminate and that people will believe what they want to believe. The real trick, as some manipulative people have discovered, is to make them want to believe that thing in the first place. Also, that the impossible thing is to equip everyone with the brainpower - and the time and inclination - to think for themselves.

"The irony is strong in this one."

You said:

... the author of the paper from which you took that graph goes on to explicitly state: "This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days".

Completely true - that is exactly what the paper says. However, that sentence was taken ever-so-slightly out of context. Let's read the entire paragraph, shall we?

This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdownby several days. Indeed the failure to undertake the sampling that could have gathered data to directlymeasure infections early in the epidemic means that it will never be possible to be certain about timings,given the severe biases in clinical data other than deaths and fatal disease duration. What the results showis that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that thedecline in infections in England and Wales began before lockdown. Furthermore, such a scenario wouldbe consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly afterthe UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of lockdown.

Not quite the same meaning that you ascribed to it by carefully selecting what to quote. Which leads me to my second point: did you actually read it? Or just skip through looking for something might actually support your already presupposed case? Just in case you missed it, the paper also goes on to say:

These facts have implications for the policies to be adopted in the coming autumn, particularly giventhe peculiar ethical issues associated with lockdown. For example, plausible estimates of the life lossburden from an unmitigated COVID-19 epidemic in the UK are about 2 weeks per person1 . A plausiblelower bound on the UK life loss from the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath is 7 weeks per person2 .The economic shock from lockdown is substantially larger than 2008. Similarly the implied willingnessto pay to save a life year from COVID-19 appears to be an order of magnitude higher than the usual UKNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold used for any other disease

We could debate that, or you can carry on assuming that black is white, up is down, war is peace, etc. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being cleverly ironic.

 

[Rorschach]

Burn! :lol:

Even the governments own figures show a decline in deaths that is too early for lockdown to have been the cause, peak death rate was around 2 weeks after lockdown, infection to death on average is 3-4 weeks.

 

[Garno]

Burn! :lol:

Even the governments own figures show a decline in deaths that is too early for lockdown to have been the cause, peak death rate was around 2 weeks after lockdown, infection to death on average is 3-4 weeks.

Shame our government did not employ you as the leading expert on Corona19 we would not of had a single fatality

 

[Rorschach]

Burn! :lol:

Even the governments own figures show a decline in deaths that is too early for lockdown to have been the cause, peak death rate was around 2 weeks after lockdown, infection to death on average is 3-4 weeks.

Shame our government did not employ you as the leading expert on Corona19 we would not of had a single fatality

We'd have had a lot more if I was in charge.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I think you've just proved to me (something I already knew) that fake news is easy to create and disseminate and that people will believe what they want to believe. The real trick, as some manipulative people have discovered, is to make them want to believe that thing in the first place. Also, that the impossible thing is to equip everyone with the brainpower - and the time and inclination - to think for themselves.

"The irony is strong in this one."

You said:

... the author of the paper from which you took that graph goes on to explicitly state: "This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days".

Completely true - that is exactly what the paper says. However, that sentence was taken ever-so-slightly out of context. Let's read the entire paragraph, shall we?

This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdownby several days. Indeed the failure to undertake the sampling that could have gathered data to directlymeasure infections early in the epidemic means that it will never be possible to be certain about timings,given the severe biases in clinical data other than deaths and fatal disease duration. What the results showis that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that thedecline in infections in England and Wales began before lockdown. Furthermore, such a scenario wouldbe consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly afterthe UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of lockdown.

Not quite the same meaning that you ascribed to it by carefully selecting what to quote. Which leads me to my second point: did you actually read it? Or just skip through looking for something might actually support your already presupposed case? Just in case you missed it, the paper also goes on to say:

These facts have implications for the policies to be adopted in the coming autumn, particularly giventhe peculiar ethical issues associated with lockdown. For example, plausible estimates of the life lossburden from an unmitigated COVID-19 epidemic in the UK are about 2 weeks per person1 . A plausiblelower bound on the UK life loss from the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath is 7 weeks per person2 .The economic shock from lockdown is substantially larger than 2008. Similarly the implied willingnessto pay to save a life year from COVID-19 appears to be an order of magnitude higher than the usual UKNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold used for any other disease

We could debate that, or you can carry on assuming that black is white, up is down, war is peace, etc. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being cleverly ironic.

No-one is blinder than he who will not see...