New coronavirus in/from China

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

This, folks, is a totally normal, sane, non-dystopian, non-propaganda headline in response to a poorly-identified flu bug that, at WORST case, leaves 99.96% of those who get it completely unharmed. Yep, that's right. All it took to get from "3 weeks to flatten the curve" to "talking kills your granny" was about 12 months of non stop fearmongering propaganda.

Just keep following orders.

Get your jab.

No agenda here.

Image
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Catweazle »

Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:59 pm.... at WORST case, leaves 99.96% of those who get it completely unharmed.
I once crashed my motorbike and broke my collar bone, arm, and two fingers, was knocked unconscious and spent a week in the head injuries ward. I lost a sizeable amount of skin.

I was completely unharmed.
Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

Catweazle wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:36 pm
Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:59 pm.... at WORST case, leaves 99.96% of those who get it completely unharmed.
I once crashed my motorbike and broke my collar bone, arm, and two fingers, was knocked unconscious and spent a week in the head injuries ward. I lost a sizeable amount of skin.

I was completely unharmed.
Do you truly have no comprehension of the level of imbecility to which you have been taken? When it become no longer possible to maintain this bullshit, you are going to have a lifetime of looking in the mirror, not to mention explaining to your grand-kids why you supported their beggaring and enslavement.
Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

More evidence, as if any more were needed, that lock-downs simply don't work

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... A.facebook
Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19
Eran Bendavid
Christopher Oh
Jay Bhattacharya
John P.A. Ioannidis
First published: 05 January 2021
https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:10.1111/eci.13484


Abstract
Background and Aims

The most restrictive non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).
Methods

We first estimate COVID‐19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, and the US. Using first‐difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, two countries that did not implement mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons).
Results

Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non‐significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI ‐5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (‐12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.
Conclusions

While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.
Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

History to 'vindicate Swedish COVID-19 strategy'


https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AlBKka69sNX/
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11272
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Meanwhile, in Alabama...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55641084
Fans of the University of Alabama football team gathered in the streets of Tuscaloosa in Alabama, ignoring social distancing.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Catweazle »

Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:59 pm More evidence, as if any more were needed, that lock-downs simply don't work
At last, some solid research.

Did you read it ? Then you'll have noticed how it uses two "control" countries, Sweden and South Korea, to judge the effects of lockdown on the other countries, and that the data graph they present ends in early April.

Meanwhile, in South Korea:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/ ... -emergency

And Sweden:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... demic.html
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Catweazle »

Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:49 pm History to 'vindicate Swedish COVID-19 strategy'


https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AlBKka69sNX/
That report, from August, might have been accurate then.
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5917
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by PS_RalphW »

Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:59 pm .. bug that, at WORST case, leaves 99.96% of those who get it completely unharmed.
0.12% of the population have already died from this harmless bug.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8855
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by clv101 »

PS_RalphW wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:49 am
Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:59 pm .. bug that, at WORST case, leaves 99.96% of those who get it completely unharmed.
0.12% of the population have already died from this harmless bug.
...and most us haven't yet had it.
Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

PS_RalphW wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:49 am
Little John wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:59 pm .. bug that, at WORST case, leaves 99.96% of those who get it completely unharmed.
0.12% of the population have already died from this harmless bug.
If you could manage to reign in the hysterical pant shitting for just a moment, it might help to note that the average annual death rate by all causes is 1% or more.
Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

https://lockdownsceptics.org/?fbclid=Iw ... UdKWhdibWs

Many outlets including the BBC ran with the headline: “2020 saw most excess deaths since World War Two“. The Guardian went even further: “2020 was deadliest year in a century in England and Wales, says ONS.” This, of course, is just one way of presenting the figures published yesterday, but for some reason it’s the one most of our crisis-loving media put front and centre.

In fact, as Lockdown Sceptics has previously reported, last year was less deadly than 2008 and most years before that. The BBC actually reported this fact, but made sure it was buried beneath the hysteria.
The Covid pandemic has caused excess deaths to rise to their highest level in the UK since World War Two.

There were close to 697,000 deaths in 2020 – nearly 85,000 more than would be expected based on the average in the previous five years.

This represents an increase of 14% – making it the largest rise in excess deaths for more than 75 years.

When the age and size of the population is taken into account, 2020 saw the worst death rates since the 2000s.

This measure – known as age-standardised mortality – takes into account population growth and age.

The data is only available until November – so the impact of deaths in December have not yet been taken into account – but it shows the death rate at that stage was at its highest in England since 2008.
Lockdown Sceptics reader Mark Ellse rewrote this report for the BBC to show what it should have said.
When the age and size of the population is taken into account, despite Covid, the death rate in 2020 is below average for the last 20 years.

This measure – known as age-standardised mortality – takes into account population growth and age.

On one hand, excess deaths are at their highest since World War Two, but once age and size of population are taken into account, 2020 death rates are similar to those in the last 10 years.

Raw death rates, with 697,000 deaths in 2020 seem alarming but our population is larger and older on average and death rates continue to be much less than they were only a decade or so ago.

Death rates fluctuate significantly from year to year. With 2019 having an unusually low rate, a significant increase in 2020 was expected. The ONS figures help put the Covid death toll over the past 12 months in a wider context.

What is clear is that 2020 was not a year in which the death rate was exceptionally large and that public panic over Covid has been misplaced.
The (real) BBC went for comment to King’s Fund Chief Executive Richard Murray:
The UK has one of the highest rates of excess deaths in the world, with more excess deaths per million people than most other European countries or the US. It will take a public inquiry to determine exactly what went wrong, but mistakes have been made. In a pandemic, mistakes cost lives. Decisions to enter lockdown have consistently come late, with the Government failing to learn from past mistakes or the experiences of other countries. The promised ‘protective ring’ around social care in the first wave was slow to materialise and often inadequate, a contributing factor to the excess deaths among care home residents last year. Like many countries, the UK was poorly prepared for this type of pandemic.
Mr Murray appears to be unaware of the peer-reviewed research published in the Lancet showing that lockdown timing was “not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people“. As for learning from other countries, perhaps we should have learned from hard lockdown countries such as Italy, France and Spain, with Covid mortality scarcely better than ours? Or alternatively from Sweden, which didn’t lock down and kept restaurants, bars, shops, leisure facilities and most schools open throughout the year.

As Lockdown Sceptics reported yesterday, 2020 in Sweden was scarcely more deadly than 2017 or 2018. Furthermore, 2019 was so mild that 2019 and 2020 added together had fewer deaths than 2017 and 2018 added together – and this is before any adjustments for age or population size. In other words, no real excess deaths at all, as this study from the University of Oslo concluded, putting the 2020 extra deaths primarily down to “mortality displacement” or “dry tinder” from 2019.

How can this be when Sweden remained largely open while the UK can’t kick its lockdown habit? Perhaps the answer is that lockdown itself kills people, as Recovery explained yesterday in a press release.
Recovery has been warning of this tsunami of excess deaths from Covid policies for months. It’s caused a deadly cocktail of fear, mental health problems, and the denial of vital services to patients in urgent need of life-saving care. For example:

One in three cancer patients says their treatment has been affected and 70% say their mental health has suffered in consequence. Cancer Research UK says cancer screening was cancelled for three million people and there has been a 39% drop in the seven key diagnostic tests for cancer between March and July – equivalent to 3.2m fewer tests in England alone.

*British Heart Foundation says that excess death from heart disease has risen with a disturbing 13% rise amongst those under 60 even as Covid was declining in May and June. “We believe that delays in people seeking care, coupled with a reduced access to routine tests and treatments during the pandemic, have likely contributed to the rise in excess deaths.”

*A Yonder poll in December revealed that seven out of 10 people in the UK are now seriously worried about the mental health of themselves or someone close. Problem drinking – a killer – has doubled and now affects around 9 million people. Experts report that suicide amongst young people is rising. Rising domestic abuse during the Spring lockdown offences rise by 18,000 between March and June 2020 (ONS 24.11.20).

*Bristol University’s risk experts say that the lockdowns of 2020 will cost 560,000 lives in the UK “because of the deep and prolonged recession they will cause”. The Government’s own prediction last summer was that more than 200,000 will die as a result of the first lockdown alone (ONS July 2020). It has refused to provide an update showing the additional impact of the tiers and lockdowns since.

*Government figures show that even during the Spring peak, restrictions played a huge role in excess deaths. Covid killed 25,000 people but restrictions caused at least 16,000 unnecessary deaths, as 6,000 people died because they didn’t attend A&E through fear and 10,000 people died in care homes because they could not access critical care in hospitals (ONS, August 2020).

*The UN World Food Programme has warned that 270,000,000 people face starvation as a result of the global impact of lockdowns and restrictions. This alone makes the response to Covid the single most lethal policy that Governments have ever adopted, potentially killing many times more than Mao, Stalin and Hitler combined.

Now we can see the combined impact of all this: it’s clear in the figures today and it’s a timebomb – the excess death from fear and restrictions will only grow while current policies continue.
Before the lockdowns, 9,000 people had waited more than a year for operations. Now it’s close to 200,000. These are not life-threatening conditions, but cause huge pain and misery. Worse, routine problems become life-threatening if left untreated. The problems we already have mean that the NHS will be in crisis for years.
Each of these people is suffering: so many are in pain, misery, and worse. For many, there is no hope to an end: no indication of a way out. The spiralling backlog of undiagnosed and untreated conditions will see the NHS in crisis for years.

Recovery Campaign Director Jon Dobinson warned that tougher lockdowns, as many are calling for, would only make things worse:
The shocking excess death figures released today have seen hysterical calls for even tougher lockdowns. But that would only make these problems worse. As experts have been warning from the outset, these toxic lockdowns merely kick the can down the road – they postpone problems, they don’t fix them. By prolonging the crisis and extending the period over which deaths take place, they are creating a disaster. We’ll see another easing over the summer, but that will be blamed for worse problems in the NHS by the autumn. As Government experts are already warning, vaccination will not end this – new strains and new pressures will see the deadly cycle continue for years unless we find a better way. Even now, the problems are getting worse. We have to recognise the issue and take urgent action before it spirals even further out of control. The latest NHS data shows even fewer non-Covid patients are now being treated. We’re spending billions on failed policies which have only made the pandemic worse. It’s time for our leaders to acknowledge and address the timebomb of untreated conditions and economic devastation. They are now a terrifying threat to the health and welfare of the UK in themselves. Otherwise, the excess deaths of 2021 and beyond will dwarf even these
.
Snail
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Snail »

I dont think the NHS will ever recover. But perhaps, for some, that's one of the added, positive outcomes of this sorry debacle.

In Scotland, click&correct and takeaways have been restricted. No evidence given which is no surprise. Has the data even been collected? Or just ignored because surely the evidence would be presented if supportable. Similar to small shops, of course.

That's the trouble with conspiracy smears and the like: it helps prevent constructive criticism.

---

Adjusted Excess deaths minus
Extra Care home deaths minus
Deaths from cancelled operations etc minus
Future Deaths from delayed treatment, diagnosis etc minus
Deaths from suicide, alcohol-suicide minus
Etc

The number has went negative. Between what we did and doing nothing, an alternative middle way might/could have been found. If consideration were allowed.

It's a pity too that a thick fog of war descended, so I'm not sure how much we've learned to help in a future, proper, pandemic. Mass testing using inaccurate tests. Changing the way deaths are recorded. Track&trace. Useful or not, who knows?
Last edited by Snail on Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:27 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5917
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by PS_RalphW »

Little John wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:00 am
If you could manage to reign in the hysterical pant shitting for just a moment, it might help to note that the average annual death rate by all causes is 1% or more.
I was simply pointing out the blatent factual factual error in your comment. Also, as widely reported, there have been 80,000+ excess deaths this year, in spite of the very low level of reported influenza deaths .

We all know you ascribe those excess deaths to influenza not covid, but there are at least 100,000 medical professionals out there in the UK who have direct experience of both, who fundamentally disagree with that claim.

I assert that without the lockdowns the UK would have seen 2% of the population die in 2020, possibly higher as the total collapse of the health service would have caused a lot of collateral damage.
Little John
Posts: 8780
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Re: New coronavirus in/from China

Post by Little John »

PS_RalphW wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:37 pm
Little John wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:00 am
If you could manage to reign in the hysterical pant shitting for just a moment, it might help to note that the average annual death rate by all causes is 1% or more.
I was simply pointing out the blatent factual factual error in your comment. Also, as widely reported, there have been 80,000+ excess deaths this year, in spite of the very low level of reported influenza deaths .

We all know you ascribe those excess deaths to influenza not covid, but there are at least 100,000 medical professionals out there in the UK who have direct experience of both, who fundamentally disagree with that claim.

I assert that without the lockdowns the UK would have seen 2% of the population die in 2020, possibly higher as the total collapse of the health service would have caused a lot of collateral damage.
No there have no been "80,000" excess deaths". It is not a simple as that, no matter how hysterically you may wish it to be. I have just posted an article that goes through, in some detail, the actual statistics. Read it if you want to understand how you have been deceived. Or, not.
Last edited by adam2 on Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: To remove insult.
Post Reply