By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Virtually every comment is supporting him as well. It's almost as if a large number of people have crossed some form of Einstein—Rosen bridge and have travelled to a point in space-time which equates to October 2019.
SB
0
Well this is helpful.... on 17:34 - Oct 1 with 2838 views
Well this is helpful.... on 17:23 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
Absolutely we should be trying, but not at the complete disregard of peoples jobs, businesses and mental wellbeing. At this stage all of the evidence suggests that C19 is only a severe illness in a small minority of the population.
Our Governments approach for me is lacking reason and based on a very narrow and limited range of science that is all geared towards a vaccine being the only solution.
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19 and yet Matt Hancock wrongly stated a week ago that they had carried out a trial and it showed to be ineffective ( no such trial had taken place, he was referring to old and irrelevant studies ). There are many other ways people can improve their own situation by building a stronger immune system ( backed by science ) Where is the strong Government public health message in this area?
I personally like the approach that Sweden have taken in terms of protecting/sheilding those most vulnerable and allowing the rest of society to function as freely as possible.
I know you and others do not endorse their approach but I believe their numbers stand up pretty well to many other nations. People will throw Norway and Finland in as comparisons but there are a number of reasons ( not just locking down ) for their lower numbers. Sweden also fares pretty well compared to many other comparable nations ( Belgium for one ) that opted for very strict early lockdowns.
I think people need to be treated more like adults, given the true risk, facts etc. and then being allowed to make decisions based on their own attitude to the risk.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:23]
Unfortunately those with the attitude level of 'reckless' towards risk tend to make life miserable for the rest of us.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Well this is helpful.... on 17:36 - Oct 1 by J2BLUE
Similar percentage of weapons though.
Plenty of tools too.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Well this is helpful.... on 17:34 - Oct 1 by SpruceMoose
Unfortunately those with the attitude level of 'reckless' towards risk tend to make life miserable for the rest of us.
Sure, but that could be said for many other aspects of Life. Maybe not a perfect example but people who take a high risk approach to driving a car can cause huge amounts of misery to other people. We all know that this is the case but most of us decide every day to get in a car knowing that there is a small risk that our lives could end through somebody else's careless driving.
The Governments safety first approach to Covid is completely at odds with their approach to almost every other area of life.
1
Well this is helpful.... on 17:56 - Oct 1 with 2794 views
Well this is helpful.... on 17:23 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
Absolutely we should be trying, but not at the complete disregard of peoples jobs, businesses and mental wellbeing. At this stage all of the evidence suggests that C19 is only a severe illness in a small minority of the population.
Our Governments approach for me is lacking reason and based on a very narrow and limited range of science that is all geared towards a vaccine being the only solution.
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19 and yet Matt Hancock wrongly stated a week ago that they had carried out a trial and it showed to be ineffective ( no such trial had taken place, he was referring to old and irrelevant studies ). There are many other ways people can improve their own situation by building a stronger immune system ( backed by science ) Where is the strong Government public health message in this area?
I personally like the approach that Sweden have taken in terms of protecting/sheilding those most vulnerable and allowing the rest of society to function as freely as possible.
I know you and others do not endorse their approach but I believe their numbers stand up pretty well to many other nations. People will throw Norway and Finland in as comparisons but there are a number of reasons ( not just locking down ) for their lower numbers. Sweden also fares pretty well compared to many other comparable nations ( Belgium for one ) that opted for very strict early lockdowns.
I think people need to be treated more like adults, given the true risk, facts etc. and then being allowed to make decisions based on their own attitude to the risk.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:23]
Sweden of course, suffered considerably more deaths than the rest of Scandinavia and took a similar economic hit.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Well this is helpful.... on 17:46 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
Sure, but that could be said for many other aspects of Life. Maybe not a perfect example but people who take a high risk approach to driving a car can cause huge amounts of misery to other people. We all know that this is the case but most of us decide every day to get in a car knowing that there is a small risk that our lives could end through somebody else's careless driving.
The Governments safety first approach to Covid is completely at odds with their approach to almost every other area of life.
Completely agree.
MP Sir Desmond Swayne summed this up perfectly a couple of days ago.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 18:01]
0
Well this is helpful.... on 18:22 - Oct 1 with 2766 views
Well this is helpful.... on 17:46 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
Sure, but that could be said for many other aspects of Life. Maybe not a perfect example but people who take a high risk approach to driving a car can cause huge amounts of misery to other people. We all know that this is the case but most of us decide every day to get in a car knowing that there is a small risk that our lives could end through somebody else's careless driving.
The Governments safety first approach to Covid is completely at odds with their approach to almost every other area of life.
They don’t have a safety first approach though. It’s been a complete mishmash with no clear, consistent strategy from that start.
I’m not sure your analogy really works as the Covid risk can be reduced to zero in a fairly short time. It’d take drastic action but it can be done. The idea it’s a balancing act between the virus and the economy is a misleading one too. Try to balance and we’ll continue to struggle with both. The only way to get back to normal is to pretty much get rid of the virus, as shown by those countries who have responded well. We’re one of the worse for both and look to continue like that.
Well this is helpful.... on 17:23 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
Absolutely we should be trying, but not at the complete disregard of peoples jobs, businesses and mental wellbeing. At this stage all of the evidence suggests that C19 is only a severe illness in a small minority of the population.
Our Governments approach for me is lacking reason and based on a very narrow and limited range of science that is all geared towards a vaccine being the only solution.
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19 and yet Matt Hancock wrongly stated a week ago that they had carried out a trial and it showed to be ineffective ( no such trial had taken place, he was referring to old and irrelevant studies ). There are many other ways people can improve their own situation by building a stronger immune system ( backed by science ) Where is the strong Government public health message in this area?
I personally like the approach that Sweden have taken in terms of protecting/sheilding those most vulnerable and allowing the rest of society to function as freely as possible.
I know you and others do not endorse their approach but I believe their numbers stand up pretty well to many other nations. People will throw Norway and Finland in as comparisons but there are a number of reasons ( not just locking down ) for their lower numbers. Sweden also fares pretty well compared to many other comparable nations ( Belgium for one ) that opted for very strict early lockdowns.
I think people need to be treated more like adults, given the true risk, facts etc. and then being allowed to make decisions based on their own attitude to the risk.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:23]
Apologies, I don't have time right now to respond in the way your post deserves. I'll add a couple of points quickly though. I think things are much more complicated that you are making out.
"I think people need to be treated more like adults, given the true risk, facts etc. and then being allowed to make decisions based on their own attitude to the risk."
Isn't that fundamentally a selfish position though? Their risk might be low but they can carry it and pass it on and eventually it will infect someone who is higher risk, perhaps even unknown to the individual. That initial risk assessment by the individual has then lead directly to a death.
- People aren't good at risk assessment, especially if it clashes with something they want to do themselves.
- It could easily lead to a spike which overwhelms the NHS ICUs and leads to deaths from other causes.
- People have been making their own risk assessments for the last 2 months and cases have started rising.
- "true risk and facts" - are you saying we aren't being given the true risk and facts?
Well this is helpful.... on 17:56 - Oct 1 by BlueBadger
Sweden of course, suffered considerably more deaths than the rest of Scandinavia and took a similar economic hit.
There are a number of reasons for this as I alluded to, Stockholm having a larger population and much more international travel than Olso, Copenhagen etc. for example.
Well this is helpful.... on 18:22 - Oct 1 by Swansea_Blue
They don’t have a safety first approach though. It’s been a complete mishmash with no clear, consistent strategy from that start.
I’m not sure your analogy really works as the Covid risk can be reduced to zero in a fairly short time. It’d take drastic action but it can be done. The idea it’s a balancing act between the virus and the economy is a misleading one too. Try to balance and we’ll continue to struggle with both. The only way to get back to normal is to pretty much get rid of the virus, as shown by those countries who have responded well. We’re one of the worse for both and look to continue like that.
"I’m not sure your analogy really works as the Covid risk can be reduced to zero in a fairly short time."
Have you got an example of a country that has achieved this? as there are no countries that have eradicated Covid-19 as yet that I am aware of.
You won't find any arguments from me (or anybody else I suspect) regarding your last sentence.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 20:00]
0
Well this is helpful.... on 19:32 - Oct 1 with 2689 views
Well this is helpful.... on 18:47 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
There are a number of reasons for this as I alluded to, Stockholm having a larger population and much more international travel than Olso, Copenhagen etc. for example.
Well this is helpful.... on 18:22 - Oct 1 by Swansea_Blue
They don’t have a safety first approach though. It’s been a complete mishmash with no clear, consistent strategy from that start.
I’m not sure your analogy really works as the Covid risk can be reduced to zero in a fairly short time. It’d take drastic action but it can be done. The idea it’s a balancing act between the virus and the economy is a misleading one too. Try to balance and we’ll continue to struggle with both. The only way to get back to normal is to pretty much get rid of the virus, as shown by those countries who have responded well. We’re one of the worse for both and look to continue like that.
"Get rid of the virus"?! Well I'm sure we'd all love to do that, but it's a question of "how" innit?! My perspective on the situation is starting to shift, not easily I might add, as I'm in the vulnerable elderly + medical issues group.
We had total lockdown for 3 months (?) was it, that helped but didn't get rid of the virus. Those who could went back to work, limited socialising in pubs & eateries was allowed, schools have re-opened after 6 months - and straightaway we're already back at almost square 1 with the R rate at what, about 1.5 in many places.
What next? Endless cycles of a month or two with limited economic activity/education/socialising, followed by a couple of months of lockdown? Human communities can't carry on like that, either economically or in terms of most of the population's mental health. Particularly since there's no guarantee that a fully effective vaccine is ever going to be found, never mind anytime soon.
Incidentally, I heard a v. interesting feature on 'Healthcheck' a BBC World Service production on global health issues at 4.30 this morning. It reported that scientists somewhere (sorry can't recall where) have been studying the effects of mask-wearing re Covid_19 and concluded there's strong evidence to show that it actually gives a kind of vaccine-like immunity in allowing very small "doses" of the virus to be transmitted between people, which builds up their antibodies to it. They thought this might at least add some incentive to people to "mask up". So there's something offering at least a bit of positivity and hope.
Well this is helpful.... on 18:23 - Oct 1 by StokieBlue
Apologies, I don't have time right now to respond in the way your post deserves. I'll add a couple of points quickly though. I think things are much more complicated that you are making out.
"I think people need to be treated more like adults, given the true risk, facts etc. and then being allowed to make decisions based on their own attitude to the risk."
Isn't that fundamentally a selfish position though? Their risk might be low but they can carry it and pass it on and eventually it will infect someone who is higher risk, perhaps even unknown to the individual. That initial risk assessment by the individual has then lead directly to a death.
- People aren't good at risk assessment, especially if it clashes with something they want to do themselves.
- It could easily lead to a spike which overwhelms the NHS ICUs and leads to deaths from other causes.
- People have been making their own risk assessments for the last 2 months and cases have started rising.
- "true risk and facts" - are you saying we aren't being given the true risk and facts?
SB
I don't believe it is a selfish position no. We have always lived with viruses but it is only with Covid-19 that this position being labelled 'selfish' has come into people's thinking. Every Winter we have influenza's and other respiratory infections which can in theory be passed on to the vulnerable in society, if a person is vulnerable enough then even a relatively minor virus can be the tipping point that sadly causes their passing.
I know you are not a fan of Flu comparisons but it is looking likely that Covid-19 will have a very similar ( maybe even slightly lower ) mortality rate. I think I read that presently it is something like 15 weeks in a row now that more people have died from flu in the UK than Covid.
In heavy flu seasons in the past we have seen large numbers die and ICU's overwhelmed and struggling to cope, but never before has this notion of locking people up, wearing masks, closing businesses etc. been proposed. And all the time the risk was there that you or I could pick something up going about our day to day life that could theoretically spell the end for a vulnerable person. That is life unfortunately, it carries certain risks and if we want to eradicate them then we wont be living at all.
Of course adding C-19 on top of flu means that we have to do something but this brings me back to the belief that the 'something' this Government has come up with is disproportionate.
I'm going to use another example. I have recently read a book called 'Why We Sleep' by Matthew Walker ( a fascinating read if you get a chance ), in it he demonstrates how sleep deprivation can seriously affect many areas of our lives & health, I will use the example of the immune system seeing as it is on topic. Studies have shown that the less sleep an individual gets, the more likely they are to contract an infectious disease.
Now based on this I could make the case that somebody that burns the candle at both ends regularly is putting vulnerable people at risk because they are more likely to pick up an infection and pass it on. I could then demand that the Government close all night clubs permanently, install a 10pm curfew and make it law that everybody has to allow for an 8 hour sleep opportunity. I'm pretty sure most people would find this idea ridiculous, and rightly so, but yet the risk, albeit small, is quite real.
This is why in my opinion it is the Government's job to provide the information and encourage people to do the right thing both for themselves and others, but not to lay down draconian restrictions at every turn. Otherwise there is potentially no end to the restrictions that could be put in place to protect the vulnerable few.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 21:04]
4
Well this is helpful.... on 21:31 - Oct 1 with 2621 views
Well this is helpful.... on 21:01 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
I don't believe it is a selfish position no. We have always lived with viruses but it is only with Covid-19 that this position being labelled 'selfish' has come into people's thinking. Every Winter we have influenza's and other respiratory infections which can in theory be passed on to the vulnerable in society, if a person is vulnerable enough then even a relatively minor virus can be the tipping point that sadly causes their passing.
I know you are not a fan of Flu comparisons but it is looking likely that Covid-19 will have a very similar ( maybe even slightly lower ) mortality rate. I think I read that presently it is something like 15 weeks in a row now that more people have died from flu in the UK than Covid.
In heavy flu seasons in the past we have seen large numbers die and ICU's overwhelmed and struggling to cope, but never before has this notion of locking people up, wearing masks, closing businesses etc. been proposed. And all the time the risk was there that you or I could pick something up going about our day to day life that could theoretically spell the end for a vulnerable person. That is life unfortunately, it carries certain risks and if we want to eradicate them then we wont be living at all.
Of course adding C-19 on top of flu means that we have to do something but this brings me back to the belief that the 'something' this Government has come up with is disproportionate.
I'm going to use another example. I have recently read a book called 'Why We Sleep' by Matthew Walker ( a fascinating read if you get a chance ), in it he demonstrates how sleep deprivation can seriously affect many areas of our lives & health, I will use the example of the immune system seeing as it is on topic. Studies have shown that the less sleep an individual gets, the more likely they are to contract an infectious disease.
Now based on this I could make the case that somebody that burns the candle at both ends regularly is putting vulnerable people at risk because they are more likely to pick up an infection and pass it on. I could then demand that the Government close all night clubs permanently, install a 10pm curfew and make it law that everybody has to allow for an 8 hour sleep opportunity. I'm pretty sure most people would find this idea ridiculous, and rightly so, but yet the risk, albeit small, is quite real.
This is why in my opinion it is the Government's job to provide the information and encourage people to do the right thing both for themselves and others, but not to lay down draconian restrictions at every turn. Otherwise there is potentially no end to the restrictions that could be put in place to protect the vulnerable few.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 21:04]
You say: " I think I read that presently it is something like 15 weeks in a row now that more people have died from flu in the UK than Covid."
Apparently the figures that involve flu as an influence also include pneumonia, so that doesn't work. Some publications will print anything for a response as you know.
The obvious thing that has been covered a billion times and still gets forgotten is Covid is far more contagious than flu, so the comparisons there are irrelevant too.
"The phrase “influenza and pneumonia” used by the ONS may have caused confusion here, because it sounds like it refers to death certificates that mention both, and so could be simplified to just “flu”. In fact, it refers to any mention that belongs in the “influenza and pneumonia” category...
This matters, because when Covid-19 is mentioned on a death certificate, it is much more likely to be the underlying cause of someone’s death than when pneumonia or influenza is."
Well this is helpful.... on 21:01 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
I don't believe it is a selfish position no. We have always lived with viruses but it is only with Covid-19 that this position being labelled 'selfish' has come into people's thinking. Every Winter we have influenza's and other respiratory infections which can in theory be passed on to the vulnerable in society, if a person is vulnerable enough then even a relatively minor virus can be the tipping point that sadly causes their passing.
I know you are not a fan of Flu comparisons but it is looking likely that Covid-19 will have a very similar ( maybe even slightly lower ) mortality rate. I think I read that presently it is something like 15 weeks in a row now that more people have died from flu in the UK than Covid.
In heavy flu seasons in the past we have seen large numbers die and ICU's overwhelmed and struggling to cope, but never before has this notion of locking people up, wearing masks, closing businesses etc. been proposed. And all the time the risk was there that you or I could pick something up going about our day to day life that could theoretically spell the end for a vulnerable person. That is life unfortunately, it carries certain risks and if we want to eradicate them then we wont be living at all.
Of course adding C-19 on top of flu means that we have to do something but this brings me back to the belief that the 'something' this Government has come up with is disproportionate.
I'm going to use another example. I have recently read a book called 'Why We Sleep' by Matthew Walker ( a fascinating read if you get a chance ), in it he demonstrates how sleep deprivation can seriously affect many areas of our lives & health, I will use the example of the immune system seeing as it is on topic. Studies have shown that the less sleep an individual gets, the more likely they are to contract an infectious disease.
Now based on this I could make the case that somebody that burns the candle at both ends regularly is putting vulnerable people at risk because they are more likely to pick up an infection and pass it on. I could then demand that the Government close all night clubs permanently, install a 10pm curfew and make it law that everybody has to allow for an 8 hour sleep opportunity. I'm pretty sure most people would find this idea ridiculous, and rightly so, but yet the risk, albeit small, is quite real.
This is why in my opinion it is the Government's job to provide the information and encourage people to do the right thing both for themselves and others, but not to lay down draconian restrictions at every turn. Otherwise there is potentially no end to the restrictions that could be put in place to protect the vulnerable few.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 21:04]
I suspect you might change your opinion on it being selfish if someone you loved or knew contracted C19 from someone not assessing the risk properly.
I'm actually a bit annoyed you are still bringing up the flu comparison 6 months later. You know it's a poor comparison yet you try to "muddy the waters" by persisting with it.
To address the flu points:
- It's got a lower R than C19 so even if the mortality is the same which is certainly not proven, it will kill more people. You only seem to want to take in one part of an equation and ignore the bits that don't suit your point.
- Average flu deaths in the UK are 10,000 per year. That is over an entire year, C19 has caused/contributed to 50,000 deaths in about a 3 month period. That period also included people being locked down. If they weren't then the deaths would have been far higher (there are studies on this). So you are equating a disease over a year when everyone goes about their business versus a disease over 3 months when everyone was made to stay inside and the second disease still caused far more deaths.
I don't even know where to begin on your sleep deprivation causing other peoples deaths point - it's riddled with false premises the main one of which is that C19 is more dangerous than "some infection". I will however agree that sleep deprivation is very bad but that's a different topic.
What I really find interesting though is that you don't want the government to take a very conservative position on C19 yet you've spent years on here promoting the most conservative position possible on vaccines. I guess it could be a pro-choice element in both positions.
SB
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 22:15]
2
Well this is helpful.... on 22:55 - Oct 1 with 2554 views
Well this is helpful.... on 14:59 - Oct 1 by StokieBlue
Now the mayor of Middlesbrough is saying "we defy the government" and "doesn't accept the lockdown measures".
He states that they "need to get Covid under control" but not entirely sure how he plans on doing that given he's rejecting the new measures.
SB
I don't know if you saw it, but on 'Newscast' which followed QT on BBC1 last night, he gave an interview in which he said they would absolutely accept and obey the lockdown measures - but only once they'd passed into law.
Before that point, maintan defiance and complain at never having been consulted at local level, when they know their own communities better than anyone else (fair point I'd say). He and other local officials know the coffee shops which can safely allow 2 correctly distanced people to meet; the streets where 3 or 4 people could safely meet for a cuppa safely distanced either side of a fence, etc etc. etc.
Well this is helpful.... on 17:23 - Oct 1 by Harry_Palmer
Absolutely we should be trying, but not at the complete disregard of peoples jobs, businesses and mental wellbeing. At this stage all of the evidence suggests that C19 is only a severe illness in a small minority of the population.
Our Governments approach for me is lacking reason and based on a very narrow and limited range of science that is all geared towards a vaccine being the only solution.
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19 and yet Matt Hancock wrongly stated a week ago that they had carried out a trial and it showed to be ineffective ( no such trial had taken place, he was referring to old and irrelevant studies ). There are many other ways people can improve their own situation by building a stronger immune system ( backed by science ) Where is the strong Government public health message in this area?
I personally like the approach that Sweden have taken in terms of protecting/sheilding those most vulnerable and allowing the rest of society to function as freely as possible.
I know you and others do not endorse their approach but I believe their numbers stand up pretty well to many other nations. People will throw Norway and Finland in as comparisons but there are a number of reasons ( not just locking down ) for their lower numbers. Sweden also fares pretty well compared to many other comparable nations ( Belgium for one ) that opted for very strict early lockdowns.
I think people need to be treated more like adults, given the true risk, facts etc. and then being allowed to make decisions based on their own attitude to the risk.
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:23]
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19
Have you got any links about this please? Genuinely interested. I'm taking it as something that won't do any harm and might have some sort of positive benefit but I haven't seen any decent evidence for it having an effect.
Edit: Don't worry about it, thank you anyway. Found it with a quick google. Can't believe they aren't making a bigger deal of this. Your post was the first I had heard about it in ages. They don't need to make definitive claims, just tell people it might help and they should take it.
Well this is helpful.... on 03:29 - Oct 2 by J2BLUE
For example we have seen recently that there is quite strong evidence for the use of vitamin D in both prevention and treatment of Covid-19
Have you got any links about this please? Genuinely interested. I'm taking it as something that won't do any harm and might have some sort of positive benefit but I haven't seen any decent evidence for it having an effect.
Edit: Don't worry about it, thank you anyway. Found it with a quick google. Can't believe they aren't making a bigger deal of this. Your post was the first I had heard about it in ages. They don't need to make definitive claims, just tell people it might help and they should take it.
Cheers.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 3:37]
Can you share a link please? This has cropped up many times since the early days but there has been no definitive conclusion [?].
I've looked a bit and find either conflicting stuff or only half-baked theories. I do understand there are all sorts of ongoing studies, naturally.
As discussed elsewhere, all sorts of vitamins aid the immune system but that's not news. What seems to be pushed from some quarters is that vitamin D is some wonder thing that particularly builds the immune system against Covid.
Eating properly and sleeping properly to keep oneself well is hardly a revelation and it's an odd angle for people to push if based on speculation alone.
*I stress, I am replying to your post only and not suggesting it's your angle.
Well this is helpful.... on 03:54 - Oct 2 by jeera
Can you share a link please? This has cropped up many times since the early days but there has been no definitive conclusion [?].
I've looked a bit and find either conflicting stuff or only half-baked theories. I do understand there are all sorts of ongoing studies, naturally.
As discussed elsewhere, all sorts of vitamins aid the immune system but that's not news. What seems to be pushed from some quarters is that vitamin D is some wonder thing that particularly builds the immune system against Covid.
Eating properly and sleeping properly to keep oneself well is hardly a revelation and it's an odd angle for people to push if based on speculation alone.
*I stress, I am replying to your post only and not suggesting it's your angle.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2020 4:07]
Jeera ( and J2 )
It was this guy, Dr John Campbell on You Tube that really brought it to my attention in relation to Covid-19 specifically. He has done previous videos looking at the evidence but this is the latest one which I haven't actually watched yet.
He is worth following in general to be honest as he offers a pretty balanced view and good analysis on the pandemic.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 07:24 - Oct 2 with 2435 views
Well this is helpful.... on 21:31 - Oct 1 by jeera
You say: " I think I read that presently it is something like 15 weeks in a row now that more people have died from flu in the UK than Covid."
Apparently the figures that involve flu as an influence also include pneumonia, so that doesn't work. Some publications will print anything for a response as you know.
The obvious thing that has been covered a billion times and still gets forgotten is Covid is far more contagious than flu, so the comparisons there are irrelevant too.
"The phrase “influenza and pneumonia” used by the ONS may have caused confusion here, because it sounds like it refers to death certificates that mention both, and so could be simplified to just “flu”. In fact, it refers to any mention that belongs in the “influenza and pneumonia” category...
This matters, because when Covid-19 is mentioned on a death certificate, it is much more likely to be the underlying cause of someone’s death than when pneumonia or influenza is."
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 21:31]
You make a valid point however the statement you have drawn on was only a small part of my post, the basic tone of which I stand by.
Getting flu often leads to pneumonia which is the final cause of death so I think it still works, as without contracting flu in the first place the person is unlikely to have died at that point.
It is really not too dis-similar to the whole 'died with' or 'died of' debate when it comes to Covid, which can be used to bend the figures to suit any particular argument.
I don't agree with your final sentence here though, there have been examples of terminally ill people ( late stages Cancer etc. ) that have been recorded as a Covid death when in reality contracting Covid will have been only a secondary influence on that person dying.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 07:46 - Oct 2 with 2428 views
Well this is helpful.... on 00:53 - Oct 2 by Ryorry
I don't know if you saw it, but on 'Newscast' which followed QT on BBC1 last night, he gave an interview in which he said they would absolutely accept and obey the lockdown measures - but only once they'd passed into law.
Before that point, maintan defiance and complain at never having been consulted at local level, when they know their own communities better than anyone else (fair point I'd say). He and other local officials know the coffee shops which can safely allow 2 correctly distanced people to meet; the streets where 3 or 4 people could safely meet for a cuppa safely distanced either side of a fence, etc etc. etc.
I'm not sure it is a fair point.
People are complaining (and even saying they can't follow the rules) because they too complicated and changing and he wants to make them even more complicated and individual down to streets and coffee shops?
People can't have it both ways.
SB
0
Well this is helpful.... on 08:08 - Oct 2 with 2422 views
Well this is helpful.... on 21:58 - Oct 1 by StokieBlue
I suspect you might change your opinion on it being selfish if someone you loved or knew contracted C19 from someone not assessing the risk properly.
I'm actually a bit annoyed you are still bringing up the flu comparison 6 months later. You know it's a poor comparison yet you try to "muddy the waters" by persisting with it.
To address the flu points:
- It's got a lower R than C19 so even if the mortality is the same which is certainly not proven, it will kill more people. You only seem to want to take in one part of an equation and ignore the bits that don't suit your point.
- Average flu deaths in the UK are 10,000 per year. That is over an entire year, C19 has caused/contributed to 50,000 deaths in about a 3 month period. That period also included people being locked down. If they weren't then the deaths would have been far higher (there are studies on this). So you are equating a disease over a year when everyone goes about their business versus a disease over 3 months when everyone was made to stay inside and the second disease still caused far more deaths.
I don't even know where to begin on your sleep deprivation causing other peoples deaths point - it's riddled with false premises the main one of which is that C19 is more dangerous than "some infection". I will however agree that sleep deprivation is very bad but that's a different topic.
What I really find interesting though is that you don't want the government to take a very conservative position on C19 yet you've spent years on here promoting the most conservative position possible on vaccines. I guess it could be a pro-choice element in both positions.
SB
[Post edited 1 Oct 2020 22:15]
Sorry, it was not my intention to annoy or to "muddy the waters". I know the flu comparison is not perfect but I still believe it is valid based on the fact they are both respiratory tract infections, are both contagious and are both potentially large killers.
Don't forget we get different strains of flu each year so one year can be much worse than another. For example we had 50'000 excess deaths over the winter of 2017/18 and flu was attributed as a major contributing factor towards this.
I think your theory about Lockdown is still up for debate. If you look at the numbers the excess deaths started rising rapidly AFTER the lockdown was introduced, people can and have put forward arguments that the lockdown itself caused a large number of these deaths. We cannot say definitively that not having the lockdown would have led to 'far higher' numbers.
Lets assume for now that you are right on the above though, there are still other factors to consider. For one we had a mild flu season prior to the Covid outbreak, this resulted in lower than average death rates in the months leading up to it. This resulted in a significant number of vulnerable people who may have died earlier in a previous year but were unfortunately easy pickings for Covid-19. There is also the fact that with Covid-19 being a novel disease nobody had any type of immunity to it. A novel illness like this is always going to take more victims in the initial outbreak, it is widely accepted that its lethality will wain a little overtime as more immunity is acquired.
Your last sentence is a fair assessment.
0
Well this is helpful.... on 08:41 - Oct 2 with 2410 views
Well this is helpful.... on 08:08 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
Sorry, it was not my intention to annoy or to "muddy the waters". I know the flu comparison is not perfect but I still believe it is valid based on the fact they are both respiratory tract infections, are both contagious and are both potentially large killers.
Don't forget we get different strains of flu each year so one year can be much worse than another. For example we had 50'000 excess deaths over the winter of 2017/18 and flu was attributed as a major contributing factor towards this.
I think your theory about Lockdown is still up for debate. If you look at the numbers the excess deaths started rising rapidly AFTER the lockdown was introduced, people can and have put forward arguments that the lockdown itself caused a large number of these deaths. We cannot say definitively that not having the lockdown would have led to 'far higher' numbers.
Lets assume for now that you are right on the above though, there are still other factors to consider. For one we had a mild flu season prior to the Covid outbreak, this resulted in lower than average death rates in the months leading up to it. This resulted in a significant number of vulnerable people who may have died earlier in a previous year but were unfortunately easy pickings for Covid-19. There is also the fact that with Covid-19 being a novel disease nobody had any type of immunity to it. A novel illness like this is always going to take more victims in the initial outbreak, it is widely accepted that its lethality will wain a little overtime as more immunity is acquired.
Your last sentence is a fair assessment.
The flu comparison is horrible in my opinion. I am not saying you are doing this but it tends to be used by people with an agenda who want to downplay C19 for their own reasons.
"Don't forget we get different strains of flu each year so one year can be much worse than another. For example we had 50'000 excess deaths over the winter of 2017/18 and flu was attributed as a major contributing factor towards this."
Once again it's not a like-for-like comparison as there was no lockdown, social distancing, hand washing or any of the other measures. That was flu running totally free and it "possibly" was as bad over the year as a heavily restricted C19 was in 4 months or so.
"I think your theory about Lockdown is still up for debate. If you look at the numbers the excess deaths started rising rapidly AFTER the lockdown was introduced, people can and have put forward arguments that the lockdown itself caused a large number of these deaths. We cannot say definitively that not having the lockdown would have led to 'far higher' numbers."
I have to disagree totally on this, it just looks like you are seeing what you want to see. Numbers rose after lockdown because C19 is a "laggy" virus in that symptoms might not arise for 2 weeks and then it can be another few weeks to a month in hospital. You know this so I am not sure why you are pushing this "after lockdown" theory.
This study from Nature shows how effective lockdown was at stopping the transmission:
An Imperial University study reached the conclusion that the lockdowns prevented 3m deaths in Europe.
"A novel illness like this is always going to take more victims in the initial outbreak, it is widely accepted that its lethality will wain a little overtime as more immunity is acquired."
Spanish Flu, a novel strain at the time, killed more people in the second wave than the first so weakening is not a hard and fast rule.
SB
0
Well this is helpful.... on 08:43 - Oct 2 with 2407 views
Well this is helpful.... on 07:24 - Oct 2 by Harry_Palmer
You make a valid point however the statement you have drawn on was only a small part of my post, the basic tone of which I stand by.
Getting flu often leads to pneumonia which is the final cause of death so I think it still works, as without contracting flu in the first place the person is unlikely to have died at that point.
It is really not too dis-similar to the whole 'died with' or 'died of' debate when it comes to Covid, which can be used to bend the figures to suit any particular argument.
I don't agree with your final sentence here though, there have been examples of terminally ill people ( late stages Cancer etc. ) that have been recorded as a Covid death when in reality contracting Covid will have been only a secondary influence on that person dying.
I am sure there are cases where the recording of death as C19 has been "wrong", I don't think that allows people to dismiss all the other reporting as well.
I was listening to a neurosurgeon on a podcast the other day and he stated that it was correct to state C19 as the cause of death if it was the driving factor. The final cause of death might have been a heart attack but that would have been caused by the strain of C19.
Apparently this is standard practice in how deaths are reported in general.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
