Coronavirus

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Paul

and lets not forget, the UK 'death rate' is nonsense anyway.

As the reports keep telling you

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

I've been saying this since it started, absolute disgrace.

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

The truth wouldn't frighten the gullible and little children would it.

Spot on, papa.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Paul

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

The odds of dying from a car crash within 28 days of any particular point in time is quite low, so you can mostly discount it.

The question of comorbidities makes it an academic question. If I'm running from a lion and having covid makes me unable to outrun the lion, is Covid responsible for my death or is the lion?

Compare situations:

Patient B has diabetes then catches covid and dies, they could have lived another 60 years so surely that can be blamed on covid

Patient A has cancer then catches covid and dies, they were probably going to die in the next year or 2 anyway. So is it fair to count that as covid?


Basically they would have to ask doctors to decide the reason of death and they would have to make some educated guess and this just side steps that whole thing.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Paul

and lets not forget, the UK 'death rate' is nonsense anyway.

As the reports keep telling you

They did not necessarily die from the virus, they simply died with 28 days of a positive test. They could have been runover, died from natural causes, had a heart attack, accident, or any other number of things. In fact, they could have had no CV symptoms at all.

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

Well the number of hospital admissions and those on ventilators isn't exactly small, and is increasing.

Link

Sir Mark Walport, a member of Sage told the BBC: "On the 19 March, just before the first set of widespread restrictions, hospital admissions were 586 in England and on the 6 October they were 524.
"So we are very close to the situation at the beginning of March."

But this masks a stark regional picture - with cases doubling around twice as fast in the North West, Yorkshire and the West Midlands compared to the whole of England.
It also shows there has been an eight-fold increase in cases in people over 65 as the epidemic surge that started in younger age groups bleeds into the rest of the population.

Over 65s are at greater risk of more severe symtoms and death.

[jfman]

The Great Barrington declaration has some famous signatories.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronvair...etter-12099947

Dr Harold Shipman is very apt.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

The truth wouldn't frighten the gullible and little children would it.

This is fair to an extent, the experts look at the number but have in their head "5% of those are false positives, 15% of those would have died anyway etc" (these are made up numbers)

So they can make some educated decision. The public just see the number and go "AAAAH BIG DEATH NUMBER".

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Why on earth cant we simply count those actually killed by the virus.

You can if you want, just check the number of deaths last year with the ONS, compare it to this year and the difference, roughly, is the damage inflicted by the virus

[Taf]

Fraud, the tip of a huge iceberg

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54472324

[Mad Max]

Some pub owners are not too happy with the female version of Hitler.


https://twitter.com/capitalscotnews/...890952194?s=21

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Some pub owners are not too happy with the female version of Hitler.


https://twitter.com/capitalscotnews/...890952194?s=21

I’m sure they’ll be equally enraged at Boris when he closes pubs in vast areas of England.

Seperately there’s a a few stories floating around about Sweden’s success story:

There are three big new stories out on Sweden, in Science, the Economist and the NYT. They show that:

Sweden’s overall Covid fatality rate so far has been on a par with America’s and roughly ten times that of Norway and Finland;
Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, expected to see Covid antibodies in 40 per cent of Stockholm county residents by the end of May but the actual level was 6 per cent;
Not locking down did not save Sweden’s economy, which shrank faster that its neighbours’ in the second quarter of the year, by 8.3 per cent.
More than 40 per cent of Covid deaths in Sweden have been in care homes, suggesting a strategy of shielding the vulnerable while letting the rest of the country stick to business as usual didn’t work either.

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/20...ensemaker-9oct

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Some pub owners are not too happy with the female version of Hitler.


https://twitter.com/capitalscotnews/...890952194?s=21

Time for a revolution-i'm ready to take over, Generalisimo papa won't let you down.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You can if you want, just check the number of deaths last year with the ONS, compare it to this year and the difference, roughly, is the damage inflicted by the virus

That's not really true. 2018 and 2019 had fewer deaths than preceding years, hence the deadwood theory.

[nomadking]

It cannot be denied that there have been many deaths of people who were not elderly, in care homes, or would've been expected to die from regular seasonal flu.

[jfman]

There’ll also be less deaths from other causes - road deaths, etc. So to equate the two years isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Obviously, it’ll suit the “it’s just a bad cold” narrative to pretend that 2020 was no different to 2019.

ONS are also giving 5 year averages on their stats.

Looking at the year-to-date (using the most up-to-date data we have available), the number of deaths up to 25 September 2020 was 453,771, which is 53,888 more than the five-year average. Of the deaths registered by 25 September, 52,856 mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate, 11.6% of all deaths in England and Wales.

Looking at the year-to-date for England and Wales separately, the number of deaths for England was 425,995, which is 52,345 (14.0%) more than the five-year average. Of these, 50,195 (11.8%) mentioned COVID-19. In Wales, the number of deaths up to 25 September 2020 was 27,114, which is 2,049 (8.2%) more than the five-year average; of these, 2,587 deaths (9.5%) mentioned COVID-19.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...5september2020

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Over 65s are at greater risk of more severe symtoms and death.

Frankly, I’d rather take my chances living my life rather than cowering in fear indoors for the rest of my life.

If people want a lock-down, they just need to lock down. No need to rely on the government to tell them to do it. Leave the rest of us alone.

The second wave is good evidence that lock-downs only slow the virus, they don’t eliminate it. How many more waves must we endure before people wake up to this reality?