a steep decline in positive tests since lockdown was eased including a 40% drop in the past week.
But we should ‘follow the science’ despite it now being clear that the scientists hadn’t a f*cking clue and lacked the humility to admit it. :hehe:
Stupid, spineless, fat, blithering idiot and his grinch faced mong should be horse whipped for what they have done to our economy imo.
So what do you think we should have done?Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
The lockdown started too late which is why we have some of the worst figures in the western world
And it takes around 7-14 days for the virus to show up, so there is nothing in the data that says we should have eased lockdown earlier
That's absolute rubbish. What do you think lockdown achieved, or potentially could achieve?
An earlier lockdown would put us in the NZ position, where a nation remains at risk until the music is faced. This was never about the science, if it was then the vulnerable would have been shielded, and the healthy would NOT have been quarantined. The only way through any corona virus is herd immunity and all ****wit Hanjob has done is to impede nature and slow it down. Not saved a single life, but cost many, and destroyed the country at the same time. If you look beyond facebook and the BBC/SKY etc and research what the actual experts have to say, it is a totally different story.
You got to love the rhetoric here...
Anti Lockdown / Anti BLM Protest causes Mao Tse Lung...protect the NHS /save lives...you vile right wing fascists
BLM - you’re all immune...carry on but just calm it down on the Jewish stuff :thumbup:
There was some interesting research out of the Karolinska Institute showing people had a response to the virus from their T Cells without developing antibodies. They reckon lots of people might have had it without knowing and had a T Cell response to the virus, which also might explain why results from these antibody studies are so low. They tested asymptomatic family members of people who had antibodies and the family members didn’t have any antibodies, but they had a T Cell response indicating they had the virus at some point. The effectiveness of T Cells diminishes the older you get which also might explain why younger people are mostly unaffected.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
I reckon the more research that’s done into Covid-19 the more we’ll see it’s mostly harmless (obviously not harmless but similar to the flu).
The real problem with the death toll figures is that they are complete bullshít. If we had confidence in those figures we could at least then come to some conclusions of how well/badly we've done as a country. They even quote UK figures on the telly every day rather than just England. Anything for a bigger number...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
I'm not sure we can call out the ONS on the overall number of recorded deaths, b.Quote:
Originally Posted by barrybueno
Whether they are COVID related or not is debatable, but we can't really argue about excess mortality rates during this period. And in any case, herd immunity IS the answer to shít like this...
www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
Even excess death figures are questionable, I'm afraid. There are enormous problems in comparing this data: accuracy of raw data; differences in reporting between using death occurrence data (as most EU countries do) or registration data (as we in the UK do) can mean long lags in reporting; how 'normal' deaths are measured; even differences in how we define the week!Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
In fact, one of the few things on which everyone now agrees is that it's imperative that international/national statistical agencies should publish improved measures of excess mortality and standardise on how they do it.
In short: attempting to judge anything from the numbers as we have them now is a mug's game.
I would have thought that counting deaths would be quite easy - simply based on whether a human being is either dead or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Don't tell me that death is now also non-binary ;-)
To be clear, I’m not questioning the number of deaths, I’m questioning the idea that the only way to avoid them is by a full lockdown (which the scientists told us we needed) rather than a more intelligent, evidence-based lockdown, and how many deaths we might have ultimately experienced without a full lockdown.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
And I’m pointing out that the reason we didn’t explore a different approach is because the scientists couldn’t admit they didn’t know and the Prime Minister lacked the balls to call them on it.
The fat, blithering idiot.
As I see it, I'm sure if we had locked down earlier, people whould have just ignored it earlier. The lockdown wasn't to save lives, rather to ensure OUR NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It wasn't. And won't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
An epidemic (or pandemic) has a lifespan and will naturally fade away and the weaker version of the virus survives and will be around for ever - Spanish 'Flu is still around and is currently known as Influenza.
Counting them is one thing. Determining whether they are excess deaths based on an average over at least five years while taking in account all factors that might cause anomalies during those five years (weather, other disease outbreaks, etc) is quite another and again - obviously due to differing local factors - there are significant variations between countries in how this is calculated.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Basically, trying to make sense of the whole thing on a national scale - let alone an international one - is a fúcking nightmare.
I think the maths is quite easy, tbh. Actual number of deaths in a current period compared to the average number of total deaths from the same periods, from the last five years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Agreed - it is defining what counts as a 'normal death' that is tricky
It's relating deaths directly to C-19 which is the bullshít bit.
Oh, yeah. Those numbers are totally meaningless. I'll give you an example: my friend sadly lost both his parents this year - both in their 80s. Both were being treated for cancer and responding well to treatment. One went into hospital in January for a routine procedure and while there came down with a lung infection and died. This was before Coronavirus was officially here, but they retrospectively think it might have been that, but that's not on the death certificate. The other was in late March, she was being treated at home and had been self-isolating. However, she developed breathing difficulties and was admitted to hospital where she eventually died. Covid-19 was put on the death certificate.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Both of these people were suffering from cancer. Neither of them was tested for Covid-19. One of them did have it on the death certificate, the other didn't. There are thousands of cases like this up and down the country.
So yeah, the numbers of 'confirmed' Covid-19 deaths are total horseshít.
The other factor, of course, is that pretty much every hospital in the UK reported a massive and worrying decline in the number of patients coming in for treatment for 'routine' life-threatening illness. When you have vulnerable people being told that leaving the house - let alone going to a doctor or the hospital - will kill them, how much do you think deaths will increase from non-Covid causes?Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Estimates suggest we've seen - and will see - much higher mortality rates from cancer, heart disease, strokes and chronic conditions as a result of people not presenting for treatment. That makes the calculation of 'excess' deaths even more difficult - particularly as many of them will falsely end up with Covid on their death certificates anyway.
Kung-lung deaths pay more too, so naturally people want to inflate the mortality figures. Here they even stopped doing proper post mortem exams as it was "too dangerous". lol :-(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yes, there is an important distinction that the government is loathe to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
How many additional people died because of the virus itself, as opposed to how many people died because of how we reacted to it.
Surely it’s easy to look at total deaths (dosent matter how caused) versus whatever average you want to use for whatever period and you likely have the covid death number. Obvs it won’t be totally accurate as road deaths have dropped due to the lockdown etc. But would disprove the stupid notion that “not that many have died from covid” which seems to be floating around.
The point I’m making is that no, it’s not easy at all. Trying to apply normal averages to a definitively abnormal situation just doesn’t work.Quote:
Originally Posted by taxman10
So, for instance,, road deaths down, but suicides up 200%. Once you fück with normal,all statistical bets are off.