Controversial Covid post

Not so wavy - just sharing for info
The extrapoloation is bound to be flawed - they always are.
 

Attachments

  • EA22EA32-3E39-4AAC-838E-3504CE8ECD99.jpeg
    EA22EA32-3E39-4AAC-838E-3504CE8ECD99.jpeg
    674.7 KB · Views: 11
Statto1 said:
Ended? :rolleyes: Where has it ended?

These don't look ended:
View attachment 7940
Excess deaths for the UK is +8% W/E 16th October, and has been trending back up since August.

It's clear that we had an absolutely monumental spike at the very end of the typical "high death" season, then as our lock down, ppe and social distancing helped, this knocked it back during summer, when it's much easier to fight.

Now as we start the bad season again, cases are flying up and we're back to 182 deaths per day, and cases are still on the rise.

The Northern hemisphere has not had a winter with this yet, and people are saying it's over.....strange.



You're not living on our planet, you know the one where we have 400k cases per day, in something that's apparently "over".

You might as well go down James Cook and tell them not to bother, seeing as it's over.
Click to expand...
Wait, China is in the Northern Hemisphere and the virus was flying around there during November, December and January just gone. 🤓
Statto1 said:
Ended? :rolleyes: Where has it ended?

These don't look ended:
View attachment 7940
Excess deaths for the UK is +8% W/E 16th October, and has been trending back up since August.

It's clear that we had an absolutely monumental spike at the very end of the typical "high death" season, then as our lock down, ppe and social distancing helped, this knocked it back during summer, when it's much easier to fight.

Now as we start the bad season again, cases are flying up and we're back to 182 deaths per day, and cases are still on the rise.

The Northern hemisphere has not had a winter with this yet, and people are saying it's over.....strange.



You're not living on our planet, you know the one where we have 400k cases per day, in something that's apparently "over".

You might as well go down James Cook and tell them not to bother, seeing as it's over.
Click to expand...
 
Statto1 said:
Oh jesus, so getting covid and dying within 28 days (or any timeframe) is a massive coincidence?
So you're saying In March/ April more people died of coincidence or immediately died due to not getting a scan, than due to the massive coronavirus infection? Balls, you're talking balls.

The more you lot ignore it's happening, the longer this gets dragged out, and the more people wait at home in fear (although nobody is advising anyone to do this if they think they're going to die).

If you think people are scared now, imagine what it would be like if there was a queue outside the hospital and they stopped letting anyone in.
Who is going to look after the cancer patients and the like, if there's a queue of people outside who can't breathe, or if the ward space is needed for covid.
Do you want to pick who dies out of the covid guy who can't breathe or the heart attack guy? Or do you want to man the ventilator?

There's four main options:

1) Obey the rules, stop questioning everything and thinking it's all a conspiracy, and it will be controlled quicker and easier.

2) Continue as you are and some idiots will continue believe your crap, and this drags out longer, kills more and you get zero benefit.

3) No masks, no lock downs, all the pubs and shops open, with no protection measures, which equals an absolute landslide of death. This option is not going to happen, zero chance.

4) No we can't do the Swedish model, as we're not Sweden, and it didn't work there either. If you're looking in that direction, look at Norway, Finland or Denmark instead.

Maybe this is fake, but it's not even been winter yet either.

View attachment 7948
Click to expand...

You know, you can question things and STILL follow all the rules and do your bit? You do know that, right?
You seem obsessed with trying to turn this into a covid denier argument, which is isn’t.
You spent ages yesterday and earlier today arguing about something you hadn’t even listened to, and a video you hadn’t watched.
You’ve completely dismissed IFR studies by various scientists.
You’ve completely dismissed John Ioannidis, one of the most famous scientists in the world.
You don’t want to listen to anything that differs from how you see the world. You don’t want to be challenged.
One thing this thread has proven beyond doubt, this is an emotive subject and people seem to take a position and ignore everything else, on both sides of the discussion.

I would say that you having got so involved initially without having even listened to the podcast, the whole point of the initial post, or watched the video shows that you are very closed minded to anything that goes against what you want to believe.
That’s fine. Me, I want to hear all sides of the debate, which is why I started this thread. I don’t paint all the opposing viewpoints to mine as stupid. That’s just not a good look at all.
 
cliverd said:
People dying of COVID not with COVID - people scared to attended hospital or having appointments cancelled, thus leading to further excess home deaths.
Click to expand...
As I said, it was happening before the epidemic took off, before lockdown.
 
Statto1 said:
Because:
Covid Deaths / (antibody test rate x population) = IFR
45,000 / (6% x 66,000,000)
45,000 / 3,960,000
1.1% = IFR

You can't argue with the IFR, it's a result of an extremely simple equation. So you must either be arguing deaths or % of people with antibody's?

The react study was done in July, I'm pretty sure it covered the basis of our initial infection quite well.

If someone has immunity, then I'm guessing they can't get the virus, or are a lot less susceptible. If this is the case then it must be more transmissible, as the number of infected is a result of how well a virus gets passed on.
1) It either passes on to everyone, not very easily
2) or it passes on to half exceptionally easy and the other half not at all

T Cell immunity would be great, but if that's correct then this transmits around way worse than we thought.
Click to expand...

Eh..? Nope, no idea what the point of that first part is.
I will say it agin. At no pint, anywhere, have I stated antibody tests do not work.
I have, however, touched on the time window of detectable antibodies and the problems with assuming they are the only indicator of immunity. I’m not going there again.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Hi Bear. I’ve just read the paper again. To be honest, there is plenty in there which would appear to correlate with what we are seeing now. They didn’t claim there would be no rise in cases -

‘it is likely there will be local, small and self-limiting mini-outbreaks as areas previously unexposed come into contact with the virus’.

They didn’t claim France would have zero further deaths or hospitalisations, only that rate was normal for the time of year. They also acknowledge that it is only the case at the time of writing -

‘ Specifically, careful examination of the weekly all-causes mortality data in France is completely clear. Six weeks into an apparent surge of cases, the number of deaths remain completely flat and normal, in all age bands (as of mid-August when this document was written).’

They do indeed use lots of supposition and estimated data, but they also acknowledge this each time and explain how they came to that decision and why they think it is justified. They also link to all the relevant research papers and studies, (which I’ll be honest, I’ve not read).

Anyway, there are questions around it for sure, but I don’t think it’s as black and white as you say, especially not the zero further deaths in France given that’s not what they said, and they acknowledged that their info was for a specific time.

Regarding permanently reducing R below 1, yep, I’m not really sure what they are talking about there. Poor choice of phrasing or something else, I honestly don’t know. It makes even less sense, given that they themselves say there will be further small localised outbreaks, so I don’t know how they can predict that but also claim R will stay permanently below 1.

Anyway, long story short I don’t dismiss what that paper says, having re-read it. I think there is a lot of stuff in there that makes sense and as some of these recent localised outbreaks start to drop off in case numbers, does that even add weight to their paper? Who knows, time will tell and it’s going to be interesting to see how it pays out. Obviously, I hope they are correct as that is the best case scenario ie more of us have some immunity already, there will be less deaths and we’ll be through this sooner. Of course, a major question still remains the PCR false positive aspect, and that has implications on both sides of the debate. Neither side has fully convinced me yet.
Click to expand...
Is R permanently below 1, hence his comment that it was over. Not just here but France and Spain. He jumped the gun and got it wrong.

The local outbreaks were going to to be whack a moles by testing. It was over. He got it wrong.

And based on that he surmised that inherent immunity was the reason it wouldn't come back.

He was 'in the pocket' of the anti-lockdown group.

His comment on PCR was that 0.5% of positives may be false which would have been 50% overall. We're currently at 6%. Wrong again.
 
Here's an interesting factoid for you all.

Number 14 on the list for this year.

20201027_162029.jpg

Estimated that 700 million people around the world are at risk of death because of starvation. The money this government alone had spent on covid-19 measures and restrictions could end world hunger in a month. Imagine what could be done if ALL the countries around the world had pooled the covid-19 money together to fix more pressing issues around the globe.

Staggering.
 
RandySavage said:
Here's an interesting factoid for you all.

Number 14 on the list for this year.

View attachment 7950

Estimated that 700 million people around the world are at risk of death because of starvation. The money this government alone had spent on covid-19 measures and restrictions could end world hunger in a month. Imagine what could be done if ALL the countries around the world had pooled the covid-19 money together to fix more pressing issues around the globe.

Staggering.
Click to expand...
We could end world hunger whenever we want.
 
bear66 said:
Is R permanently below 1, hence his comment that it was over. Not just here but France and Spain. He jumped the gun and got it wrong.

The local outbreaks were going to to be whack a moles by testing. It was over. He got it wrong.

And based on that he surmised that inherent immunity was the reason it wouldn't come back.

He was 'in the pocket' of the anti-lockdown group.

His comment on PCR was that 0.5% of positives may be false which would have been 50% overall. We're currently at 6%. Wrong again.
Click to expand...

I’m afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one and move on. I don’t think you are viewing what he is saying with an open mind. Likewise, I probably view what he is saying with bias because I want him to be correct because that is the least deadly path going forward.
Maybe we are all guilty of finding data to fit what we want to see?

I’ve had a lot of questions recently, particularly around the media painting of things, the PCR test, and the data regarding hospitalisations and deaths. As you know, I was following everything and believing everything was as it was said to be, for a long time. However, recently, some things just don’t add up, and he seems to offer explanations that seemingly address some of those things and has made a reasonable prognosis of where we are in the pandemic, and I'm afraid you actually haven’t shown me that he is wrong. Your interpretation of his paper is clearly differing from mine.
That does not mean he is correct, and you are wrong, of course.

I suspect this would be a lot easier to discuss and make our relevant points in person over a pint, and we’d probably get to a point somewhere in the middle of where we both are, but unfortunately that’s never going to happen and actually trying to get to the nuts of bolts of points in amongst a sea of messages is hard to do, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree and move on 👍

I do agree he is anti-lockdown. I’m not sure he is in the pocket of the ‘anti-lockdown group’ though. They are the only people who seem to be willing to give him a voice at the minute, which he says himself. He’s posted a tweet about ofcom media censorship which is why he believes he isn’t getting a voice on the beeb etc. Or maybe he just isn’t well liked, or taken seriously? He may be right and censorship is in play, I don’t know, but then others with similar views to himself have had mainstream media exposure so who knows?
 
cliverd said:
No - not my point. Excess deaths at home are directly related to lockdown / media hysteria and people being unwilling to attend hospital or having appointments cancelled. A reminder that COVID accounted for 1 in 16 deaths during this period.

In regards to your options - personally I have been complying since day one, I haven't broken any of the rules but that doesn't mean I am unwilling to read / form my own opinions based up data. Please don't speak on my behalf that I've been attending the mass rallies / raves / whatever - I haven't. I wear a mask and I follow the rules. Calm it.

Here's an interesting link to hospital acquired COVID - roughly 17% of cases are caught in hospitals.

I also have a question: recently there have been reports of people who haven't left the house / seen anyone they don't live with contracting COVID - how is this happening?

I'm not 'ignoring' what is happening, in fact I'm following it very closely. I think you need to calm down and let people form their own opinions :)

LINK - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/probable-healthcare-associated-infections-in-england/
Click to expand...

At the peak Covid was killing 1k per day (of those we actuall got round to testing), about 7k per week, it was outkilling anything else. Excess was 12k that's 12k MORE than the expected 11k (for a 23k total), outside of "flu season". What did those 12k die of if it wasn't covid, and why did they stop dying of "other causes" after the peak? If it was other things then surely these should have continued? Maybe it was covid, you know, the pandemic we were trying to slow.

Good on you for complying, my point is all this questioning undermines the actual truth I think.

Yeah a lot of those cases are staff I bet, I know 10 nurses, some on the covid ward, every nurse I know has had it.

How are people still alive if they've not been out the house, or not been in contact with anyone or anything? How many reports? Any facts on this?

The problem is people making opinions based on bad information or not being clever enough to know how to interpret data at a reasonable level.
 
RandySavage said:
Wait, China is in the Northern Hemisphere and the virus was flying around there during November, December and January just gone. 🤓
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll give you that, but it was the back end when it hit, and not on the same level as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere (y) But look how they stopped it, with the harshest lock down of any.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I’m afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one and move on. I don’t think you are viewing what he is saying with an open mind. Likewise, I probably view what he is saying with bias because I want him to be correct because that is the least deadly path going forward.
Maybe we are all guilty of finding data to fit what we want to see?

I’ve had a lot of questions recently, particularly around the media painting of things, the PCR test, and the data regarding hospitalisations and deaths. As you know, I was following everything and believing everything was as it was said to be, for a long time. However, recently, some things just don’t add up, and he seems to offer explanations that seemingly address some of those things and has made a reasonable prognosis of where we are in the pandemic, and I'm afraid you actually haven’t shown me that he is wrong. Your interpretation of his paper is clearly differing from mine.
That does not mean he is correct, and you are wrong, of course.

I suspect this would be a lot easier to discuss and make our relevant points in person over a pint, and we’d probably get to a point somewhere in the middle of where we both are, but unfortunately that’s never going to happen and actually trying to get to the nuts of bolts of points in amongst a sea of messages is hard to do, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree and move on 👍

I do agree he is anti-lockdown. I’m not sure he is in the pocket of the ‘anti-lockdown group’ though. They are the only people who seem to be willing to give him a voice at the minute, which he says himself. He’s posted a tweet about ofcom media censorship which is why he believes he isn’t getting a voice on the beeb etc. Or maybe he just isn’t well liked, or taken seriously? He may be right and censorship is in play, I don’t know, but then others with similar views to himself have had mainstream media exposure so who knows?
Click to expand...
I know exactly what he was saying. The one thing I didn't try and unravel was his 'smooth curve' from which he deduced lockdowns didn't work. I didn't understand his logic. But he then uses the 'zero' deaths to prove that reopening the economy hadn't led to an increase in deaths. As I said, if he had waited two weeks he wouldn't have made a complete fool of himself. He didn't have to use the word 'permanently' in the executive summary. No scientist without an agenda would be so dogmatic.
 
Statto1 said:
Yeah I'll give you that, but it was the back end when it hit, and not on the same level as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere (y) But look how they stopped it, with the harshest lock down of any.
Click to expand...
They also don't have care homes as old folk are looked after by their families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top