Controversial Covid post

Insinuating personal insults about a lack of intelligence.
😂
How do you suppose all this 'borrowing' is paid back? By you? Or by my kids and their friends? It's obvious you aren't worried about future generations you are only bothered about a virus with a survival rate of 99%.

Also newsflash, the virus isn't going away and won't be eradicated even with a vaccine.

We'll all pay for it Randy. You know this, I know it, everyone knows it. Pretty pointless question.

Newsflash... Smallpox was eradicated by a vaccine. There are also many other diseases that have been all but forgotten about thanks to vaccinations. You are now beginning to sound like an antivaxer now..
 
We'll all pay for it Randy. You know this, I know it, everyone knows it. Pretty pointless question.

Newsflash... Smallpox was eradicated by a vaccine. There are also many other diseases that have been all but forgotten about thanks to vaccinations. You are now beginning to sound like an antivaxer now..
Only 2 diseases caused by a virus have been eradicated by a vaccine. I thought you were a doctor?

Smallpox and Rinderpest.

Do you know how long it took to eradicate smallpox, technically 2000 years but the official WHO backed vaccination program started in 1967 after 10-15 million people had contracted the disease. The last known natural case occured in Somalia in 1977, that's a ten year vaccination program. WHO declared it officially eradicated in 1980. There are only two sources of smallpox left on the entire planet, one is on a lab I'm Atlanta, Georgia and the other is in a lab in Russia.

Oh and I've had all my vaccinations thankyou very much, as have my kids. Try again with the baseless accusations, as I've said previous, the mask is slipping. 👀
 
Only 2 diseases caused by a virus have been eradicated by a vaccine. I thought you were a doctor?

Smallpox and Rinderpest.

Do you know how long it took to eradicate smallpox, technically 2000 years but the official WHO backed vaccination program started in 1967 after 10-15 million people had contracted the disease. The last known natural case occured in Somalia in 1977, that's a ten year vaccination program. WHO declared it officially eradicated in 1980. There are only two sources of smallpox left on the entire planet, one is on a lab I'm Atlanta, Georgia and the other is in a lab in Russia.

Oh and I've had all my vaccinations thankyou very much, as have my kids. Try again with the baseless accusations, as I've said previous, the mask is slipping. 👀

Ta for the cut and paste from Google :)

I never accused.... ;)
 
No Randy, the mask slipped a while ago and not in the way that you imagine.

Jibes like


I know this is the internet and no one has to admit they are wrong but sometimes, you should.
Isn't he the new user who works on a hospital or was that someone else?
 
Only 2 diseases caused by a virus have been eradicated by a vaccine. I thought you were a doctor?

Smallpox and Rinderpest.

Do you know how long it took to eradicate smallpox, technically 2000 years but the official WHO backed vaccination program started in 1967 after 10-15 million people had contracted the disease. The last known natural case occured in Somalia in 1977, that's a ten year vaccination program. WHO declared it officially eradicated in 1980. There are only two sources of smallpox left on the entire planet, one is on a lab I'm Atlanta, Georgia and the other is in a lab in Russia.

Oh and I've had all my vaccinations thankyou very much, as have my kids. Try again with the baseless accusations, as I've said previous, the mask is slipping. 👀

Been quiet for a while now as I believe the argument on here has deteriorated to the point where no one is listening.

To address a few things you mentioned earlier:

- A lockdown would make it MORE likely people will get appropriate treatment for non covid illness. Currently hospitals are having to open up extra wards and turn surgical wards into covid wards. ICUs that are required for appropriate high risk surgical treatment are becoming full of Covid cases.
- It is only the Covid cases that need oxygen that are being admitted.
- To continue all elective surgery/treatment you would have to choose to not treat these people and allow them to die.
- We are currently trying to continue all elective work but it is severely stretched

I think two of your arguments are diametrically opposed.

You could allow covid to spread through society without restriction - this will lead to covid and non covid deaths. I agree that it may mental health burden on the young, but you could argue it could make things worse with the increased stress of family death and illness.

How to best help the economy is also difficult - allowing a slow burn partial opening with continuing high levels of Covid in the community.

Full opening with no social support from the Government would likely mean destruction for a lot of businesses.

In Summary.

A lockdown would be more likely to be protective of those with non-covid illnesses.

Mental health burden of a lockdown is high.
Mental health burden of familial death is high
Mental health services are more likely to be restricted because of high levels of Covid than by a lockdown.

The level of Covid has got to the point that it is effecting medical treatment of other problems in high prevalence areas - we need to consider options to reduce and not forget to support those effected by any restrictions put in place.

Nothing I have said is controversial - I will be interested to hear your options on a way forward
 
Been quiet for a while now as I believe the argument on here has deteriorated to the point where no one is listening.

To address a few things you mentioned earlier:

- A lockdown would make it MORE likely people will get appropriate treatment for non covid illness. Currently hospitals are having to open up extra wards and turn surgical wards into covid wards. ICUs that are required for appropriate high risk surgical treatment are becoming full of Covid cases.
- It is only the Covid cases that need oxygen that are being admitted.
- To continue all elective surgery/treatment you would have to choose to not treat these people and allow them to die.
- We are currently trying to continue all elective work but it is severely stretched

I think two of your arguments are diametrically opposed.

You could allow covid to spread through society without restriction - this will lead to covid and non covid deaths. I agree that it may mental health burden on the young, but you could argue it could make things worse with the increased stress of family death and illness.

How to best help the economy is also difficult - allowing a slow burn partial opening with continuing high levels of Covid in the community.

Full opening with no social support from the Government would likely mean destruction for a lot of businesses.

In Summary.

A lockdown would be more likely to be protective of those with non-covid illnesses.

Mental health burden of a lockdown is high.
Mental health burden of familial death is high
Mental health services are more likely to be restricted because of high levels of Covid than by a lockdown.

The level of Covid has got to the point that it is effecting medical treatment of other problems in high prevalence areas - we need to consider options to reduce and not forget to support those effected by any restrictions put in place.

Nothing I have said is controversial - I will be interested to hear your options on a way forward
I mentioned it earlier with the reference to the boiling pan comparison..
 
I’d love to know, truly, how many otherwise healthy people have died from this. Does anyone have a reliable count?
 
THE ANSWER IS IN THE PUBLICATION. Medical history and context (first published 1600BC in the Edwin Smith Papyrus).

Yeah, that’s the whole point, isn’t it???
That the PCR test result alone cannot be used to confirm if somebody actually currently has the virus and is infective or not, without medical history and clinical context being known and assessed.
So many of these tests are performed without medical history or clinical context being applied, no?
 
Yeah, that’s the whole point, isn’t it???
That the PCR test result alone cannot be used to confirm if somebody actually currently has the virus and is infective or not, without medical history and clinical context being known and assessed.
So many of these tests are performed without medical history or clinical context being applied, no?
The PCR isn't available when most treatment begins. Scans are also very useful to understand what organs are being attacked. the PCR is only a part of the jigsaw.
 
Isn't he the new user who works on a hospital or was that someone else?

No Randy, you asked me on this thread who I was and explained what my old username was. I also have said on this thread today that I deal with the unemployed. So yes, could be a doctor, but no, I am not.

It would appear that you don't read the replies old fruit (y)
 
The PCR isn't available when most treatment begins. Scans are also very useful to understand what organs are being attacked. the PCR is only a part of the jigsaw.

Agreed.
But thankfully, the overwhelming majority of positive PCR tests aren’t in patients requiring treatment.
Do you acknowledge the implications of this - that the government are essentially saying the test result should not be accepted as conclusive without clinical context, yet the overwhelming majority of tests are performed without clinical context?
 
Agreed.
But thankfully, the overwhelming majority of positive PCR tests aren’t in patients requiring treatment.
Do you acknowledge the implications of this - that the government are essentially saying the test result should not be accepted as conclusive without clinical context, yet the overwhelming majority of tests are performed without clinical context?
I honestly don't understand what you're getting at. You aren't admitted to hospital to know if a PCR test result is going to say something or other. You're admitted for treatment and there are any number of factors to look at to know how to treat someone.

As far as general understanding of the status of the disease in the community, there are many equally important factors to test. The major issue is that we have no way of early identification of the superspreader who can infect 75% of people in one mass event (choir practice, wedding, funeral etc.).
 
I honestly don't understand what you're getting at. You aren't admitted to hospital to know if a PCR test result is going to say something or other. You're admitted for treatment and there are any number of factors to look at to know how to treat someone.

As far as general understanding of the status of the disease in the community, there are many equally important factors to test. The major issue is that we have no way of early identification of the superspreader who can infect 75% of people in one mass event (choir practice, wedding, funeral etc.).

I really don’t think it’s that complex, and that that the implications of the guidance are fairly straight forward 😂
You don’t understand me and I don’t understand you so I think it’s another to file under ‘those topics that probably won’t be resolved one way or an other over texts’.
As you were 👍
 
Back
Top