The link LJ posted just two posts above is full of figures. Did you not read it?kenneal - lagger wrote:Your always asking for figures, Steve. Now it's your turn to come up with some.Little John wrote:This lockdown has and will continue to shorten the lives of far more than its proponents claim it has saved.
New coronavirus in/from China
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
The majority of those predicted to die are long term as a result of delayed treatment that can't be cured and if the civil servants doing the calculations have a reason to "tweak" the figures as many do this is the ideal place to inflate the losses as neither they, nor we, will be around to question the accuracy of those figures. Most of those civil servants will be looking for jobs in the private sector to boost their pensions in the near future so industry biased reports are to their advantage.
Alternatively these long term figures are just based on guesswork.
Alternatively these long term figures are just based on guesswork.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
Little John
More numbers for you Ken Neil. I take it you will ignore these ones as well.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/495421-inflate ... ity-rates/
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/495421-inflate ... ity-rates/
This is daft. Yes, the 'official' Covid count is an overestimate via the mechanism described above, but is is also an underestimate (by a far larger magnitude) due to the deaths of the untested (or false negative tests) as evidenced by the huge disparity with excess deaths. Why doesn't the RT article mention this? Because it is attempting to mislead.Little John wrote:More numbers for you Ken Neil. I take it you will ignore these ones as well.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/495421-inflate ... ity-rates/
Hancock's 'urgent review' is classic bit of misdirection.
-
Little John
That article was written by Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England.
The bullshit you are pushing and supporting is running out of road CLV.
The bullshit you are pushing and supporting is running out of road CLV.
This week we were told that, in the UK at least, anyone who has had a positive Covid test and who then died – from any illness – would be recorded as a coronavirus-related death. No matter when they die.
This means that someone could have tested positive in March, with no symptoms of Covid at all, and who then died in July, would be recorded in the official figures, as having died of Covid-related causes. Even if they were hit by a bus.
Even more weird is the fact that there does not seem to be any time limit to this. So, you could test positive in March 2020, then die in March 2040, and still be recorded as having died of Covid. I doubt this will happen, but it could.
To be honest, I have known something very strange has been going on with the UK data for some time. The UK has not provided any figures on how many people have recovered from Covid-19. In almost all countries, figures are provided on the total number of cases, the total number of deaths, the number of active cases and the number who have recovered.
...it is not just the UK that is hyping up Covid deaths. A reader of my blog sent me an analysis of the WHO advice on death certification, which seems accurate. In his analysis:
1. If you die of anything and they suspect you might have it, with no tests and perhaps just because everyone else is assumed to have it, then covid-19 goes on the death certificate as the primary cause of death. Broadly speaking... unless the patient dies of something that is sudden and cannot be a long-term comorbidity.
2. If you have the same symptoms as flu or pneumonia you must be put down as Covid-19 and not as due to an influenza-type illness.
3. Any certificates that are in any way erroneous with regard to the above must be recoded to conform.
4. Any Covid-19 codes that are wrong should not be fixed in any circumstances
To me it looks like a recipe for a systematic over inflation of death counts, designed to disallow or circumvent clinical judgement.
In the US Dr Scott Jensen, a physician and a member of the Minnesota senate, has been notified by the board of medical practice in Minnesota that he is being investigated for public statements he has made.
Essentially, he is being accused of spreading misinformation about the completion of death certificates, and the overestimation of deaths from Covid-19. Also, that he has been comparing Covid-19 to influenza, in terms of how serious it is. This is considered ‘reckless advice.’
For pointing out the over-reporting of Covid-19 deaths and daring to claim that Covid-19 is no worse than a bad flu season, he could be struck off the medical register.
So, it seems that around the world the same things are being seen. A seemingly coordinated attempt to vastly overinflate the number of deaths caused by Covid-19, and to drive home how deadly it is.
For example, a few days ago, a new story hit the headlines in the UK, warning of hundreds of thousands of deaths this winter.
‘The UK could see about 120,000 new coronavirus deaths in a second wave of infections this winter, scientists say.
Asked to model a “reasonable� worst-case scenario, they suggest a range between 24,500 and 251,000 of virus-related deaths in hospitals alone, peaking in January and February.’
Where did this come from? It was a model, using exactly the same assumptions as that created by Prof Neil Ferguson from Imperial College London in March. The one that warned of 500,000 deaths in the UK. Only out by a factor of ten. Probably far more, because many of the deaths recorded as due to Covid have been, simply, wrong.
How certain was their prediction of 120,000 deaths? Professor Stephen Holgate, who chaired the report then said. ‘This is not a prediction – but it is a possibility.’ A possibility… Perhaps it should be published in the Journal of possibility-based medicine. A journal where you simply make up facts, then see how many people run around in sheer terror.
What is now happening is extremely disturbing. Covid-19 has certainly been a serious disease, but the flu epidemics of 1957 and 1967 were just as bad, if not worse, with regard to total fatalities. They were both over a million, and Covid has a long way to go to match that.
In addition, in those epidemics far more younger people died. With Covid-19, if you are under fifteen, the chance of dying of it is around one in two million, which is three times less that the chance of being struck by lightning.
Across Europe, the excess in deaths has simply disappeared. There is no increased mortality anywhere to be seen. Whilst we are told about outbreaks of Covid deaths in various cities, the rate of new infection in these ‘outbreaks’ is less than one in a thousand. Which is not really an outbreak at all.
Despite this, mask wearing is to be mandatory. When Covid-19 took off, no-one was wearing a mask in my unit, unless they were helping a patient, and there was no social distancing between staff. Now the trust has decreed masks must be worn at all times and social distancing is being ruthlessly enforced. A bell now rings, and we must wipe all surfaces in front of us…
The reality is that Covid-19 has all but gone in the UK and Europe. The slow, but inexorable rise in deaths in the UK is being driven by the fact that anyone who has ever had a positive Covid-19 test, who dies, is recorded as having died of Covid.
Yet, as Covid-19 disappears, mask wearing and social distancing is being enforced as never before
-
Little John
Ahhh...right...clv101 wrote:So why didn't Kendrick discuss the difference between excess deaths and official covid deaths? What's not said in an article is often more telling than what is, can identify who is an honest broker working for better public understanding and who's is pushing some kind of agenda.
So anyone who does not follow the current beurgois line is not an "honest broker" eh? And, of course, that's just the polite end of this kind of narrative isn't it. At the other end, we find "Gammons" and "Karens" don't we.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous people like you sound to the rest of us now? Not just on this, but on a whole host of other topics
-
Little John
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
LJ, do you have any idea how ridiculous people like you sound to the rest of us now? Not just on this, but on a whole host of other topics?
Sorry about the plagiarism but I couldn't think of a better way to express my feelings, and no doubt, those of many others here. By no means do most people agree with you. Just look at the number of people wearing masks where they are not required to. But then are these all "gammons" and "karens" or whatever the derogatory name is for those who wish to take on the precautionary principle?
Sorry about the plagiarism but I couldn't think of a better way to express my feelings, and no doubt, those of many others here. By no means do most people agree with you. Just look at the number of people wearing masks where they are not required to. But then are these all "gammons" and "karens" or whatever the derogatory name is for those who wish to take on the precautionary principle?
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
So Russian hasn't deliberately poisoned three people in this country in the last few years and several others in collateral damage with two people dying in the process?
Russia is very bad! Or at least the people in charge are.
At least all our brains haven't been Spiked!
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
Little John
Ordinary surgical masks offer no protection from virus particles. That is a scientifically verifiable fact. Their only function is to limit bacteria particles (which are massively larger than virus particles) and saliva escaping the mouth. Home made face-coverings are even more laughably non-protective in terms of virus particles.
The type of PPE that is typically required to protect form virus particles involves air tight whole face masks in conjunction with positive air pressure feeding into the mask in order to push out any stray particles that may make their way in.
To be precise, the minimum recommended specification for a mask to protect against virus particles is N99.5 or N100 A2P3 (aerosol + particulates) filters on a face fitted half-face respirator, with safety specs which seal around the eye socket. Or, at least, it was the minimum specification prior to this current insanity.
Further to the above, the type of ill-fitting, paper masks that are the ones mainly available to the public allow air to leak from the sides of the mask when the person breathes out may actually be worse than not wearing one. Instead of the air leaving their mouth being under relatively low pressure it is, instead, concentrated into two sideways streams of very high pressure air. All of which means that any virus particles leaving the mouth will likely travel further than if they had left the mouth directly,
But, all of the above is pretty moot anyway. The WHO (World Health Organization) has already stated, on the record, that anyone who has Covid 19, but is asymptomatic (which is at least 60% of all people who get it) has an extremely low chance of passing it on to anyone else. In other words, if they are asymptomatic, they are also shedding extremely low levels of virus particles, if any. On the other hand, anyone who is symptomatic is required to self isolate at home anyway and so will not be out and about spreading the virus.
All of which means, for the vast majority of the public, including the 60% of people who may be infected with Covid 19 but who are asymptomatic, paper face masks and homemade face coverings are utterly useless and irrelevant in equal measure.
Or, at least, that was the WHO's recommendation - for about a week.
So far as can be ascertained, it still is. More or less. But, it's hard to tell since they suddenly and without warning pulled all reference to their original stated position on face masks from their web site one week after making their initial position clear. There has been speculation this was as a result of certain Western governments such as the UK leaning on the WHO, given that the stated mask policies of such governments are overtly based on the (so far as can be established, more or less non existent) danger of passing on the virus asymptomatically. Meanwhile, all MSM reports on the WHO's original statement are now broken links. I know this because I initially bookmarked all such MSM reports when they came out.
This is not about keeping people safe. It never was. It is about compliance.
The type of PPE that is typically required to protect form virus particles involves air tight whole face masks in conjunction with positive air pressure feeding into the mask in order to push out any stray particles that may make their way in.
To be precise, the minimum recommended specification for a mask to protect against virus particles is N99.5 or N100 A2P3 (aerosol + particulates) filters on a face fitted half-face respirator, with safety specs which seal around the eye socket. Or, at least, it was the minimum specification prior to this current insanity.
Further to the above, the type of ill-fitting, paper masks that are the ones mainly available to the public allow air to leak from the sides of the mask when the person breathes out may actually be worse than not wearing one. Instead of the air leaving their mouth being under relatively low pressure it is, instead, concentrated into two sideways streams of very high pressure air. All of which means that any virus particles leaving the mouth will likely travel further than if they had left the mouth directly,
But, all of the above is pretty moot anyway. The WHO (World Health Organization) has already stated, on the record, that anyone who has Covid 19, but is asymptomatic (which is at least 60% of all people who get it) has an extremely low chance of passing it on to anyone else. In other words, if they are asymptomatic, they are also shedding extremely low levels of virus particles, if any. On the other hand, anyone who is symptomatic is required to self isolate at home anyway and so will not be out and about spreading the virus.
All of which means, for the vast majority of the public, including the 60% of people who may be infected with Covid 19 but who are asymptomatic, paper face masks and homemade face coverings are utterly useless and irrelevant in equal measure.
Or, at least, that was the WHO's recommendation - for about a week.
So far as can be ascertained, it still is. More or less. But, it's hard to tell since they suddenly and without warning pulled all reference to their original stated position on face masks from their web site one week after making their initial position clear. There has been speculation this was as a result of certain Western governments such as the UK leaning on the WHO, given that the stated mask policies of such governments are overtly based on the (so far as can be established, more or less non existent) danger of passing on the virus asymptomatically. Meanwhile, all MSM reports on the WHO's original statement are now broken links. I know this because I initially bookmarked all such MSM reports when they came out.
This is not about keeping people safe. It never was. It is about compliance.
-
Little John
The new law that has come into effect today has certain exemptions. These are:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... de?#f00010
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
For those people who consider all of this as bullshit at best and a sinister infringement on liberty at worst, you know what to do.
Therefore, if any person merely self-identifies as experiencing "severe distress" at having to put on a face mask, they are exempt from the legislation requiring them to do so. This should also mean they cannot be fined for refusing to do so on that basis. Furthermore, if any shop then tried to refuse to serve you, you could threaten them with taking them to court for discrimination under the Equalities act 2010 which clear states that no discrimination may occur on the ground of any mental impairment. "severe distress" clearly falls under the heading of mental impairment. The specific section of the 2010 act:For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P�) has a reasonable excuse include those where—
(a)P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—
(i)because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or
(ii)without severe distress;
(b)P is accompanying, or providing assistance to, another person (“B�) and B relies on lip reading to communicate with P;
(c)P removes their face covering to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to themselves or others;
(d)P is entering or within a relevant place to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and does not have a face covering with them;
(e)it is reasonably necessary for P to eat or drink, P removes their face covering to eat or drink;
(f)P has to remove their face covering to take medication;
(g)a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment, requires that P remove their face covering in order to verify P’s identity;
(h)in a registered pharmacy, an employee of that registered pharmacy acting in the course of their employment, requires that P remove their face covering in order to assist in the provision of healthcare or healthcare advice to P;
(i)a relevant person requests that P remove their face covering
Experiencing "severe distress" at having to wear a mask is clearly going to have a substantial and long term effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day to day activities such as shopping, for instance.Disability
(1)A person (P) has a disability if—
(a)P has a physical or mental impairment, and
(b)the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... de?#f00010
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
For those people who consider all of this as bullshit at best and a sinister infringement on liberty at worst, you know what to do.