Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
Any idea what role the private health sector are playing, if any?
pretty myopic view. Those 20k, some may get symptoms and still get diagnosis and treatment just later through referral rather than screening.View attachment 7471
and that's just cancer deaths, chuck in excess deaths due to suicides, heart attacks etc. all for a respiratory disease that attacks the old and the vulnerable and kills .05% of those infected with an average age of 80+
A covid death is not more important than any other death and therefore the measures are disproportionate, protect the old and vulnerable and the rest of us need to get on with our lives or we are screwed.
Why not broaden this view and give us your take on the numbers - even taking into account your points - are the numbers not still in the thousands and therefore of concern and my point was that this is just cancer deaths.pretty myopic view. Those 20k, some may get symptoms and still get diagnosis and treatment just later through referral rather than screening.
Also if we didn't lock down:
a) the numbers seem high, about 8% of cancer screening ends up with a diagnosis?
b) sick hospital staff would reduce capacity to provide treatment and screening, so at least a % of 20k still would not get screened and even more would not get treatment
c) no lockdown means that people with cancer and other illness would be much more likely to catch covid and a number of those would die due to immune deficiency, particularly those on chemotherapy
d) the requirement for various drugs to support the capacity for covid testing would skyrocket, leaving smaller capacity for cancer screening tests
You see this is all much more complex than you have detailed here, with your simplistic one sided link.
Still think my brains useless?Is the test 100% accurate? No
- The test isn't useless, but your brain is.
- There has been an increase in deaths, which is proven (speak to a cemetery or the crematoriums if you disagree)
- At the peak, Covid was MORE than the deaths of everything else combined! (maybe ask some nurses that work at James Cook or North Tees if you disagree)
- Had we no locked down, the deaths would certainly have been worse, not better! (just look at the graphs)
- An increase in deaths has followed an increase in positive tests for the last 8 months, everywhere in the world (maybe they're all in on it huh?).
- A decrease in positive tests equals a decrease in deaths, everywhere in the world (maybe they're all in on it huh?).
- Death and test rates are different to March/ April, as we were not doing enough testing back then (we're still not doing enough now either mind).
- The test works, and is a good marker for gathering information on likely infections, infection rates and likely potential deaths for various scenarios.
Does the test need to be 100% accurate to be effective? No
Do you need to do the right things with the data, to be effective? Yes
Are we doing the right things? No
Why aren't we doing the right things? Because we have an inept government, and a load of idiot people that voted them in, that don't like listening to experts.
Your argument disagrees with itself by the way. The WHO are saying don't rely on lockdowns (AS THE PRIMARY CONTROL), as in they're saying use test and trace instead (you know, the tests you say don't work, and the trace system that doesn't work), and then wear masks and socially distance etc.
Of course lock downs are bad for the economy, nobody in the entire world doubts this. But there are some that come out of it in a lot better position than others, and I'll bet my hat that it's the selfish ones that voted these selfish idiots in (on average).
Still think my brains useless?
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab says the "challenge" with testing for covid19 in airports is 'the very high false positive rate' and adds 'only 7% of tests will be successful in identifying those who have the virus'.
The inventor of the PCR test kit said that it was not designed for covid 19, and that our bodies probably have small parts of just about anything - Google is your friend.
I don't need to broaden it, it's your statement. I've highlighted the issues the lack of objectivity. Do your research and come back with something grounded in a bit more of a balanced view, and we can talk about that. That is how the scientific theory works. You come out with a hypothesis, test it with your peers then re-asses your hypothesis.Why not broaden this view and give us your take on the numbers - even taking into account your points - are the numbers not still in the thousands and therefore of concern and my point was that this is just cancer deaths.
I think by your tone that you think a suitable response to me providing information for discussion, is to try to discredit it by belittling it.
A couple of times you have chucked in conspiratorial elements again to discredit.
I quoted Raab as he was on a mainstream media source - this is accepted more by most, does this offer credibility? it is a clip of Professor Carl Heneghan giving evidence to the Science and Technology committee in Parliament on 17/09/20 stating that a cycle threshold of above 35 are generally people who are not infectious.
It is in reply to a FOI request which again makes interesting reading.
Piece these things together and it is clear the test is useless.
Yes but cases, from a dodgy test BE AFRAID!!!No takers for my daily deaths service? What we gonna do about the million people that will die the week after covid ceases to exist? They need their stories telling. Especially those that are children. 15000 of them a day, so they say. Over 5 million children under 5 in 2017, allegedly. Meanwhile great swathes of the country think we should cut foreign aid, and ive seen this argued on this very site(albeit the old version). Same load of nutters think bill gates is an alien lizard for trying to prevent many of these deaths.
why do the masses suddenly care about every single death after years of blissful ignorance towards anyone outside of their immediate family? Because they’re being told to!
Oh well. Fine by me. So long as after corona we go after those responsible for blowing legs off kids. Might take a hit on the old balance sheet, owld Britannia. But we’ll all be behind it, caring souls we now are.
I think by your tone that you think a suitable response to me providing information for discussion, is to try to discredit it by belittling it.
A couple of times you have chucked in conspiratorial elements again to discredit.
I quoted Raab as he was on a mainstream media source - this is accepted more by most, does this offer credibility? it is a clip of Professor Carl Heneghan giving evidence to the Science and Technology committee in Parliament on 17/09/20 stating that a cycle threshold of above 35 are generally people who are not infectious.
It is in reply to a FOI request which again makes interesting reading.
Piece these things together and it is clear the test is useless.
That's quite some arrogance there TADAbsolutely. This whole sorry charade is going to come crashing down. When it begins Hancock, Johnson, SAGE scientists (completely unaccountable! They should be tried in a criminal court of law for negligence for what they are doing). The trouble is some people don't like to admit they're wrong, but when enough do, the card tower will fall.
Testing is utterly utterly pointless when an a respiratory virus becomes endemic (everywhere). It peaked here in March before anything got going. Contact tracing would be like a cat chasing it's tail. Yet we have prominent WHO connected "health professors" advocating it and saying we should suppress the virus until a vaccine, lunacy! Contact tracing works for things like Ebola where the patient is immobile when infectious but not for a respiratory virus. I was duped but have seen the light. When others do too and they realise they have lost family, businesses, communities..... the anger will come and inept, corrupt, and dangerous scientists will face their reckoning.
The scary thing is there are some very well educated people who actually believe all this! A prof I knew quite happily bouncing around the 90% susceptible figure on twitter (I'll be replying later, I suspect his ego will be too big to backtrack on his position but he's smart enough to realise when presented with data rather than just blindly reading the media). 100% susceptible used in Fergusons modelling and he has the cheek to come out today and defend it. The guy is a fraud!!! SAGE will only be able to hold out for so long when the ship does finally go down.
This has been a seasonal coronavirus the of which has passed through the human race for eons. Their pattern of infection is well understood and varies in shape depending on geographical location (curve for northern european countries is different to south american countries). Once endemic which it always becomes because you can't test quickly enough and it runs through the population regardless of measures. Yet we have wasted billions of taxpayers money on a futile excercise.
I have shown people the graphs on here from this epidemic. It is plain as day. We were told this by someone on here back in feb/early march, most shot him down (me included). I can admit I was hideously lied to by the media, the government, but most of all by fellow scientists. Fortunately there are scientists out there now actively fighting to raise this to prominence because it is getting hidden in a fog of utter nonsense and hysteria from the gutter press (that is every single outlet, all useless).
Science has been dragged into the dark ages by these fools.
SAGE needs to come out and justify (it can't) 7% immunity garbage. It is what the whole thing is based on. When people realise this untruth they will realise there were never ever going to be hundreds of thousands of deaths. Put pressure through social media outlet and through your MP. It's crucial, as someone else pointed out on another thread you'll be in lockdown continuously otherwise. Educate yourself. I can point you in the direction of the relevant information.
How many times have you had the flu in your lifetime?@Statto1 @Laughing , would it be fair to assume that the vast majority of the population have already had it?
Reason I ask this as it's becoming known the virus was starting to fly around Europe as far back as November last year. If the virus is as contagious as we are told it is (airborne, surviving for days on end on surfaces etc) you don't have to a scientist to come to the common sense conclusion it's been everywhere. Climate obviously plays a huge part in all of this too as seen by the cases falling when the weather was superb and rising again when it started getting colder, none of these inside outside ventilation excuses.
Thoughts?
That's quite a personal question @bear66 what's your STI status ?How many times have you had the flu in your lifetime?
I wasn't been funny was just curious to know your thoughts that was all.Assume whatever you want RS. I wouldn't want a major public health decision made based on an assumption though.