India Covid Situation - Big Improvement

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
You are wasting your time smog. Folk only care what Whitty, Valance or Ferguson have to say on here.
One thing is absolutely certain, Whitty and Valance are far better informed than any of you lot. (Or the rest of us on here, for that matter).
How much power they have is a different question though. But still, they have become the conspiracy theorist/covidiots favourite boo boys. That’s by design, by the way, as it attracts some of the flak that should be aimed at Johnson and his government.
 

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants

Well-known member
One thing is absolutely certain, Whitty and Valance are far better informed than any of you lot. (Or the rest of us on here, for that matter).
How much power they have is a different question though. But still, they have become the conspiracy theorist/covidiots favourite boo boys. That’s by design, by the way, as it attracts some of the flak that should be aimed at Johnson and his government.
Correct, Whitty has worked on the front line and seen the devastation.

maybe if Boris listened to them rather than Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghen as the 2nd wave was becoming more apparent, we could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
maybe if Boris listened to them rather than Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghen as the 2nd wave was becoming more apparent, we could have saved tens of thousands of lives.

* absolutely would have. That Gupta and Heneghan were given such a platform when they are so derided and discredited (all self inflicted) by their peers and the scientific community, hints at something very dark.
 

bear66

Well-known member
* absolutely would have. That Gupta and Heneghan were given such a platform when they are so derided and discredited (all self inflicted) by their peers and the scientific community, hints at something very dark.
As said at the time, "there are other scientists than Sage that we listened to". I hope the discussions and advice last September come to light when the inquiry finally takes place.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
Well, Dr. Kory was one, and has been an ICU doctor for 30 years and you dismissed him, so medical doctor ir not, you've shown you don't discriminate.
I notice you still haven't answered my questions, you must have missed them the three times I've mentioned them, so I'll ask again huh?

So, seeing as you're not pushing it for anti-vaxers, and the UK, that means you would recommend that every adult gets the vaccine in the UK, yes?
Obviously, you agree that the current vaccines proposed to each age group are such low risk and a massive proven collective benefit?
If you could give a million vaccines or a million courses of IVM to a third world country, what would you give?
How many years IVM will they need?


I've not dismissed him, I don't know enough about him and aren't qualified to dismiss him, the same way you aren't qualified to treat his word as gospel.

For every name you have, there are 1000 that are saying/ doing as the WHO/ EMA/ USMA/ NHS are doing, as that's the right thing to do, based on the info we have.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
You are wasting your time smog. Folk only care what Whitty, Valance or Ferguson have to say on here.
Randy, you've not exactly been the voice of reason, neither is the chicken man.

I care what Whitty and Valance say when they agree with what 99% of the worlds doctors and medical professionals are pushing/ doing, I agree that Ferguson had a much better grasp of what can/ would happen than the likes of Yeadon, Tegnell, Henegahn etc.

Had those three (Whitty, Valance or Ferguson), and the thousands working to support them, been listened to from the start, and along the way, we would have had much lower numbers and wouldn't have needed to shut up shop as long, over the past year. Pro-active is better than re-active, or not reacting.
 

Randy

Well-known member
Randy, you've not exactly been the voice of reason, neither is the chicken man.

I care what Whitty and Valance say when they agree with what 99% of the worlds doctors and medical professionals are pushing/ doing, I agree that Ferguson had a much better grasp of what can/ would happen than the likes of Yeadon, Tegnell, Henegahn etc.

Had those three (Whitty, Valance or Ferguson), and the thousands working to support them, been listened to from the start, and along the way, we would have had much lower numbers and wouldn't have needed to shut up shop as long, over the past year. Pro-active is better than re-active, or not reacting.
The same Ferguson who's exact words were "Italy did it, now we can get away with it" who then proceeded to ignore his own advice to carry on his love affair? The same Ferguson who's responsible for the destruction of thousands of farmer's lives because of his outdated and quite frankly shocking modelling work?

Yeah that's a hard pass. It's true, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over but you only care what three of them have to say. I mean Whitty works for country that had one of the worst death rates in the world yet he's regarded as the next coming of Christ by some 🤣
 

smogontherhine

Active member
I went back to look at some of the literature out there concluding that ivermectin was not an effective treatment and started with this Colombian trial that was, and still is, the poster-child of the anti-ivermectin campaign.... it's been quoted everywhere....


I find in there at the bottom the following....

1623317708492.png

..in fact the EMA specifically cite this trial....
1623320459944.png

Now I wonder why I didn't read about this in any of the numerous articles I read ? Trial sponsored by vaccine manufacturers mysteriously finds that "competing" treatment is ineffective.... no sh%t Sherlock.

On top of that the average age of the trial group was 37... not exactly representative of at-risk groups.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
The same Ferguson who's exact words were "Italy did it, now we can get away with it" who then proceeded to ignore his own advice to carry on his love affair? The same Ferguson who's responsible for the destruction of thousands of farmer's lives because of his outdated and quite frankly shocking modelling work?

Yeah that's a hard pass. It's true, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over but you only care what three of them have to say. I mean Whitty works for country that had one of the worst death rates in the world yet he's regarded as the next coming of Christ by some 🤣
When were those exact words, and what about?

Do you mean the below, different words? In a context that is fine, implying that we could lockdown? Full article here:

In every crisis there is a turning point, that sets the path for what is to come. For Britain, now with one of the worst death rates in the developed world, that moment came eight months ago, in a fateful spring fortnight when the country debated whether or not to lock down, a fortnight of argument, dithering and sudden prominence of the epidemiological term “herd immunity”.

How does the man who, partly by chance, is now seen as the key scientist in that argument look back on 2020? What was going through his mind? And, the question history could well ask of Britain, why did we not lock down sooner?

It is possible now to retrace what was going on in those weeks, and the weeks before. In January, members of Sage, the government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China enacted this innovative intervention in pandemic control that was also a medieval intervention. “They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.”

Then, as infections seeded across the world, springing up like angry boils on the map, Sage debated whether, nevertheless, it would be effective here. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.” In February one of those boils raged just below the Alps. “And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”


That realisation was a fulcrum in British history, and in the life of Professor Ferguson.

On March 16, he and his colleagues gave a press conference. On the same day, Boris Johnson would announce the shielding of the elderly and vulnerable and an end to mass gatherings in a “national fightback against the new coronavirus”. It was the professor who provided the stark number. “Britain in lockdown,” was the Times headline. “Change of plan to save 250,000 lives.”


He was right about the 250k (in fact seemingly it would have been higher), proven by how we locked down a few times (albeit as reactive, not preventive) and still got to 150k. Nobody sane, on any model would have expected us to get to less than 250k by leaving everything open.

He had someone visit, in May (who he was in a relationship with seemingly, not that I care) and he himself had already had the virus, and had 2 weeks of isolation. To be honest, I'd trust him to be able to assess his own risk, but breaking the rules isn't ideal. He did resign for it though, unlike all the other rule-breakers.

You're blaming Ferguson for the pandemic/ farmers? What? If he had been listened to, earlier, and they had also not gone against sage in October-December then we would have been open months ago.

You're whinging about the wrong guy, had he been listened to more, then everyone would have been back to work earlier. The doubling rate was 3 days in March 20, yet it was taking 10 days to halve the cases we doubled (April/ May). For every 1 week he wasn't listened to, it cost us 3 weeks longer in lockdown. Most other places had similar graphs.

Now you're blaming Whitty, how? Wow, your level of understanding is shocking. He's been advocating for more measures all along, while BJ and the rest of his clowns have been pandering to people like you delaying lockdowns, and softer measures and the likes, you are your own problem, yet you don't even see it.

You clearly do not realise that Sage/ Whitty/ Valance/ Ferguson etc just provide the info and advice (largely stronger measures), and the government chose what to do with it, and it's them which have largely ignored it or used it in a reactive way, rather than a proactive way.

Do you really think those three were saying have two weeks in the pub, get hammered round your mates, go skiing, go to Cheltenham, pi$$ about for two weeks, back in March? You're clueless.

We've got one of the worst death rates from delaying lockdown in march 20, and again in October 20, and then coming out of it in December 20 when we still had 20k cases a day. I'll bet my hat you were all for all of that, hope you feel good about it
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
Sweden isn't the UK, I wouldn't expect our model to work there, and no country "did nothing" in the EU, so it was not tested anywhere near to the full extent, clearly very different places. They also had the benefit of not having the early infection levels we did (which were caused by pi$$ing about for 2 weeks), albeit they still got hit hard so people still took action into their own hands and acted in a sensible manner (the UK is clearly incapable of this).
But try comparing Sweden to any of their closest neighbours which are more similar comparisons, they've been a joke compared to what they could have not had. That's why they binned Tegnells ideas (very publicly) and why they went for more restrictive measures.
 

Randy

Well-known member
When were those exact words, and what about?

Do you mean the below, different words? In a context that is fine, implying that we could lockdown? Full article here:

In every crisis there is a turning point, that sets the path for what is to come. For Britain, now with one of the worst death rates in the developed world, that moment came eight months ago, in a fateful spring fortnight when the country debated whether or not to lock down, a fortnight of argument, dithering and sudden prominence of the epidemiological term “herd immunity”.

How does the man who, partly by chance, is now seen as the key scientist in that argument look back on 2020? What was going through his mind? And, the question history could well ask of Britain, why did we not lock down sooner?

It is possible now to retrace what was going on in those weeks, and the weeks before. In January, members of Sage, the government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China enacted this innovative intervention in pandemic control that was also a medieval intervention. “They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.”

Then, as infections seeded across the world, springing up like angry boils on the map, Sage debated whether, nevertheless, it would be effective here. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.” In February one of those boils raged just below the Alps. “And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”


That realisation was a fulcrum in British history, and in the life of Professor Ferguson.

On March 16, he and his colleagues gave a press conference. On the same day, Boris Johnson would announce the shielding of the elderly and vulnerable and an end to mass gatherings in a “national fightback against the new coronavirus”. It was the professor who provided the stark number. “Britain in lockdown,” was the Times headline. “Change of plan to save 250,000 lives.”


He was right about the 250k (in fact seemingly it would have been higher), proven by how we locked down a few times (albeit as reactive, not preventive) and still got to 150k. Nobody sane, on any model would have expected us to get to less than 250k by leaving everything open.

He had someone visit, in May (who he was in a relationship with seemingly, not that I care) and he himself had already had the virus, and had 2 weeks of isolation. To be honest, I'd trust him to be able to assess his own risk, but breaking the rules isn't ideal. He did resign for it though, unlike all the other rule-breakers.

You're blaming Ferguson for the pandemic/ farmers? What? If he had been listened to, earlier, and they had also not gone against sage in October-December then we would have been open months ago.

You're whinging about the wrong guy, had he been listened to more, then everyone would have been back to work earlier. The doubling rate was 3 days in March 20, yet it was taking 10 days to halve the cases we doubled (April/ May). For every 1 week he wasn't listened to, it cost us 3 weeks longer in lockdown. Most other places had similar graphs.

Now you're blaming Whitty, how? Wow, your level of understanding is shocking. He's been advocating for more measures all along, while BJ and the rest of his clowns have been pandering to people like you delaying lockdowns, and softer measures and the likes, you are your own problem, yet you don't even see it.

You clearly do not realise that Sage/ Whitty/ Valance/ Ferguson etc just provide the info and advice (largely stronger measures), and the government chose what to do with it, and it's them which have largely ignored it or used it in a reactive way, rather than a proactive way.

Do you really think those three were saying have two weeks in the pub, get hammered round your mates, go skiing, go to Cheltenham, pi$$ about for two weeks, back in March? You're clueless.

We've got one of the worst death rates from delaying lockdown in march 20, and again in October 20, and then coming out of it in December 20 when we still had 20k cases a day. I'll bet my hat you were all for all of that, hope you feel good about it
I'm all for people dying? Is that what you are accusing me of? Cracking assumption.

You'd be quite happy to be living under restrictions for the rest of your days I'm guessing? Soviet era Russia would have been a utopian paradise for people like you. 🤣

You don't care about people's salaries and ways of life, there isn't a magic money tree to keep people sat on furlough for the rest of their careers.

I get you might be anxious coming out of all these restrictions, that's absolutely fine but the tide is shifting, people are sick of it all now and the government and other G7 members are openly taking the **** out of us plebs in broad daylight.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
I went back to look at some of the literature out there concluding that ivermectin was not an effective treatment and started with this Colombian trial that was, and still is, the poster-child of the anti-ivermectin campaign.... it's been quoted everywhere....


I find in there at the bottom the following....


Now I wonder why I didn't read about this in any of the numerous articles I read ? Trial sponsored by vaccine manufacturers mysteriously finds that "competing" treatment is ineffective.... no sh%t Sherlock.

On top of that the average age of the trial group was 37... not exactly representative of at-risk groups.

A lot of vaccine companies also make drugs you know? GSK didn't even make a vaccine, but they do make LOADS of tablets. They and Merck have funded Ivermectin research for years. Wouldn't be surprised if the others did too.

The age thing is sometimes because they use nurses, effectively they're low risk of dying, but high chance of catching it, probably gets quicker results than the general population.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
I'm all for people dying? Is that what you are accusing me of? Cracking assumption.

You'd be quite happy to be living under restrictions for the rest of your days I'm guessing? Soviet era Russia would have been a utopian paradise for people like you. 🤣

You don't care about people's salaries and ways of life, there isn't a magic money tree to keep people sat on furlough for the rest of their careers.

I get you might be anxious coming out of all these restrictions, that's absolutely fine but the tide is shifting, people are sick of it all now and the government and other G7 members are openly taking the **** out of us plebs in broad daylight.
No, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about, and had we done what you wanted we would have ended up with even more deaths.
It doesn't mean you want people to die, far from it, but it doesn't mean more wouldn't, as proven by pretty much every covid model, and they're dealing with better info and have more resources than you or I.

WTF are you on about? Had we had locked down earlier we would have had LESS lockdown, can you not grasp this? I want less lockdown the same as you, but the way to do it is to stop letting cases rocket, not try and fix them in a half-assed way when on top of a case mountain, or not just ignore it and hope we can find another 50k nurse from somewhere to treat everyone.

I paid peoples salaries out of my own pocket, and largely kept people off furlough, despite work stopping, and topped salaries up to full whilst I had zero income (losing about 30k a month), so don't talk to me about cost, you're being very nieve. Furlough/ loss would have been less if we had locked down earlier.
The way to reduce cost is to prevent the problem from happening, like with almost anything.

I'm not anxious in the slightest, not one tiny bit, and never have been (y) I'm effectively zero risk, and have no family members who are at real risk, but there are millions who aren't and there's already 150k who are dead, and we could have had that 2/3rds lower.

Of course, the tide is turning (for us anyway), so it should, we've 1 jabbed nearly 80% of adults and double jabbed 55%, but this problem has been largely solved by control measures, vaccines and science 👏👏👏, and certainly wouldn't have been solved without it (not wihotu at least double the deaths). Had we not locked down it would have been worse death and economically, had we locked down earlier we would have had less death and fared better economically.
 

smogontherhine

Active member
Just a nice piece of evidence on these "thoroughly tested" vaccines.... "does it matter" is a relevant question in terms of risk/reward, but knowing the facts would be good...

1623329949280.png
 

Randy

Well-known member
No, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about, and had we done what you wanted we would have ended up with even more deaths.
It doesn't mean you want people to die, far from it, but it doesn't mean more wouldn't, as proven by pretty much every covid model, and they're dealing with better info and have more resources than you or I.

WTF are you on about? Had we had locked down earlier we would have had LESS lockdown, can you not grasp this? I want less lockdown the same as you, but the way to do it is to stop letting cases rocket, not try and fix them in a half-assed way when on top of a case mountain, or not just ignore it and hope we can find another 50k nurse from somewhere to treat everyone.

I paid peoples salaries out of my own pocket, and largely kept people off furlough, despite work stopping, and topped salaries up to full whilst I had zero income (losing about 30k a month), so don't talk to me about cost, you're being very nieve. Furlough/ loss would have been less if we had locked down earlier.
The way to reduce cost is to prevent the problem from happening, like with almost anything.

I'm not anxious in the slightest, not one tiny bit, and never have been (y) I'm effectively zero risk, and have no family members who are at real risk, but there are millions who aren't and there's already 150k who are dead, and we could have had that 2/3rds lower.

Of course, the tide is turning (for us anyway), so it should, we've 1 jabbed nearly 80% of adults and double jabbed 55%, but this problem has been largely solved by control measures, vaccines and science 👏👏👏, and certainly wouldn't have been solved without it (not wihotu at least double the deaths). Had we not locked down it would have been worse death and economically, had we locked down earlier we would have had less death and fared better economically.
Lockdowns are over, that argument is done to death.
Unfortunately there are 5 million people on NHS waiting lists now as covid took precedent to everything else, I'm sure those 5 million are chuffed to pieces with that news.

Who are these millions still at high risk of covid deaths?
 

Randy

Well-known member
How was the NHS meant to operate with Covid Running riot? Impossible task.
They could have invested in the NHS instead of spunking money on dodgy contracts for mates for a start off.
I mean who determines that a covid patient takes priority over someone half way through cancer treatment? The excess deaths that have happened out of hospital were not all covid deaths remember.

Hancock trips himself up again earlier today by telling the parliamentary committee they'd stopped blanket DNR's last year. The question is, why were they ever implemented and why weren't the public informed.
 

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants

Well-known member
Sweden isn't the UK, I wouldn't expect our model to work there, and no country "did nothing" in the EU, so it was not tested anywhere near to the full extent, clearly very different places. They also had the benefit of not having the early infection levels we did (which were caused by pi$$ing about for 2 weeks), albeit they still got hit hard so people still took action into their own hands and acted in a sensible manner (the UK is clearly incapable of this).
But try comparing Sweden to any of their closest neighbours which are more similar comparisons, they've been a joke compared to what they could have not had. That's why they binned Tegnells ideas (very publicly) and why they went for more restrictive measures.
I’ve done modelling, it becomes better with more and more data. So many differences between the UK and Sweden that would effect the outcomes.
oxford Uni issued a statement saying they/Ferguson never modelled Sweden. They are correct.
 

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants

Well-known member
They could have invested in the NHS instead of spunking money on dodgy contracts for mates for a start off.
I mean who determines that a covid patient takes priority over someone half way through cancer treatment? The excess deaths that have happened out of hospital were not all covid deaths remember.

Hancock trips himself up again earlier today by telling the parliamentary committee they'd stopped blanket DNR's last year. The question is, why were they ever implemented and why weren't the public informed.
How do you train up nurses and doctors to man everything in the space of a month?
 
Top
X