New coronavirus in/from China

[PS_RalphW]

As "Covid19" deaths rise, other causes deaths fall.

In other words, in terms of all cause deaths, there was a bit of a bump in the spring and early summer, followed by bugger all since then. Which is why all cause deaths, for the year 2020, look set to hit the annual average or thereabouts.

That, in case you haven't worked it out yet, is known as a scam

Other causes deaths were below average in Jan - March before Covid and lockdown because it was a below average year for influenza.
Other causes deaths per above average in April possibly because Covid was overwhelming the health service which was rapidly adapting to the situation.
Other causes deaths deaths this winter are lower because of very low influenza because of the lockdowns.

Over the year as a whole excess deaths are about 90,000 which matches quite closely with the ONS figure for deaths listing Covid on the certificate.

Evidence of scam : 0

[Little John]

Over the year as a whole excess deaths are about 90,000 which matches quite closely with the ONS figure for deaths listing Covid on the certificate.

That is a bare, bald lie. Provide the evidence.

I already know you know what "excess deaths" means. So, don't think you can play silly fuckers with me.

[Little John]

So, you are not even going to try and defend your lie.

How pathetic.

[Little John]

Meanwhile:

The number of Covid-related deaths in England involving individuals under the age of 60 and free from a pre-existing condition is 377. This is for the entire period of the pandemic.

Yep, that's not a typo

377

https://t.co/lIaln2odu4?amp=1

[Little John]

[PS_RalphW]

So, you are not even going to try and defend your lie.

How pathetic.

There is no need. The truth is in the numbers.

[PS_RalphW]

Meanwhile:

The number of Covid-related deaths in England involving individuals under the age of 60 and free from a pre-existing condition is 377. This is for the entire period of the pandemic.

Yep, that's not a typo

377

https://t.co/lIaln2odu4?amp=1

What was the life expectancy of those with pre-existing conditions who died? And what counts as a pre-existing condition? I accept that modern medicine keeps many millions alive in the first world for decades longer than the same person in the same condition would survive in the poorer half of the global population. That probably accounts for much of the lower cfr in places like India and Africa. Although many of the conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease are themselves largely a result of our first World social structures and food industries, I am not yet prepared to consign the unfortunate lower income demographic who cannot afford decent food or spacious housing or unpolluted city air to an early grave so that we can return to football matches, restaurant eating or nights at the opera.

[Catweazle]

Meanwhile:

The number of Covid-related deaths in England involving individuals under the age of 60 and free from a pre-existing condition is 377. This is for the entire period of the pandemic.

Yep, that's not a typo

377

https://t.co/lIaln2odu4?amp=1

Perhaps you could explain the significance of this post.

Am I to assume that anyone over 60yrs is disposable ? Same for anyone not in perfect health ?

Is this your "final solution" ?

[Little John]

So, you are not even going to try and defend your lie.

How pathetic.

There is no need. The truth is in the numbers.

You are not providing the evidence because you can't because you know there is no evidence whatsoever for your lie (deleted - KN_L).

[Little John]

Meanwhile:

The number of Covid-related deaths in England involving individuals under the age of 60 and free from a pre-existing condition is 377. This is for the entire period of the pandemic.

Yep, that's not a typo

377

https://t.co/lIaln2odu4?amp=1

Perhaps you could explain the significance of this post.

Am I to assume that anyone over 60yrs is disposable ? Same for anyone not in perfect health ?

Is this your "final solution" ?

Grow up (deleted - KN_L) and (a) look at the numbers for all age groups by existence of comorbidities, (b) bear those numbers in mind given (assuming we are to even believe the bullshit Covid "test") the total number of people infected and (c) note that they are not even death of people by Covid 19. They are deaths of people "with" Covid19. That is to say, people who "died within 28 days" of a now known to be bullshit test.

[Catweazle]

When I look at who is viewing this forum I often see "Bots". That's the only reason I reply to LJs increasingly lunatic posts, it's infection control, I hate the idea that other gullible people will spread them.

I've had enough now, the numbers who could believe his rubbish must be small enough to be insignificant.

[clv101]

When these new strains were discovered to be significantly more infectious (+50-80%) than the older strains, rapidly becoming the dominate strain, pretty much always the following comment in the media was along the lines of "but there's no evidence it's any more deadly etc".

This highlights, yet again, the broad scale failure to understand the exponential function.

A Covid strain that is 50% more infectious is MUCH WORSE than a Covid strain that is 50% more deadly (also note how much more deadly viruses like SARS, MERS, Ebola etc don't/didn't kill millions).

Adam Kucharski (author of Rules of Contagion) gave this nice example yesterday:

As an example, suppose current R=1.1, infection fatality risk is 0.8%, generation time is 6 days, and 10k people infected (plausible for many European cities recently). So we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x 0.8% = 129 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread...

What happens if fatality risk increases by 50%? By above, we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x (0.8% x 1.5) = 193 new fatalities.

Now suppose transmissibility increases by 50%. By above, we'd expect 10000 x (1.1 x 1.5)^5 x 0.8% = 978 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread.

The above is just an illustrative example, but the key message: an increase in something that grows exponentially (i.e. transmission) can have far more effect than the same proportional increase in something that just scales an outcome (i.e. severity).

This is why the government got so spooked before Christmas. I expect they were told in no uncertain terms that lifting R by 50-80% would very bad and additional measures beyond tier 3 were required ASAP. It's clear tier three restrictions, and the firebreak lockdown we had in Wales are/was sufficient to bring R under 1 for the original strains of the virus. It's not (yet) clear that tier/level 4 in England and Wales is enough to contain the new strain.

[Little John]

Meanwhile, going from the date of my birth (1963) to the present and taking into account population growth, 2020 is shaping up to be 13th in the list of highest mortality rates for that period.

[Little John]

When these new strains were discovered to be significantly more infectious (+50-80%) than the older strains, rapidly becoming the dominate strain, pretty much always the following comment in the media was along the lines of "but there's no evidence it's any more deadly etc".

This highlights, yet again, the broad scale failure to understand the exponential function.

A Covid strain that is 50% more infectious is MUCH WORSE than a Covid strain that is 50% more deadly (also note how much more deadly viruses like SARS, MERS, Ebola etc don't/didn't kill millions).

Adam Kucharski (author of Rules of Contagion) gave this nice example yesterday:

As an example, suppose current R=1.1, infection fatality risk is 0.8%, generation time is 6 days, and 10k people infected (plausible for many European cities recently). So we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x 0.8% = 129 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread...

What happens if fatality risk increases by 50%? By above, we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x (0.8% x 1.5) = 193 new fatalities.

Now suppose transmissibility increases by 50%. By above, we'd expect 10000 x (1.1 x 1.5)^5 x 0.8% = 978 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread.

The above is just an illustrative example, but the key message: an increase in something that grows exponentially (i.e. transmission) can have far more effect than the same proportional increase in something that just scales an outcome (i.e. severity).

This is why the government got so spooked before Christmas. I expect they were told in no uncertain terms that lifting R by 50-80% would very bad and additional measures beyond tier 3 were required ASAP. It's clear tier three restrictions, and the firebreak lockdown we had in Wales are/was sufficient to bring R under 1 for the original strains of the virus. It's not (yet) clear that tier/level 4 in England and Wales is enough to contain the new strain.

What utterly unsubstantiated, hysterical drivel. You should be ashamed of yourself if you make any claim to be a scientist.

One thing is for sure, despite your preponderance on here, you jokers are, in truth, representative of a rapidly shrinking demographic which, surprise surprise, has a significant overlap with Remainers. The singular connection being that, in both instances, you are apologists for power.

Malcolm X had a word for people like you. He called them "house negros".

Meanwhile, all of us field negros see people like you for what you really are even if you are incapable or, more likely, unwilling to see yourselves.

[UndercoverElephant]

Grow up you hysterical pant shitter

Just imagine somebody unbiased, reading this exchange. Which one of the participants do you think they'd conclude is an "hysterical pant shitter"?

Somebody round here needs to grow up, and it isn't Chris or Ralph. The only person posting hysterically is you.