FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Flu 'almost wiped out'
Flu 'almost wiped out'
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html" Why is it ‘strange ‘ ?? | |||
| |||
"Perhaps its because of the lockdown and people taking certain measures " COVID is thriving despite those things | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html" Could it be a combination of the uptake of the Flu jab, the lock down measures and basic hygiene improvements. I read an article by a head teacher of a primary school in England and she had reported a substantial drop in numbers of kids with colds, tummy bugs etc. She attributed it to improved hand washing. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html" So less social contacts mean less infections hence the drop. However, the flu mutates rapidly every year (hence why a flu jab is every year) and that is protecting people from the main strands of flu that we think are going to be the most common that year. So while a benefit of all these is that flu is down this year, it will just be those one or two strains, rather than the entire virus. Hope this helps  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Wiped out? The ONS stats state Upto October there was 13,100 flu deaths In 2020. The average is normally about 17,000 its only 4,000 lower than a normal year and that makes sense because the people who are normally vulnerable to being hospitalised with the flu have been shielding or staying indoors for the best part of a year." So hardly wiped out? | |||
"Wiped out? The ONS stats state Upto October there was 13,100 flu deaths In 2020. The average is normally about 17,000 its only 4,000 lower than a normal year and that makes sense because the people who are normally vulnerable to being hospitalised with the flu have been shielding or staying indoors for the best part of a year. So hardly wiped out?" I’m just going by WHO stats in the media today. | |||
| |||
"Wiped out? The ONS stats state Upto October there was 13,100 flu deaths In 2020. The average is normally about 17,000 its only 4,000 lower than a normal year and that makes sense because the people who are normally vulnerable to being hospitalised with the flu have been shielding or staying indoors for the best part of a year. So hardly wiped out? I’m just going by WHO stats in the media today. " As been mentioned I guess the social distancing/,lockdown etc have helped drive it down Surprised it isnt lower tbh | |||
| |||
| |||
"I just don't get how it doesn't compute for some that flu would go down with the restrictions we're living in. You see comments from Karen's like this all the time on social media. " It's one of the lines going around. | |||
"Covid has an R0 of 2-3. Flu apparently about 1.3. If we're applying measures designed to slow or stop a 2-3 disease, it'll do a lot more to slow a 1.3 disease that spreads the same way." Too complicated for the covidiots .. | |||
"Covid has an R0 of 2-3. Flu apparently about 1.3. If we're applying measures designed to slow or stop a 2-3 disease, it'll do a lot more to slow a 1.3 disease that spreads the same way. Too complicated for the covidiots .. " Covid has more cooties than flu? | |||
"1000 deaths where flu was the main cause of death in the first 3 weeks of January and 16,000 mentions on deaths certificates. The deaths where it was mentioned has risen an average of 900 a week. Jan week 1 4649 mentions Week 2 5273 mention Week 3 6149 mention" You do realise that the ONS group "influenza and pneumonia" into one category? Pneumonia can of course be caused my many viral or bacterial infections. You are not quoting influenza figures but influenza AND pneumonia. | |||
"1000 deaths where flu was the main cause of death in the first 3 weeks of January and 16,000 mentions on deaths certificates. The deaths where it was mentioned has risen an average of 900 a week. Jan week 1 4649 mentions Week 2 5273 mention Week 3 6149 mention You do realise that the ONS group "influenza and pneumonia" into one category? Pneumonia can of course be caused my many viral or bacterial infections. You are not quoting influenza figures but influenza AND pneumonia. " Yes you are correct and this has always been the case. So the numbers still reflect the previous years correctly . There’s no way of knowing if the 17,000 average is 16,999 pneumonia and 1 person flu. | |||
"Covid has an R0 of 2-3. Flu apparently about 1.3. If we're applying measures designed to slow or stop a 2-3 disease, it'll do a lot more to slow a 1.3 disease that spreads the same way." Even possibly - wipe it out.. | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html Could it be a combination of the uptake of the Flu jab, the lock down measures and basic hygiene improvements. I read an article by a head teacher of a primary school in England and she had reported a substantial drop in numbers of kids with colds, tummy bugs etc. She attributed it to improved hand washing. " If you look on the WHO, flumart, (live global flu tracker ) flu all but disappeared in week 17 2020, not just from the UK but from the entire globe, | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just hope it doesn't come back with a vengeance, it will, but sadly we can't predict when. When it comes to annual flu figures they are historic and worthless. The next set could be horrendous. Covid is scary, Flu even more scary just because of the unpredictability of it. " Crikey! That’s a bit grim. Try and stay positive mate, don’t watch too much news. | |||
| |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html" I thought it seemed really obvious that the measures that are designed for restricting the transmission of one virus, would also restrict the transmission of other viruses. There has been a massive reduction of STI's too. Cal | |||
"34200 died of flu year ending 2019.and that's, with a, vaccine. I don't think for one minute flu has disappeared. Maybe the figures for covid have flu figures mixed in with them. It's funny how, the flu hasn't been mentioned much this year,don't kid yourself it's, there somewhere " They aren't uk figures | |||
| |||
"Perhaps its because of the lockdown and people taking certain measures COVID is thriving despite those things " Because it's more contagious | |||
| |||
| |||
"All the protection we have in place to reduce Covid is also reducing flu. As flu is less infectious than Covid it is logical that flu figures are really low. Also due to Covid the flu vaccine has been offered to more of the population than normal so this again will help to reduce flu numbers. " This  | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html I thought it seemed really obvious that the measures that are designed for restricting the transmission of one virus, would also restrict the transmission of other viruses. There has been a massive reduction of STI's too. Cal"
"Really obvious"....  | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html I thought it seemed really obvious that the measures that are designed for restricting the transmission of one virus, would also restrict the transmission of other viruses. There has been a massive reduction of STI's too. Cal -----
"Really obvious".... "Didn't mean to offend  | |||
| |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html I thought it seemed really obvious that the measures that are designed for restricting the transmission of one virus, would also restrict the transmission of other viruses. There has been a massive reduction of STI's too. Cal -----
"Really obvious"....
Didn't mean to offend "I'm not offended, I'm agreeing. | |||
 | |||
"Isnt Covid...the Flue ? "A device that acts like a chimney to vent stoves or other types of open fire? No, it's not. Also it's not the influenza virus either. | |||
"Isnt Covid...the Flue ?
A device that acts like a chimney to vent stoves or other types of open fire? No, it's not.
Also it's not the influenza virus either."It's literally a one step Google search, honestly  | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html" It's not almost wiped out at all. It's just a very clear misreading of data in order to get a reaction. Nothing wiped out about it at all. It's there and active. Social distancing measures, restricting social interactions, fewer people reporting it and getting treatment as there are more important concerns... The data for this year is rather limited. It doesn't reflect what's happening elsewhere and when travel restrictions lift so does it's spread What all this could mean is it mutates even further than before and maybe next year current vaccines are not going to be effective. So much speculation going on with sound bites. | |||
"Isnt Covid...the Flue ?
A device that acts like a chimney to vent stoves or other types of open fire? No, it's not.
Also it's not the influenza virus either."They've got to be trolling. We've had a full twelve months now with a few of us on here patiently explaining over and over all the ways in which covid is not influenza. It's been told on the telly. In the newspapers. As swing says, one click away on google. From now on I'm going to take the attitude that anybody pushing the idiocy of covid being "just the flu" is being either wilfully offensive or is just plain stupid. | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html It's not almost wiped out at all. It's just a very clear misreading of data in order to get a reaction. Nothing wiped out about it at all. It's there and active. Social distancing measures, restricting social interactions, fewer people reporting it and getting treatment as there are more important concerns... The data for this year is rather limited. It doesn't reflect what's happening elsewhere and when travel restrictions lift so does it's spread What all this could mean is it mutates even further than before and maybe next year current vaccines are not going to be effective. So much speculation going on with sound bites." The beauty of the majority of the Covid vaccines approved and under study is that the mRNA or specific gene sequence in the vector can be changed/tweaked very easily and a revised vaccine produced. | |||
"Just hope it doesn't come back with a vengeance, it will, but sadly we can't predict when. When it comes to annual flu figures they are historic and worthless. The next set could be horrendous. Covid is scary, Flu even more scary just because of the unpredictability of it. Crikey! That’s a bit grim. Try and stay positive mate, don’t watch too much news. " Always positive, still haven't seen a half empty glass. I don't worry one jot about things I can't influence, just those I can. As sad as this Covid is, a bad strain of the flu will make this Covid pandemic look like a training excercise. | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html It's not almost wiped out at all. It's just a very clear misreading of data in order to get a reaction. Nothing wiped out about it at all. It's there and active. Social distancing measures, restricting social interactions, fewer people reporting it and getting treatment as there are more important concerns... The data for this year is rather limited. It doesn't reflect what's happening elsewhere and when travel restrictions lift so does it's spread What all this could mean is it mutates even further than before and maybe next year current vaccines are not going to be effective. So much speculation going on with sound bites. The beauty of the majority of the Covid vaccines approved and under study is that the mRNA or specific gene sequence in the vector can be changed/tweaked very easily and a revised vaccine produced. " | |||
"Isnt Covid...the Flue ?
A device that acts like a chimney to vent stoves or other types of open fire? No, it's not.
Also it's not the influenza virus either.
They've got to be trolling. We've had a full twelve months now with a few of us on here patiently explaining over and over all the ways in which covid is not influenza. It's been told on the telly. In the newspapers. As swing says, one click away on google.
From now on I'm going to take the attitude that anybody pushing the idiocy of covid being "just the flu" is being either wilfully offensive or is just plain stupid."Why limit it to them being one or the other? From what I've seen on here, people often display the most exquisitely offensive stupidity. | |||
| |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure." Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure." A lot of the stuff you read on here is obviously cut and paste stupidity from social media, but I fully believe you came up with this idea yourself. So... congratulations? | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. " More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. A lot of the stuff you read on here is obviously cut and paste stupidity from social media, but I fully believe you came up with this idea yourself. So... congratulations? " No probs, feel free to copy and paste it onto your social media. | |||
"Flu is 'almost wiped out' and at lowest level in 130 YEARS as seasonal virus plummets by 95% Any thoughts? Seems very strange. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9206071/amp/Flu-wiped-lowest-level-130-YEARS-seasonal-virus-plummets-95.html It's not almost wiped out at all. It's just a very clear misreading of data in order to get a reaction. Nothing wiped out about it at all. It's there and active. Social distancing measures, restricting social interactions, fewer people reporting it and getting treatment as there are more important concerns... The data for this year is rather limited. It doesn't reflect what's happening elsewhere and when travel restrictions lift so does it's spread What all this could mean is it mutates even further than before and maybe next year current vaccines are not going to be effective. So much speculation going on with sound bites. The beauty of the majority of the Covid vaccines approved and under study is that the mRNA or specific gene sequence in the vector can be changed/tweaked very easily and a revised vaccine produced. " They can and that's what's great and reassuring about them. They do take time but if the flu mutates considerably more than normal I'd imagine it might hit back harder. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains!" If testing causes cases, why has Western Australia had one case since April?  | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. A lot of the stuff you read on here is obviously cut and paste stupidity from social media, but I fully believe you came up with this idea yourself. So... congratulations? No probs, feel free to copy and paste it onto your social media. " I might do so as an exemplary quote. Would get a lot of laughs | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains!" Thats true with many things. Choosing representative sample size is a key part of testing | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! If testing causes cases, why has Western Australia had one case since April? "Well maybe it’s because in Australia they only test poorly people in the hospital that are showing the symptoms of Covid (like we did in the good old days), they don’t have a test centre on every corner. They certainly arent mass testing whole communities. It’s also summertime in Australia. I think that would count for a lot. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. A lot of the stuff you read on here is obviously cut and paste stupidity from social media, but I fully believe you came up with this idea yourself. So... congratulations? No probs, feel free to copy and paste it onto your social media. I might do so as an exemplary quote. Would get a lot of laughs "A lot? Mr Popular. Whack it on there you might get a few more ‘friends’. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! If testing causes cases, why has Western Australia had one case since April?
Well maybe it’s because in Australia they only test poorly people in the hospital that are showing the symptoms of Covid (like we did in the good old days), they don’t have a test centre on every corner. They certainly arent mass testing whole communities. It’s also summertime in Australia. I think that would count for a lot."Western Australia, until they had their recent lockdown due to their one case, had had no Covid restrictions for months. They now have one community case. One. (Probably from hotel quarantine) They have testing facilities at many community centres, mostly in Perth, and conducted over 24000 in the last seven days. Sources, health WA and Australian Government Department of Health (Coronavirus). | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Thats true with many things. Choosing representative sample size is a key part of testing " Agreed. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. A lot of the stuff you read on here is obviously cut and paste stupidity from social media, but I fully believe you came up with this idea yourself. So... congratulations? No probs, feel free to copy and paste it onto your social media. I might do so as an exemplary quote. Would get a lot of laughs
A lot? Mr Popular. Whack it on there you might get a few more ‘friends’."Laughs and maybe some sympathy for the source!  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains!" Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. | |||
"So people with the flu has decreased, and thats down to social distancing and lockdown, but Covid cases has shot through the roof and now we have new variants of covid 19, the vaccinne was the return of our freedom but now they say it doesnt stop you getting Covid or transmitting it. Is it me or is something a miss here????? " Flu is much less infectious and transmits a bit differently. We have vaccinated vastly more people against flu this year than ever before. | |||
"So people with the flu has decreased, and thats down to social distancing and lockdown, but Covid cases has shot through the roof and now we have new variants of covid 19, the vaccinne was the return of our freedom but now they say it doesnt stop you getting Covid or transmitting it. Is it me or is something a miss here????? " It's you. Covid is more contagious than flu. They work the same way. And flu vaccinations were way up. So a disease which is easier to prevent even without vaccination is more susceptible to us keeping our germs to ourselves. Variants of Covid are entirely unrelated to the flu. Vaccination was tested for reducing severe illness. That would have been the key to getting our lives back - in time Covid would be a new cold. Tests are now being done (see another thread) which indicate that vaccines reduce transmission as well. So it'll slash the R number. So it'll slow or stop the pandemic. So, definitely you. Nothing amiss. You're welcome. | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August? "Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way." Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August?
Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown. "If testing causes cases then Australia (all states and territories) should have a false positive rate to reflect it. It doesn't. Why? | |||
"So people with the flu has decreased, and thats down to social distancing and lockdown, but Covid cases has shot through the roof and now we have new variants of covid 19, the vaccinne was the return of our freedom but now they say it doesnt stop you getting Covid or transmitting it. Is it me or is something a miss here????? " Who is they?? we don't know yet if the vaccine prevents transmission. However, the most recent reports I've read is that it may well do. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. A lot of the stuff you read on here is obviously cut and paste stupidity from social media, but I fully believe you came up with this idea yourself. So... congratulations? No probs, feel free to copy and paste it onto your social media. I might do so as an exemplary quote. Would get a lot of laughs
A lot? Mr Popular. Whack it on there you might get a few more ‘friends’.
Laughs and maybe some sympathy for the source! "Well that depends if all your ‘friends’ want to stay in lockdown. Some people just surround themselves with people that say things they like to hear, if you’re one of them it won’t go down well. If not, a few might quite like the suggestion. | |||
| |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that." Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? | |||
| |||
| |||
"And there were actually people behind the scenes who averted Y2K, it turns out. Even if it were comparable" I know, right?! Pre planning and all that shizz. But like comparing apples with chimpanzees | |||
"And there were actually people behind the scenes who averted Y2K, it turns out. Even if it were comparable I know, right?! Pre planning and all that shizz. But like comparing apples with chimpanzees "It's the same name, same thing, right?  | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August?
Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown.
If testing causes cases then Australia (all states and territories) should have a false positive rate to reflect it. It doesn't. Why?"Did I say testing ‘causes’ cases? All I’m saying is if we didn’t test for it, we wouldn’t find it. In the olden days doctors used to be able to put things like ‘died from natural causes’ on a death cert. if you have ever seen a death cert nowadays they tend to include lots of things, primarily because they don’t know what actually killed someone. Flu was quite prominent of death certs prior to March, it’s not now. Therefore they appear to have cured flu and could do the same for Covid. I do wonder if flu might make a resurgence if they did? | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August?
Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown.
If testing causes cases then Australia (all states and territories) should have a false positive rate to reflect it. It doesn't. Why?
Did I say testing ‘causes’ cases?
All I’m saying is if we didn’t test for it, we wouldn’t find it. In the olden days doctors used to be able to put things like ‘died from natural causes’ on a death cert. if you have ever seen a death cert nowadays they tend to include lots of things, primarily because they don’t know what actually killed someone. Flu was quite prominent of death certs prior to March, it’s not now. Therefore they appear to have cured flu and could do the same for Covid. I do wonder if flu might make a resurgence if they did?"Or maybe the explanations above show why we've heavily suppressed flu. No wild thinking or head in the sand needed. The virus doesn't care if we call it a corona virus or Tinkerbell, or even if we don't name it at all. It'll still do what it does until we stop it. I see zero benefit in denying it. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection?" It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. " And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August?
Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown.
If testing causes cases then Australia (all states and territories) should have a false positive rate to reflect it. It doesn't. Why?
Did I say testing ‘causes’ cases?
All I’m saying is if we didn’t test for it, we wouldn’t find it. In the olden days doctors used to be able to put things like ‘died from natural causes’ on a death cert. if you have ever seen a death cert nowadays they tend to include lots of things, primarily because they don’t know what actually killed someone. Flu was quite prominent of death certs prior to March, it’s not now. Therefore they appear to have cured flu and could do the same for Covid. I do wonder if flu might make a resurgence if they did?
Or maybe the explanations above show why we've heavily suppressed flu. No wild thinking or head in the sand needed.
The virus doesn't care if we call it a corona virus or Tinkerbell, or even if we don't name it at all. It'll still do what it does until we stop it. I see zero benefit in denying it."I know. I just think in other years we haven’t had these measures and the flu killed people. Now we’ve got all these measures and it’s covid that kills people. I like the good old days with flu and no lockdowns. Crazy I know. | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August?
Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown.
If testing causes cases then Australia (all states and territories) should have a false positive rate to reflect it. It doesn't. Why?
Did I say testing ‘causes’ cases?
All I’m saying is if we didn’t test for it, we wouldn’t find it. In the olden days doctors used to be able to put things like ‘died from natural causes’ on a death cert. if you have ever seen a death cert nowadays they tend to include lots of things, primarily because they don’t know what actually killed someone. Flu was quite prominent of death certs prior to March, it’s not now. Therefore they appear to have cured flu and could do the same for Covid. I do wonder if flu might make a resurgence if they did?
Or maybe the explanations above show why we've heavily suppressed flu. No wild thinking or head in the sand needed.
The virus doesn't care if we call it a corona virus or Tinkerbell, or even if we don't name it at all. It'll still do what it does until we stop it. I see zero benefit in denying it.
I know. I just think in other years we haven’t had these measures and the flu killed people. Now we’ve got all these measures and it’s covid that kills people. I like the good old days with flu and no lockdowns. Crazy I know."A freak event happens, flu gets knocked out as a side effect. I'm glad we've learned. I'll be sure to do my bit to protect people from the flu in future, won't you? | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala" Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. " What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. | |||
"And if winter causes Covid or false Covid results, why did WA see zero, not one, not one hundred, zero cases between June and August?
Yes yes, they closed their borders etc etc Look if you want lockdowns to end my suggestion is to stop testing everyone! Simples. They’ve cured flu by not testing for it so.... I think the same rules may apply? Or we can keep testing everyone and keep the cases high, keep the schools closed, destroy the economy and stay in lockdown.
If testing causes cases then Australia (all states and territories) should have a false positive rate to reflect it. It doesn't. Why?
Did I say testing ‘causes’ cases?
All I’m saying is if we didn’t test for it, we wouldn’t find it. In the olden days doctors used to be able to put things like ‘died from natural causes’ on a death cert. if you have ever seen a death cert nowadays they tend to include lots of things, primarily because they don’t know what actually killed someone. Flu was quite prominent of death certs prior to March, it’s not now. Therefore they appear to have cured flu and could do the same for Covid. I do wonder if flu might make a resurgence if they did?
Or maybe the explanations above show why we've heavily suppressed flu. No wild thinking or head in the sand needed.
The virus doesn't care if we call it a corona virus or Tinkerbell, or even if we don't name it at all. It'll still do what it does until we stop it. I see zero benefit in denying it.
I know. I just think in other years we haven’t had these measures and the flu killed people. Now we’ve got all these measures and it’s covid that kills people. I like the good old days with flu and no lockdowns. Crazy I know.
A freak event happens, flu gets knocked out as a side effect.
I'm glad we've learned. I'll be sure to do my bit to protect people from the flu in future, won't you?"It’s a coronavirus, it’s not a freak event. We’ve had coronaviruses for a very long time ya know? We are stuck in a cycle, all these positive (unreliable) tests are keeping us locked down, I just had a suggestion to end it. Being able to see the negative effects of lockdown is now bad thing ya know? Life before lockdowns was great, don’t get me wrong I’m sure lockdown is great for the middle classes, working from home on full pay but, and it’s a big BUT, they are pretty shit for the poorest in our society... the fact they make very little difference to the spread of diseases (it would be flu if it wasn’t Covid) I say end them now! | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. " Ah right ok! So thanks to that we’ve got this. Wonderful stuff. Why didn’t they just think... hmmm it worked out alright last time let’s do that again. | |||
"So people with the flu has decreased, and thats down to social distancing and lockdown, but Covid cases has shot through the roof and now we have new variants of covid 19, the vaccinne was the return of our freedom but now they say it doesnt stop you getting Covid or transmitting it. Is it me or is something a miss here????? Who is they?? we don't know yet if the vaccine prevents transmission. However, the most recent reports I've read is that it may well do." Sorry "They" as in Doctor Hancock | |||
" It’s a coronavirus, it’s not a freak event. We’ve had coronaviruses for a very long time ya know? We are stuck in a cycle, all these positive (unreliable) tests are keeping us locked down, I just had a suggestion to end it. Being able to see the negative effects of lockdown is now bad thing ya know? Life before lockdowns was great, don’t get me wrong I’m sure lockdown is great for the middle classes, working from home on full pay but, and it’s a big BUT, they are pretty shit for the poorest in our society... the fact they make very little difference to the spread of diseases (it would be flu if it wasn’t Covid) I say end them now!" It's the third Corona virus in a very long time to transmit to humans and the only one in modern history to cause a pandemic, ya know? (I'm pretty sure SARS remained an epidemic, and MERS isn't a superspreader). Not exactly a common cold. I'm aware lockdown is bad, thank you for your insight. As to the rest, I'm sure your academic research will enlighten the community and we will reap its benefits in due course. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. Ah right ok! So thanks to that we’ve got this. Wonderful stuff. Why didn’t they just think... hmmm it worked out alright last time let’s do that again. " More people have died in this Covid pandemic in the UK than died in a flu season of 1999/2000 by a huge amount. 22,000 flu deaths in 1999/2000 vs over 100,000 deaths in this pandemic and it shows no signs of stopping. It's probably that. Just a tiny case of 80,000+ people more, and still counting. | |||
" It’s a coronavirus, it’s not a freak event. We’ve had coronaviruses for a very long time ya know? We are stuck in a cycle, all these positive (unreliable) tests are keeping us locked down, I just had a suggestion to end it. Being able to see the negative effects of lockdown is now bad thing ya know? Life before lockdowns was great, don’t get me wrong I’m sure lockdown is great for the middle classes, working from home on full pay but, and it’s a big BUT, they are pretty shit for the poorest in our society... the fact they make very little difference to the spread of diseases (it would be flu if it wasn’t Covid) I say end them now! It's the third Corona virus in a very long time to transmit to humans and the only one in modern history to cause a pandemic, ya know? (I'm pretty sure SARS remained an epidemic, and MERS isn't a superspreader). Not exactly a common cold. I'm aware lockdown is bad, thank you for your insight. As to the rest, I'm sure your academic research will enlighten the community and we will reap its benefits in due course." Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. | |||
"More people have died in this Covid pandemic in the UK than died in a flu season of 1999/2000 by a huge amount. 22,000 flu deaths in 1999/2000 vs over 100,000 deaths in this pandemic and it shows no signs of stopping. It's probably that. Just a tiny case of 80,000+ people more, and still counting." I think the argument is that if we pretend it's not Covid then it'll stop, or it's natural causes, and tests are wrong (if tests are wrong surely they'd show similar rates of wrong in Australia and New Zealand?) Therefore open up. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. Ah right ok! So thanks to that we’ve got this. Wonderful stuff. Why didn’t they just think... hmmm it worked out alright last time let’s do that again. More people have died in this Covid pandemic in the UK than died in a flu season of 1999/2000 by a huge amount. 22,000 flu deaths in 1999/2000 vs over 100,000 deaths in this pandemic and it shows no signs of stopping. It's probably that. Just a tiny case of 80,000+ people more, and still counting." Yeh yeh yeh and the population grows. You really are better off looking at the deaths per 1000 people to be honest. | |||
| |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000." Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. Ah right ok! So thanks to that we’ve got this. Wonderful stuff. Why didn’t they just think... hmmm it worked out alright last time let’s do that again. More people have died in this Covid pandemic in the UK than died in a flu season of 1999/2000 by a huge amount. 22,000 flu deaths in 1999/2000 vs over 100,000 deaths in this pandemic and it shows no signs of stopping. It's probably that. Just a tiny case of 80,000+ people more, and still counting. Yeh yeh yeh and the population grows. You really are better off looking at the deaths per 1000 people to be honest." Go on, you go and do the Maths and get back to us on that
My mother has made all these false arguments. She's currently sat alone in a house, surrounded by the ghosts of her dad and husband who both died utterly unnecessarily. Quibbling about the numbers or not liking the fact it's happening being shoved in your face doesn't matter. What matters is that we should try and mitigate the deaths and currently, physical distancing and isolation are the best we have until the vaccines have had chance to be used on a wide enough scale. | |||
"I think if we stopped believing the government propaganda months then this would have stopped. Too many lies, contradictions and movibg of goalposts from the veru few who are actually public servants not masters. " I think you should read my answer to your question above | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. Ah right ok! So thanks to that we’ve got this. Wonderful stuff. Why didn’t they just think... hmmm it worked out alright last time let’s do that again. More people have died in this Covid pandemic in the UK than died in a flu season of 1999/2000 by a huge amount. 22,000 flu deaths in 1999/2000 vs over 100,000 deaths in this pandemic and it shows no signs of stopping. It's probably that. Just a tiny case of 80,000+ people more, and still counting. Yeh yeh yeh and the population grows. You really are better off looking at the deaths per 1000 people to be honest. Go on, you go and do the Maths and get back to us on that
My mother has made all these false arguments. She's currently sat alone in a house, surrounded by the ghosts of her dad and husband who both died utterly unnecessarily. Quibbling about the numbers or not liking the fact it's happening being shoved in your face doesn't matter. What matters is that we should try and mitigate the deaths and currently, physical distancing and isolation are the best we have until the vaccines have had chance to be used on a wide enough scale."Hugs xx | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. " There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! | |||
 | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu!" So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. | |||
"Excuse me while I go and remove my forehead by smashing it against the nearest wall " | |||
"Excuse me while I go and remove my forehead by smashing it against the nearest wall "Oh dear. I'm guessing that could be a warning towards limiting my further exposure to the Internet today. I've not read any further up this thread, since it started.  | |||
"Excuse me while I go and remove my forehead by smashing it against the nearest wall
Oh dear. I'm guessing that could be a warning towards limiting my further exposure to the Internet today. I've not read any further up this thread, since it started. "Sophie, if you value all of your faculties, I'd skip it and read a thread about who has the biggest willy or something else original. | |||
"Excuse me while I go and remove my forehead by smashing it against the nearest wall
Oh dear. I'm guessing that could be a warning towards limiting my further exposure to the Internet today. I've not read any further up this thread, since it started.
Sophie, if you value all of your faculties, I'd skip it and read a thread about who has the biggest willy or something else original."There's a thread on preparing penises for photography. | |||
"Has anyone ever thought that if they just stopped testing for Covid the cases would automatically reduce? A bit like they have done for flu, no testing, no cases. Would be a miracle cure. Ive said this before. Its the percentage tested that shows positive , not the overall figure that is important. Very few people where tested during the first wave. More testing, more cases...more mutant strains! Showing positive tests samples does not cause mutations. Mutations have the possibility of happening every single time one viral particle replicates itself. One infected person can have many tens of thousands, possibly millions of viral particles within a short period of becoming infected. We've had over 100 million cases worldwide. That's a LOT of viral particles and opportunities for mutation. It may shock you to know this would happen if we left the virus unchecked, whether we chose to quantify it or not. If we bury our heads in the sand, the virus carries on its merry way. Like the year 2000 you mean? Yeh I’m up for that. Yes, because the Millennium "bug" is exactly the same as a virus that infects mammals. Or did you not realise that the Millennium "bug" was a concern about computer software and systems, not an actual infection? It wasn’t the millennium bug. That was for computers silly. It was flu!! Check the uk death rate per 1000 people for the year 2000, compare that to 2020 and you might see what I mean, if not... ah well. And do you know what happened after that exceptionally bad flu season? What the response was to an unprecedented number of deaths? Clue: it WASN'T putting their heads in the sand, fingers in ears singing lalalalala Yeh I’m sure they took certain steps in response to it, none of them as I recall included closing business, locking people down, closing schools, destroying the economy. I could be wrong but I think we just got on with it. Maybe at the time they did a cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns and thought fuck that, that would be crazy. I just wish they did the same thing last year. What they did is roll out the first mass vaccination programme for seasonal flu in the years following AND started carrying out pandemic flu preparedness studies. Those studies were eventually totally ignored or the preparedness planning ceased to be kept up to date, and here we are, dealing with a pandemic virus. It's not the flu, but many of the systems that needed to be in place for this situation, like scalable mass diagnostic testing, stores of in-date PPE etc, would have been jolly helpful. The flu season of 1999/2000 was not totally unprecedented, but it was the highest number of deaths in the modern medical era in the UK. It caused the "powers that be" to sit up and take note, and if they'd had any anticipation of it happening, they might well have put population behaviour controls in place. Like they did for H1N1 swine flu. Ah right ok! So thanks to that we’ve got this. Wonderful stuff. Why didn’t they just think... hmmm it worked out alright last time let’s do that again. More people have died in this Covid pandemic in the UK than died in a flu season of 1999/2000 by a huge amount. 22,000 flu deaths in 1999/2000 vs over 100,000 deaths in this pandemic and it shows no signs of stopping. It's probably that. Just a tiny case of 80,000+ people more, and still counting. Yeh yeh yeh and the population grows. You really are better off looking at the deaths per 1000 people to be honest. Go on, you go and do the Maths and get back to us on that
My mother has made all these false arguments. She's currently sat alone in a house, surrounded by the ghosts of her dad and husband who both died utterly unnecessarily. Quibbling about the numbers or not liking the fact it's happening being shoved in your face doesn't matter. What matters is that we should try and mitigate the deaths and currently, physical distancing and isolation are the best we have until the vaccines have had chance to be used on a wide enough scale."How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. | |||
"Excuse me while I go and remove my forehead by smashing it against the nearest wall
Oh dear. I'm guessing that could be a warning towards limiting my further exposure to the Internet today. I've not read any further up this thread, since it started.
Sophie, if you value all of your faculties, I'd skip it and read a thread about who has the biggest willy or something else original.
There's a thread on preparing penises for photography."Excellent, sounds like a far more intellectual discussion for my gentle female brain | |||
" My mother has made all these false arguments. She's currently sat alone in a house, surrounded by the ghosts of her dad and husband who both died utterly unnecessarily. Quibbling about the numbers or not liking the fact it's happening being shoved in your face doesn't matter. What matters is that we should try and mitigate the deaths and currently, physical distancing and isolation are the best we have until the vaccines have had chance to be used on a wide enough scale. How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture." Ah. The bigger picture. Yes. How about waking up? Should I wake up too? Any other instructions? | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture." Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. | |||
"Excuse me while I go and remove my forehead by smashing it against the nearest wall
Oh dear. I'm guessing that could be a warning towards limiting my further exposure to the Internet today. I've not read any further up this thread, since it started.
Sophie, if you value all of your faculties, I'd skip it and read a thread about who has the biggest willy or something else original."I'm going to throw up, flog myself or bed of nails thread, for an easy time. Thanks. Take great care here  | |||
" My mother has made all these false arguments. She's currently sat alone in a house, surrounded by the ghosts of her dad and husband who both died utterly unnecessarily. Quibbling about the numbers or not liking the fact it's happening being shoved in your face doesn't matter. What matters is that we should try and mitigate the deaths and currently, physical distancing and isolation are the best we have until the vaccines have had chance to be used on a wide enough scale. How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Ah. The bigger picture. Yes. How about waking up? Should I wake up too? Any other instructions?" I don't need to wake up, I'm woke. | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ." I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. " "There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda." Implication that the media have a corona virus related agenda to blow it out of proportion. You also minimise the suffering of the other poster and point to your personal experience as evidence this isn't a big deal. I'm inferring, it's what people do. (I note when I ask you don't answer or don't find anything) You may think so. The evidence does not support your assertion. People can't be brought back to life. Some disability from Covid may be permanent (obviously we don't know with a relatively new disease). Most of the effects of lockdown can be reversed once it's over. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal." I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate." Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. "There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda." Implication that the media have a corona virus related agenda to blow it out of proportion. You also minimise the suffering of the other poster and point to your personal experience as evidence this isn't a big deal. I'm inferring, it's what people do. (I note when I ask you don't answer or don't find anything) You may think so. The evidence does not support your assertion. People can't be brought back to life. Some disability from Covid may be permanent (obviously we don't know with a relatively new disease). Most of the effects of lockdown can be reversed once it's over." I’m not implicating anything, I gave you the facts and you came to that conclusion yourself. Well done. Minimise the suffering? Come off it. As I said to the poster there are sad stories on both sides. You don’t know my circumstances and I don’t share them on here. Reversed when the lockdown ends? Really... suicides? or do they not matter. | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. "There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda." Implication that the media have a corona virus related agenda to blow it out of proportion. You also minimise the suffering of the other poster and point to your personal experience as evidence this isn't a big deal. I'm inferring, it's what people do. (I note when I ask you don't answer or don't find anything) You may think so. The evidence does not support your assertion. People can't be brought back to life. Some disability from Covid may be permanent (obviously we don't know with a relatively new disease). Most of the effects of lockdown can be reversed once it's over. I’m not implicating anything, I gave you the facts and you came to that conclusion yourself. Well done. Minimise the suffering? Come off it. As I said to the poster there are sad stories on both sides. You don’t know my circumstances and I don’t share them on here. Reversed when the lockdown ends? Really... suicides? or do they not matter. " BMJ November 2020, "Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic" No rise in English suicide rate found in the pandemic period studied. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said "I’m not here to provide you with sources and certainly wouldn’t want you to provide me with any. I always find its better to find your own data and make your own mind up. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said "There's no real point in debating someone who genuinely thinks that stopping covid testing would be akin to a miracle cure because it would cut cases!
I've just thought of a miracle cure to cut the prison population. Don't investigate crimes and arrest people. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said
I’m not here to provide you with sources and certainly wouldn’t want you to provide me with any. I always find its better to find your own data and make your own mind up. "So you're making it up. Good. Lockdown continues because otherwise the death toll is enormous and variants might make it worse. Case closed | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said
There's no real point in debating someone who genuinely thinks that stopping covid testing would be akin to a miracle cure because it would cut cases!
I've just thought of a miracle cure to cut the prison population. Don't investigate crimes and arrest people. "Well someone on here did once inform me that racism doesn't exist in the UK because it's illegal. Better tell all the families of murder victims over the past thousand years that they didn't die | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. "There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda." Implication that the media have a corona virus related agenda to blow it out of proportion. You also minimise the suffering of the other poster and point to your personal experience as evidence this isn't a big deal. I'm inferring, it's what people do. (I note when I ask you don't answer or don't find anything) You may think so. The evidence does not support your assertion. People can't be brought back to life. Some disability from Covid may be permanent (obviously we don't know with a relatively new disease). Most of the effects of lockdown can be reversed once it's over. I’m not implicating anything, I gave you the facts and you came to that conclusion yourself. Well done. Minimise the suffering? Come off it. As I said to the poster there are sad stories on both sides. You don’t know my circumstances and I don’t share them on here. Reversed when the lockdown ends? Really... suicides? or do they not matter. BMJ November 2020, "Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic" No rise in English suicide rate found in the pandemic period studied." Ah right yeh and what about all the people that haven’t yet lost their jobs? The kids that are seriously fucked up long term. The elderly people that didn’t die of Covid but did die alone and weren’t able to see and hug loved ones in their final days. The old persons partner that suffered that loss had to do that alone and away from the family and loved ones. I’m afraid there is a bigger picture here that you just can’t see, no you won’t find these figures in the BJM. Soz. | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. "There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda." Implication that the media have a corona virus related agenda to blow it out of proportion. You also minimise the suffering of the other poster and point to your personal experience as evidence this isn't a big deal. I'm inferring, it's what people do. (I note when I ask you don't answer or don't find anything) You may think so. The evidence does not support your assertion. People can't be brought back to life. Some disability from Covid may be permanent (obviously we don't know with a relatively new disease). Most of the effects of lockdown can be reversed once it's over. I’m not implicating anything, I gave you the facts and you came to that conclusion yourself. Well done. Minimise the suffering? Come off it. As I said to the poster there are sad stories on both sides. You don’t know my circumstances and I don’t share them on here. Reversed when the lockdown ends? Really... suicides? or do they not matter. BMJ November 2020, "Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic" No rise in English suicide rate found in the pandemic period studied. Ah right yeh and what about all the people that haven’t yet lost their jobs? The kids that are seriously fucked up long term. The elderly people that didn’t die of Covid but did die alone and weren’t able to see and hug loved ones in their final days. The old persons partner that suffered that loss had to do that alone and away from the family and loved ones. I’m afraid there is a bigger picture here that you just can’t see, no you won’t find these figures in the BJM. Soz." Soz that evidence matters when making decisions. All the soz. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said
I’m not here to provide you with sources and certainly wouldn’t want you to provide me with any. I always find its better to find your own data and make your own mind up.
So you're making it up. Good.
Lockdown continues because otherwise the death toll is enormous and variants might make it worse. Case closed "Not true and America proves my point, go and have look or just close your eyes Cos it’s not what you want to see. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said
I’m not here to provide you with sources and certainly wouldn’t want you to provide me with any. I always find its better to find your own data and make your own mind up.
So you're making it up. Good.
Lockdown continues because otherwise the death toll is enormous and variants might make it worse. Case closed
Not true and America proves my point, go and have look or just close your eyes Cos it’s not what you want to see."Source? | |||
" Really or is that just what the BBC have told you. Would you actually know there was a pandemic going on if you didn’t see it on the news and on signs up everywhere you go. I certainly wasn’t aware of one in the year 2000. Oh you can't think of a response so you accuse me of watching the BBC. Cute. I remember seeing reports of SARS on the ABC when it happened. We were worried in Australia. Picked up bits and pieces about MERS over time. Heard about SARS, MERS, Covid, and other coronaviruses while reading and listening to science education material not run by the BBC, Sky, The Guardian, CNN, ABC America, or whoever else fits into your MSM bogeyman. Occasionally I read academic articles. Do I know there's a pandemic going on? Yes. Lots more sirens than there used to be. Lots of people I know have had it, I had a suspected case. My medical care has been disrupted. Friends/ family of friends have died. There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda. I know lots of people that have had positive tests, ‘bit like a cold’ they said. My mates gran died and it was on her death cert, she was in the final stages of dementia tho and was put in end of life care, contracted it in hospital and went down as a Covid death. Don’t get me wrong, I know Covid is very real... but so was flu! So based on your views and your personal experience, SARS, MERS, and Covid aren't that big a deal? Is that what you're saying? I do beg to differ. I’ll have to quote you here “Can you point me to where I have said that?” Personally the bigger deal for me is the adverse effects of lockdown. Cost/risk analysis not being done and Covid trumping everything. "There were more media articles about SARS and MERS than there actual cases. Something like 10 fold actually. You’re right to avoid the media, based on what I’ve just said it appears they might have an agenda." Implication that the media have a corona virus related agenda to blow it out of proportion. You also minimise the suffering of the other poster and point to your personal experience as evidence this isn't a big deal. I'm inferring, it's what people do. (I note when I ask you don't answer or don't find anything) You may think so. The evidence does not support your assertion. People can't be brought back to life. Some disability from Covid may be permanent (obviously we don't know with a relatively new disease). Most of the effects of lockdown can be reversed once it's over. I’m not implicating anything, I gave you the facts and you came to that conclusion yourself. Well done. Minimise the suffering? Come off it. As I said to the poster there are sad stories on both sides. You don’t know my circumstances and I don’t share them on here. Reversed when the lockdown ends? Really... suicides? or do they not matter. BMJ November 2020, "Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic" No rise in English suicide rate found in the pandemic period studied. Ah right yeh and what about all the people that haven’t yet lost their jobs? The kids that are seriously fucked up long term. The elderly people that didn’t die of Covid but did die alone and weren’t able to see and hug loved ones in their final days. The old persons partner that suffered that loss had to do that alone and away from the family and loved ones. I’m afraid there is a bigger picture here that you just can’t see, no you won’t find these figures in the BJM. Soz. Soz that evidence matters when making decisions. All the soz." I’ve given you evidence haven’t I? Check America as I’ve said... or just check the The Guardian again and carry on as you are. | |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said
I’m not here to provide you with sources and certainly wouldn’t want you to provide me with any. I always find its better to find your own data and make your own mind up.
So you're making it up. Good.
Lockdown continues because otherwise the death toll is enormous and variants might make it worse. Case closed
Not true and America proves my point, go and have look or just close your eyes Cos it’s not what you want to see.
Source?"Lazy bones, here you go- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ | |||
| |||
" How very sad, I could also list some sad stories about the effects these lockdowns are having on people’s lives, I choose not to tho. There are sad stories on both sides of this debate, it’s clear lockdowns have a lot worse and longer lasting effects than Covid ever will. I think it’s a shame more people can’t see the bigger picture. Such compassion for a person who's lost two family members in a week. Wow. Meanwhile, the evidence is in favour of containing this before it gets worse. How about that. If you think it should be otherwise, you're welcome to submit your scientific evidence for peer review in an appropriate journal. I just don’t choose to chuck emotions into an argument, that doesn’t mean I’m not sorry for your loss. As I said there are sad stories on both sides. What evidence are you talking about? The one that lockdowns work? You’ll have to point me to that one cos I’ve not seen it. Looking at real life data tho, using say America as an example, state to state, harsh lockdowns vs no lockdowns, there is very little difference in the death rate. Got sources? Otherwise it's just a thing you said
There's no real point in debating someone who genuinely thinks that stopping covid testing would be akin to a miracle cure because it would cut cases!
I've just thought of a miracle cure to cut the prison population. Don't investigate crimes and arrest people. "Well it worked for Flu!! | |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. " Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states? | |||
" Source? Lazy bones, here you go- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/" Ok, where's the discussion, the statistical breakdown, accounting for confounding factors, etc? Or is it just a list of numbers that I'm supposed to infer from? You don't like it when I infer things. | |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states?" Because it's that simple, eh? Nothing to do with sizes and density of population centres, level of deprivation (linked to over crowded housing and generally poorer health outcomes overall) etc etc? If it were only so simple that a bloke on a swinger's forum could solve it. Have you phoned Boris? Biden? All the health agencies etc and offered your considerable expertise in the field of public health and epidemiology? | |||
| |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states? Because it's that simple, eh? Nothing to do with sizes and density of population centres, level of deprivation (linked to over crowded housing and generally poorer health outcomes overall) etc etc? If it were only so simple that a bloke on a swinger's forum could solve it. Have you phoned Boris? Biden? All the health agencies etc and offered your considerable expertise in the field of public health and epidemiology? " I’m afraid it really is that simple. And no I haven’t phoned anybody, there are plenty of people, with the necessary expertise in those fields, that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. They did all the schooling for me. Cue all the “oh that’s a fringe point of view, that was debunked by the BBC” I’ll set them up, you knock them down. | |||
"From a highly cited multi country study on the causes of outbreaks. I assume you don't need the citation. "These results support the universal wearing of masks by the public to suppress the spread of the coronavirus" "Some countries which used masks were better able to maintain or resume normal business and educational activities. For instance, in Taiwan, schools reopened on February 21, 2020, with parents directed to purchase four to five masks per week for each child." "Limits on international travel were significantly associated with lower per-capita mortality from coronavirus. On the other hand, nationwide policies to ban large gatherings and to close schools or businesses tended to be associated with lower mortality, although not in a statistically significant fashion. However, businesses, schools, and individuals made decisions to limit contact, independent of any government policies. The adoption of numerous public health policies at the same time can make it difficult to tease out the relative importance of each." "Colder average monthly temperature was not associated with higher levels of COVID-19 mortality when accounting for other independent variables."" WHO by any chance? “although not in a statistically significant fashion” tells you all you need to know. Cheers | |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states? Because it's that simple, eh? Nothing to do with sizes and density of population centres, level of deprivation (linked to over crowded housing and generally poorer health outcomes overall) etc etc? If it were only so simple that a bloke on a swinger's forum could solve it. Have you phoned Boris? Biden? All the health agencies etc and offered your considerable expertise in the field of public health and epidemiology? I’m afraid it really is that simple. And no I haven’t phoned anybody, there are plenty of people, with the necessary expertise in those fields, that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. They did all the schooling for me. Cue all the “oh that’s a fringe point of view, that was debunked by the BBC” I’ll set them up, you knock them down. " Oh bless your heart, you have no idea how public health research works, do you?
And you're going to need to find another bogeyman if you think you can go "the BBC is wrong!" and trump anyone.
Although it is a bit of a Trump thing to say. It's fake news because I said so and they're very fine people. Yuge. | |||
"From a highly cited multi country study on the causes of outbreaks. I assume you don't need the citation. "These results support the universal wearing of masks by the public to suppress the spread of the coronavirus" "Some countries which used masks were better able to maintain or resume normal business and educational activities. For instance, in Taiwan, schools reopened on February 21, 2020, with parents directed to purchase four to five masks per week for each child." "Limits on international travel were significantly associated with lower per-capita mortality from coronavirus. On the other hand, nationwide policies to ban large gatherings and to close schools or businesses tended to be associated with lower mortality, although not in a statistically significant fashion. However, businesses, schools, and individuals made decisions to limit contact, independent of any government policies. The adoption of numerous public health policies at the same time can make it difficult to tease out the relative importance of each." "Colder average monthly temperature was not associated with higher levels of COVID-19 mortality when accounting for other independent variables." WHO by any chance? “although not in a statistically significant fashion” tells you all you need to know. Cheers " Nope. And nope. The data are messy. Like all epidemiology. But I guess I must be wrong, because multivariate analysis and statistical significance doesn't count when making decisions for millions of people. Just BBC is bad and I sez so. Soz. | |||
"From a highly cited multi country study on the causes of outbreaks. I assume you don't need the citation. "These results support the universal wearing of masks by the public to suppress the spread of the coronavirus" "Some countries which used masks were better able to maintain or resume normal business and educational activities. For instance, in Taiwan, schools reopened on February 21, 2020, with parents directed to purchase four to five masks per week for each child." "Limits on international travel were significantly associated with lower per-capita mortality from coronavirus. On the other hand, nationwide policies to ban large gatherings and to close schools or businesses tended to be associated with lower mortality, although not in a statistically significant fashion. However, businesses, schools, and individuals made decisions to limit contact, independent of any government policies. The adoption of numerous public health policies at the same time can make it difficult to tease out the relative importance of each." "Colder average monthly temperature was not associated with higher levels of COVID-19 mortality when accounting for other independent variables." WHO by any chance? “although not in a statistically significant fashion” tells you all you need to know. Cheers Nope. And nope. The data are messy. Like all epidemiology. But I guess I must be wrong, because multivariate analysis and statistical significance doesn't count when making decisions for millions of people. Just BBC is bad and I sez so. Soz." Oh crafty! So ignore my point then. It’s ‘messy’ when it doesn’t fit your narrative? Just brush over that then yeh. | |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states? Because it's that simple, eh? Nothing to do with sizes and density of population centres, level of deprivation (linked to over crowded housing and generally poorer health outcomes overall) etc etc? If it were only so simple that a bloke on a swinger's forum could solve it. Have you phoned Boris? Biden? All the health agencies etc and offered your considerable expertise in the field of public health and epidemiology? I’m afraid it really is that simple. And no I haven’t phoned anybody, there are plenty of people, with the necessary expertise in those fields, that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. They did all the schooling for me. Cue all the “oh that’s a fringe point of view, that was debunked by the BBC” I’ll set them up, you knock them down. " I'm going to bed, I have work tomorrow and also meetings with solicitors about my Grandad's estate. I have far better things to do that try to argue with someone who seems incapable of looking beyond the end of his nose. I'll just go back to my little world of science, thank you. | |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states? Because it's that simple, eh? Nothing to do with sizes and density of population centres, level of deprivation (linked to over crowded housing and generally poorer health outcomes overall) etc etc? If it were only so simple that a bloke on a swinger's forum could solve it. Have you phoned Boris? Biden? All the health agencies etc and offered your considerable expertise in the field of public health and epidemiology? I’m afraid it really is that simple. And no I haven’t phoned anybody, there are plenty of people, with the necessary expertise in those fields, that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. They did all the schooling for me. Cue all the “oh that’s a fringe point of view, that was debunked by the BBC” I’ll set them up, you knock them down. I'm going to bed, I have work tomorrow and also meetings with solicitors about my Grandad's estate. I have far better things to do that try to argue with someone who seems incapable of looking beyond the end of his nose. I'll just go back to my little world of science, thank you. " Yeh probably best, looking at those numbers my just prove my point. Night and best of luck tomorrow. | |||
"Average USA deaths per unit of population is pretty much the same as ours, but with places like New York and New Jersey having death rates that are much much higher than our average rate. Well done and lockdown states vs no lockdown states? Because it's that simple, eh? Nothing to do with sizes and density of population centres, level of deprivation (linked to over crowded housing and generally poorer health outcomes overall) etc etc? If it were only so simple that a bloke on a swinger's forum could solve it. Have you phoned Boris? Biden? All the health agencies etc and offered your considerable expertise in the field of public health and epidemiology? I’m afraid it really is that simple. And no I haven’t phoned anybody, there are plenty of people, with the necessary expertise in those fields, that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. They did all the schooling for me. Cue all the “oh that’s a fringe point of view, that was debunked by the BBC” I’ll set them up, you knock them down. I'm going to bed, I have work tomorrow and also meetings with solicitors about my Grandad's estate. I have far better things to do that try to argue with someone who seems incapable of looking beyond the end of his nose. I'll just go back to my little world of science, thank you. Yeh probably best, looking at those numbers my just prove my point. Night and best of luck tomorrow." Sigh. If you think you're right, then wonderful. My mother thinks she right too. She believes that there's a galactic federation of aliens who have a trade agreement with earth. Obviously, because she thinks it, then it must be true because that's how facts work. Enjoy your almost certain smug feeling of self satisfaction. Don't let your head catch on the doorframe on your way through | |||
