| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:09 - Oct 12 with 1735 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:01 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
The problem here for many people is that to fully embrace this good news for what it is would mean that they would then have to accept that what our Government are doing is completely disproportionate to the threat posed. This then leads to the obvious question of why? Which in turn leads to the awkward position of having to consider that there might actually be some sort of alternative agenda at play and that could mean being linked to a conspiracy theory ( God forbid! ).
It's a lot safer at this point to put the blockers up and accuse the other poster of trying to 'downplay' things. |
I'm sure the families of the 1.08m people who have thus far died will be happy to know that you feel the threat posed is disproportionate to losing a few "rights" for a little while.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
|  |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:22 - Oct 12 with 1706 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:08 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
I'm sure the families of the 1.08m people who have thus far died will take great solace in your post.
SB |
Every single death is an extremely sad and tragic event and my heart goes out to all of the families that have been affected.
But back in March the WHO stated that the IRF was 3.4% which is over 24 times the figure that it actually turned out to be, which means we are actually talking about an IFR that is about the same as the flu.
I am sure that you are in agreement with me that we all really need to take the positives from this newly updated figure. |  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:23 - Oct 12 with 1714 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 20:27 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
I think you need to read the posts back again. I suggested the other day that you were twisting things to suit your position, perhaps that was a little unfair, maybe you are just reading certain posts in haste and not allowing enough time to fully consider the context.
The context was that Guthrum was suggesting locking people in quarantine centre's for 2 weeks as a genuine solution to the current situation. To my mind as somebody who places a high value on civil liberties that is simply unacceptable. Part of his reasoning was that we have vaccines and effective treatments for other respiratory illnesses. I simply pointed out that in actual fact for the majority, we don't.
You see I didn't even bring this into the discussion, I merely responded to something. no agenda, no trying to downplay anything, that's it really. |
I think we are talking at cross-purposes, probably my fault.
My issue here is context and how it's not helpful to cite comparisons which are really that relevant given the current context.
How useful is it to cite that we don't have vaccines for certain other viruses when there has never been such an effort to create one? A good portion of the applicable scientific world is working on this problem at the moment, something that hasn't happened for other viruses.
In fact a few labs were working on MERS and SARS vaccines but it was shelved when they blew themselves out. It was clearly thought possible at the time.
The effort being undertaken at the moment is huge and thus comparing to other respiratory illnesses isn't really relevant given the differences in resources.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:32 - Oct 12 with 1698 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:22 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
Every single death is an extremely sad and tragic event and my heart goes out to all of the families that have been affected.
But back in March the WHO stated that the IRF was 3.4% which is over 24 times the figure that it actually turned out to be, which means we are actually talking about an IFR that is about the same as the flu.
I am sure that you are in agreement with me that we all really need to take the positives from this newly updated figure. |
I guess it depends on your sources, other sources put the IFR for flu @ 0.10% and C19 @ 0.30% to 0.60%. You are right that it's excellent news that it seems to be less deadly than originally feared.
However looking at it in isolation like you seem insistent on doing isn't particularly helpful. You need to consider the function of (IFR, R) to make any real comparisons. Flu has an R of around 1.3 whilst C19 seems to be between 2.5 and 3.0 (some estimates are even above 5.0).
Given this, even with exactly the same IFR, C19 will kill far more people due to it's ability to infect far more people given it's tendency towards exponential growth if left to infect with no intervention.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:58 - Oct 12 with 1670 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:32 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
I guess it depends on your sources, other sources put the IFR for flu @ 0.10% and C19 @ 0.30% to 0.60%. You are right that it's excellent news that it seems to be less deadly than originally feared.
However looking at it in isolation like you seem insistent on doing isn't particularly helpful. You need to consider the function of (IFR, R) to make any real comparisons. Flu has an R of around 1.3 whilst C19 seems to be between 2.5 and 3.0 (some estimates are even above 5.0).
Given this, even with exactly the same IFR, C19 will kill far more people due to it's ability to infect far more people given it's tendency towards exponential growth if left to infect with no intervention.
SB |
Well according to my little troll "fact" sheet open in notepad it is in fact the WHO who stated last week that roughly 10% of the worlds population may have been infected with the virus so after doing the math that turns out to be an IFR of about 0.14%. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:14 - Oct 12 with 1659 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:58 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
Well according to my little troll "fact" sheet open in notepad it is in fact the WHO who stated last week that roughly 10% of the worlds population may have been infected with the virus so after doing the math that turns out to be an IFR of about 0.14%. |
Nobody knows what % of the world population has been infected, we only know that 38m people have definitely been infected. 10% of the world population is 800m people which is a large gap to be confident about.
He also didn't exactly say what you are claiming:
“Our current best estimates tell us about 10 per cent of the global population may have been infected by this virus,” he said.
"It varies depending on country, it varies from urban to rural, it varies depending on groups. But what it does mean is that the vast majority of the world remains at risk.
"We are now heading into a difficult period. The disease continues to spread."
So it may be as much as 10% and it depends on a whole lot of caveats he listed. He then went on to say we are heading into a difficult period when the disease continues to spread.
Let's take your 10% figure though and linearly scale for the rest of the population - that would come to around 108m deaths globally. Now obviously not everyone will get it and a linear scaling is incorrect but still not really something which should be played down by continually citing that it's not as bad as first feared with regards to IFR.
That's only going to lead to people taking more risks and more spread. Now you say you're not playing it down but I think many would feel that if you looked over all your posts on the subject that is simply not the case.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:44 - Oct 12 with 1629 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:14 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Nobody knows what % of the world population has been infected, we only know that 38m people have definitely been infected. 10% of the world population is 800m people which is a large gap to be confident about.
He also didn't exactly say what you are claiming:
“Our current best estimates tell us about 10 per cent of the global population may have been infected by this virus,” he said.
"It varies depending on country, it varies from urban to rural, it varies depending on groups. But what it does mean is that the vast majority of the world remains at risk.
"We are now heading into a difficult period. The disease continues to spread."
So it may be as much as 10% and it depends on a whole lot of caveats he listed. He then went on to say we are heading into a difficult period when the disease continues to spread.
Let's take your 10% figure though and linearly scale for the rest of the population - that would come to around 108m deaths globally. Now obviously not everyone will get it and a linear scaling is incorrect but still not really something which should be played down by continually citing that it's not as bad as first feared with regards to IFR.
That's only going to lead to people taking more risks and more spread. Now you say you're not playing it down but I think many would feel that if you looked over all your posts on the subject that is simply not the case.
SB |
"Let's take your 10% figure"
It's not my figure, it's the World Health Organization's figure. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:48 - Oct 12 with 1635 views | Trequartista |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 19:48 - Oct 12 by SpruceMoose |
If someone was going to misunderstand my post it was bound to be you, the forum's own Eric Trump. |
you were quite clear i thought. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:57 - Oct 12 with 1620 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:44 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
"Let's take your 10% figure"
It's not my figure, it's the World Health Organization's figure. |
Once again you don't bother to engage with the actual post and instead pick out a single phrase whilst ignoring the content.
It's really pathetic stuff which I guess is why nobody else on this forum is stupid enough to engage with you.
Perhaps I need to learn from them.
Enjoy talking to yourself.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 23:05 - Oct 12 with 1614 views | SpruceMoose |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:57 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Once again you don't bother to engage with the actual post and instead pick out a single phrase whilst ignoring the content.
It's really pathetic stuff which I guess is why nobody else on this forum is stupid enough to engage with you.
Perhaps I need to learn from them.
Enjoy talking to yourself.
SB |
He's now on my div list. I don't tend to div list many people because it can be pretty fun ridiculing the worst offenders, but Squitty is such a monumentally pure dullard that there's no mirth to be had in swatting away his particular brand of disingenuity. [Post edited 13 Oct 2020 0:01]
|  |
| 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." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 23:09 - Oct 12 with 1608 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 22:57 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
Once again you don't bother to engage with the actual post and instead pick out a single phrase whilst ignoring the content.
It's really pathetic stuff which I guess is why nobody else on this forum is stupid enough to engage with you.
Perhaps I need to learn from them.
Enjoy talking to yourself.
SB |
But your content was rubbish.
You highlighted "about" when i clearly said "roughly" just 1 hour ago.
You highlighted "may" when i said the same thing.
You quoted ""We are now heading into a difficult period. The disease continues to spread." which i never denied and which also can apply to a bad flu strain/year.
So just rubbish really.
And it really is not my figure, it's the World Health Organization's figure. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 03:18 - Oct 13 with 1551 views | wkj |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 23:09 - Oct 12 by Bluesquid |
But your content was rubbish.
You highlighted "about" when i clearly said "roughly" just 1 hour ago.
You highlighted "may" when i said the same thing.
You quoted ""We are now heading into a difficult period. The disease continues to spread." which i never denied and which also can apply to a bad flu strain/year.
So just rubbish really.
And it really is not my figure, it's the World Health Organization's figure. |
who? |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 07:09 - Oct 13 with 1515 views | m14_blue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:01 - Oct 12 by Harry_Palmer |
The problem here for many people is that to fully embrace this good news for what it is would mean that they would then have to accept that what our Government are doing is completely disproportionate to the threat posed. This then leads to the obvious question of why? Which in turn leads to the awkward position of having to consider that there might actually be some sort of alternative agenda at play and that could mean being linked to a conspiracy theory ( God forbid! ).
It's a lot safer at this point to put the blockers up and accuse the other poster of trying to 'downplay' things. |
What alternative agenda do you think is at play? | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:26 - Oct 13 with 1485 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 21:09 - Oct 12 by StokieBlue |
I'm sure the families of the 1.08m people who have thus far died will be happy to know that you feel the threat posed is disproportionate to losing a few "rights" for a little while.
SB |
That's a pretty cheap shot and smacks of virtue signalling to be honest. As Bluesquid said all deaths are tragic for the families concerned but there are a whole host of other things to consider in all of this.
We know that the majority of people who have died were a) over 85 and b) had pre-existing health conditions which were more often than not the primary cause of death. In short many of the victims were sadly already close to the end. That is not me being insensitive or 'downplaying', it is just a fact.
We also know that the consequences of Government responses and lockdowns have already and will continue to be huge, suicides skyrocketing, businesses destroyed, poverty increasing etc. etc. I could ask if you do not care about these things but I'm sure you do so I won't drop to that level.
As for the loss of rights, if you think it is going to be just for a 'while' then I would suggest you have not read too many history books. Society is going to be nothing like it was pre-covid when this is finally over and not for the better, at least not from a civil liberties point of view.
You can rest assured Governments will not be returning any of their extra control or powers unless they are literally forced to by the people. While we have large swathes of the population that like to moan about Government 'incompetence' but don't actually do anything and then look on in disgust at anybody daring to stand up for their rights and protest, I don't see this happening any time soon.
Lets see where we are in a years time, two years time, and see how many rights have been returned and how many have been lost forever. |  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:37 - Oct 13 with 1460 views | bluelagos |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:26 - Oct 13 by Harry_Palmer |
That's a pretty cheap shot and smacks of virtue signalling to be honest. As Bluesquid said all deaths are tragic for the families concerned but there are a whole host of other things to consider in all of this.
We know that the majority of people who have died were a) over 85 and b) had pre-existing health conditions which were more often than not the primary cause of death. In short many of the victims were sadly already close to the end. That is not me being insensitive or 'downplaying', it is just a fact.
We also know that the consequences of Government responses and lockdowns have already and will continue to be huge, suicides skyrocketing, businesses destroyed, poverty increasing etc. etc. I could ask if you do not care about these things but I'm sure you do so I won't drop to that level.
As for the loss of rights, if you think it is going to be just for a 'while' then I would suggest you have not read too many history books. Society is going to be nothing like it was pre-covid when this is finally over and not for the better, at least not from a civil liberties point of view.
You can rest assured Governments will not be returning any of their extra control or powers unless they are literally forced to by the people. While we have large swathes of the population that like to moan about Government 'incompetence' but don't actually do anything and then look on in disgust at anybody daring to stand up for their rights and protest, I don't see this happening any time soon.
Lets see where we are in a years time, two years time, and see how many rights have been returned and how many have been lost forever. |
Couple of pointss regarding our govt not returning our rights...
Part of the emergency measures passed in March was that they were limited for 2 years. Am not a fan of Shami Chakrabarti but she is very much focused on our freedoms. She signed up to the legislation and am sure the 2 year safe guard was something she pushed for.
Not to say they won't try but there is also a libertarian wing of the tories that wouldn't support a full repeal of the powers currently enacted. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:40 - Oct 13 with 1456 views | lowhouseblue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:26 - Oct 13 by Harry_Palmer |
That's a pretty cheap shot and smacks of virtue signalling to be honest. As Bluesquid said all deaths are tragic for the families concerned but there are a whole host of other things to consider in all of this.
We know that the majority of people who have died were a) over 85 and b) had pre-existing health conditions which were more often than not the primary cause of death. In short many of the victims were sadly already close to the end. That is not me being insensitive or 'downplaying', it is just a fact.
We also know that the consequences of Government responses and lockdowns have already and will continue to be huge, suicides skyrocketing, businesses destroyed, poverty increasing etc. etc. I could ask if you do not care about these things but I'm sure you do so I won't drop to that level.
As for the loss of rights, if you think it is going to be just for a 'while' then I would suggest you have not read too many history books. Society is going to be nothing like it was pre-covid when this is finally over and not for the better, at least not from a civil liberties point of view.
You can rest assured Governments will not be returning any of their extra control or powers unless they are literally forced to by the people. While we have large swathes of the population that like to moan about Government 'incompetence' but don't actually do anything and then look on in disgust at anybody daring to stand up for their rights and protest, I don't see this happening any time soon.
Lets see where we are in a years time, two years time, and see how many rights have been returned and how many have been lost forever. |
do you have any data on 'suicides skyrocketing'? genuine question - i can't find it. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:14 - Oct 13 with 1440 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:26 - Oct 13 by Harry_Palmer |
That's a pretty cheap shot and smacks of virtue signalling to be honest. As Bluesquid said all deaths are tragic for the families concerned but there are a whole host of other things to consider in all of this.
We know that the majority of people who have died were a) over 85 and b) had pre-existing health conditions which were more often than not the primary cause of death. In short many of the victims were sadly already close to the end. That is not me being insensitive or 'downplaying', it is just a fact.
We also know that the consequences of Government responses and lockdowns have already and will continue to be huge, suicides skyrocketing, businesses destroyed, poverty increasing etc. etc. I could ask if you do not care about these things but I'm sure you do so I won't drop to that level.
As for the loss of rights, if you think it is going to be just for a 'while' then I would suggest you have not read too many history books. Society is going to be nothing like it was pre-covid when this is finally over and not for the better, at least not from a civil liberties point of view.
You can rest assured Governments will not be returning any of their extra control or powers unless they are literally forced to by the people. While we have large swathes of the population that like to moan about Government 'incompetence' but don't actually do anything and then look on in disgust at anybody daring to stand up for their rights and protest, I don't see this happening any time soon.
Lets see where we are in a years time, two years time, and see how many rights have been returned and how many have been lost forever. |
"We know that the majority of people who have died were a) over 85 and b) had pre-existing health conditions which were more often than not the primary cause of death. In short many of the victims were sadly already close to the end. That is not me being insensitive or 'downplaying', it is just a fact."
I'm not sure that many doctors agree with you on this point. Yes they died of their underlying conditions but they were hastened by C19 which is why it is listed as the cause of the death. I listened to a podcast on how deaths are recorded and what is being done is the same as what is usually done.
Whilst they may be close to the end it's still a minority which needs protecting. Your stance on this seems to be counter to your stance on vaccines where you are concerned about the tiny minority who may have a reaction and not the wellbeing of the majority (correct me if I have misunderstood your position).
"We also know that the consequences of Government responses and lockdowns have already and will continue to be huge, suicides skyrocketing, businesses destroyed, poverty increasing etc. etc. I could ask if you do not care about these things but I'm sure you do so I won't drop to that level."
Clearly I care about these things but as previously discussed, the modelling without lockdowns looks far, far worse than what we currently have. Given this it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils unless you are willing to accept deaths x5 or x10 what we currently have.
"As for the loss of rights, if you think it is going to be just for a 'while' then I would suggest you have not read too many history books. Society is going to be nothing like it was pre-covid when this is finally over and not for the better, at least not from a civil liberties point of view.
You can rest assured Governments will not be returning any of their extra control or powers unless they are literally forced to by the people."
There is no evidence to support this position at the moment, in fact there is evidence to support the opposite position that the government are trying their hardest not to take away civil liberties. They were advised by SAGE to lock down a month ago (see Herbie's thread) but they didn't and kept people "free". If they were trying to seize rights forever why wouldn't they lock down aggressively when the scientists are requesting it?
It's also not the first time restrictions have been used. They were used in the Spanish Flu and things went back to normal afterwards to that doesn't support your position of losing rights for the long term.
Which parts of history are you specifically referring to? It just doesn't tally and looks like a simple anti-establishment position.
"Lets see where we are in a years time, two years time, and see how many rights have been returned and how many have been lost forever."
Fair enough, at present it's totally unknowable how things will look in two years, it's hard to even speculate given the number of independent variables.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:13 - Oct 13 with 1415 views | Harry_Palmer |
I am one of the fortunate one's that still has a job currently and I have a particularly busy day ahead. I genuinely don't have time at present to do justice to the questions posed. Not ducking out, I will respond this evening or as soon as I have the time. Have a good day all. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:15 - Oct 13 with 1410 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:13 - Oct 13 by Harry_Palmer |
I am one of the fortunate one's that still has a job currently and I have a particularly busy day ahead. I genuinely don't have time at present to do justice to the questions posed. Not ducking out, I will respond this evening or as soon as I have the time. Have a good day all. |
Of course, there are more important things than a football forum discussion.
Have a good day.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:20 - Oct 13 with 1395 views | m14_blue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:15 - Oct 13 by StokieBlue |
Of course, there are more important things than a football forum discussion.
Have a good day.
SB |
TAKE THAT BACK | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 12:53 - Oct 13 with 1365 views | bluelagos |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:15 - Oct 13 by StokieBlue |
Of course, there are more important things than a football forum discussion.
Have a good day.
SB |
Possibly the most sensible thing ever posted on here! | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:36 - Oct 15 with 1285 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 08:40 - Oct 13 by lowhouseblue |
do you have any data on 'suicides skyrocketing'? genuine question - i can't find it. |
Apologies for the 48hr delay! In truth I could not find any hard data either so out of interest I emailed the ONS and this was the response I got.
Good afternoon
Thank you for your email. The Health Analysis and Life Events team will be unable to begin reporting on suicide deaths that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, until late 2020/ early 2021.
These deaths are investigated by Coroners which causes a lag between the date of death and the date of registration. Registration delays for deaths caused by suicide tend to be 5 to 6 months on average.
We produce provisional suicide data for England on a quarterly basis, with the latest update including deaths that have been registered from January to June of 2020. This is for deaths registered in 2020, and due to the registration delay described above, most of these deaths would have occurred in 2019.
Our annual statistics are based on the date of registration, therefore our latest release on Suicides in the UK is based on 2019 death registrations.
So basically we won't know for sure until next year, in this country at least. As such my use of the term 'skyrocketing' is not really accurate at this stage and therefore I am happy to retract it.
What I would say though is that I don't think it would be surprising in the slightest if we do so a significant increase, in fact I would say it is inevitable. I have certainly seen a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this. We had a poster on here recently ( think it was Bloots ) who spoke of two people he knew that had sadly taken their own lives. In the below article Professor Angus Dalgliesh speaks of two former colleagues that did the same. I think there was also a poster on here last week that quoted figures from Australia that showed a large increase in suicides over there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8824833/Lockdown-despair-drove-two-Prof | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:43 - Oct 15 with 1277 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 07:09 - Oct 13 by m14_blue |
What alternative agenda do you think is at play? |
I could probably write an essay in answer to this question but I will spare the board and keep it short. I have pretty much alluded to what I think in my response to Stokie but in short I think the Government is using the crisis to increase their power/control and to remove certain rights and freedoms which if they have their way we won't be getting back. Lagos has countered this and I very much hope he is right.
I also think there is a huge influence from some very rich globalists who have a certain vision of the future that may not be in the best interests of the majority of humanity, although of course they will dress it up to look the exact opposite. See the World Economic Forum and their plans for 'the great reset' as one example of this. I'm sure this will be seen as taking it down the 'conspiracy' path but I think you have to be very naive to think that the ultra rich do not have a big influence in this world. [Post edited 15 Oct 2020 11:19]
| | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:52 - Oct 15 with 1270 views | Radlett_blue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:36 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
Apologies for the 48hr delay! In truth I could not find any hard data either so out of interest I emailed the ONS and this was the response I got.
Good afternoon
Thank you for your email. The Health Analysis and Life Events team will be unable to begin reporting on suicide deaths that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, until late 2020/ early 2021.
These deaths are investigated by Coroners which causes a lag between the date of death and the date of registration. Registration delays for deaths caused by suicide tend to be 5 to 6 months on average.
We produce provisional suicide data for England on a quarterly basis, with the latest update including deaths that have been registered from January to June of 2020. This is for deaths registered in 2020, and due to the registration delay described above, most of these deaths would have occurred in 2019.
Our annual statistics are based on the date of registration, therefore our latest release on Suicides in the UK is based on 2019 death registrations.
So basically we won't know for sure until next year, in this country at least. As such my use of the term 'skyrocketing' is not really accurate at this stage and therefore I am happy to retract it.
What I would say though is that I don't think it would be surprising in the slightest if we do so a significant increase, in fact I would say it is inevitable. I have certainly seen a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this. We had a poster on here recently ( think it was Bloots ) who spoke of two people he knew that had sadly taken their own lives. In the below article Professor Angus Dalgliesh speaks of two former colleagues that did the same. I think there was also a poster on here last week that quoted figures from Australia that showed a large increase in suicides over there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8824833/Lockdown-despair-drove-two-Prof |
Lockdowns & track & trace are fine in theory but only work if there is very high compliance & we already have more than enough evidence that a substantial minority wouldn't comply with previous regulations so it's hard to believe that this is going to change, especially after 6 months of restrictions.
It's possible a vaccine will never be found. Stricter lockdowns won't eradicate the virus & may actually prove more damaging in terms of other health issues plus the fact we will run out of money to support essential services so we have to try to live with COVID. This should involve a degree of restriction so that the NHS isn't overwhelmed plus strong advice to the vulnerable to shield. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:56 - Oct 15 with 1260 views | m14_blue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:43 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
I could probably write an essay in answer to this question but I will spare the board and keep it short. I have pretty much alluded to what I think in my response to Stokie but in short I think the Government is using the crisis to increase their power/control and to remove certain rights and freedoms which if they have their way we won't be getting back. Lagos has countered this and I very much hope he is right.
I also think there is a huge influence from some very rich globalists who have a certain vision of the future that may not be in the best interests of the majority of humanity, although of course they will dress it up to look the exact opposite. See the World Economic Forum and their plans for 'the great reset' as one example of this. I'm sure this will be seen as taking it down the 'conspiracy' path but I think you have to be very naive to think that the ultra rich do not have a big influence in this world. [Post edited 15 Oct 2020 11:19]
|
Fair enough.
It seems a little far fetched to me but then again I'm frequently wrong about things, thanks for the reply. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
