FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > More harm than good?

More harm than good?

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *reenleavesCouple over a year ago

North Wales

You're citing the daily mail as 'proof'?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The mail certainly does more harm than good...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *traight_no_iceMan over a year ago

Stoke

Because not everyone complied?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

Did you read the article or just the headline. This is overall measures. I.e a lot of the time virtually no measures were in place. The report says if we had shut down none essential businesses throughout deaths would have been reduced by 10.6% if schools were shut it would be 4.4%. Shutting borders would only make 0.1% difference.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You're citing the daily mail as 'proof'? "

The study wasn't carried out by the Daily Mail... Funnily enough I couldn't find this news on the BBC or Guardian, sorry.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So the article says a lot more than that as a previous poster has said, the report also isn’t peer reviewed so hasn’t yet been scrutinised!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovelybumCouple over a year ago

Tunbridge Wells

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

It seems like a rocket since for some

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovelybumCouple over a year ago

Tunbridge Wells

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *outhlondon_guyMan over a year ago

London

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

Did the fact it was conducted by economists not make you think they were specifically seeking a certain type of outcome

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

It's not peer-reviewed, so would be better after that.

It's not UK specific and each UK nation state had different strategies.

It has a very loose definition of restrictive measures it is looking at.

Compiled by economists?

A key element was the reduction in deaths, when many countries battled to keep health services etc, from going under.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

"You're citing the daily mail as 'proof'?

The study wasn't carried out by the Daily Mail... Funnily enough I couldn't find this news on the BBC or Guardian, sorry.

The Daily Mail will carry many things as click bait, that suits their agenda.

Other media will wait for the peer-review process to be undertaken, so that they can warrant any credibility that may be in it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *udistcpl1Couple over a year ago

Wirral

And don't forget that all the mass spreading events in Downing street.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *litheroevoyeurMan over a year ago

Clitheroe

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

It's probably proves that lockdowns caused a reduction in virus deaths. You have a problem with that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *all me FlikWoman over a year ago

Galaxy Far Far Away

You missed this bit OP...

The researchers — who deal in the field of economics, rather than medicine or public health — originally identified 18,590 global studies into lockdowns, which they claim had to be whittled down to just 24 to answer their research question.

Critics have accused them of 'cherry-picking' studies to suit their narrative and have raised doubts about the biases of its authors, who have been vocal about lockdowns and vaccine mandates on social media.

Most scientists believe that, before the arrival of vaccines and antivirals, lockdowns had a significant effect on cutting transmission and therefore reducing the number of hospital admissions and deaths caused by Covid.

...you're welcome

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Eastbourne

"The mail certainly does more harm than good..."

It is looked up to by sun readers though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The mail certainly does more harm than good...

It is looked up to by sun readers though "

lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The mail certainly does more harm than good...

It is looked up to by sun readers though "

To be fair, it is soft, strong and thoroughly absorbant. (Guess that quote for bonus points.)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

The effects of the lockdowns and other measures were very obvious from the statistics. The near immediate reduction in the rate of increasing infections is indisputable.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

I’d say common sense would indicate that an (any) illness that requires humans to be in close proximity for a period of time to transmit is going to be reduced by people not meeting (ie lockdown).

The key is surely how quickly you lock down and when you open up again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

The effects of the lockdowns and other measures were very obvious from the statistics. The near immediate reduction in the rate of increasing infections is indisputable.

Cal"

Were lockdowns so crucial to controlling COVID-19?

Didn't the person who provided the figures to justify the lockdown break the lockdown rules himself?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ob198XaMan over a year ago

teleford

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

The effects of the lockdowns and other measures were very obvious from the statistics. The near immediate reduction in the rate of increasing infections is indisputable.

Cal"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I’d say common sense would indicate that an (any) illness that requires humans to be in close proximity for a period of time to transmit is going to be reduced by people not meeting (ie lockdown).

The key is surely how quickly you lock down and when you open up again."

Common sense? What is that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

The effects of the lockdowns and other measures were very obvious from the statistics. The near immediate reduction in the rate of increasing infections is indisputable.

Cal

Were lockdowns so crucial to controlling COVID-19?

Didn't the person who provided the figures to justify the lockdown break the lockdown rules himself?"

The UK and each outside country were different. The member states of the UK were different too. The UK did benefit when in lockdown. The evidence shows that.

The pre review report OP talked almost nothing about, by economists, wasn't based on the UK but globally, so was a distraction from the UK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"The mail certainly does more harm than good...

It is looked up to by sun readers though

To be fair, it is soft, strong and thoroughly absorbant. (Guess that quote for bonus points.)"

Haha! And the pages are a handier size, better than wrestling with the Sunday times. If only the pages had perforated edges ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *I TwoCouple over a year ago

all around

Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ob198XaMan over a year ago

teleford

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

This study uses economic modeling to analyse a medical effect without context.

'Lockdown' is defined as “as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention”, so only wearing masks would be 'lockdown'.

The data from different countries with different 'lockdowns' were bundled together.

They include deaths immediately after a 'lockdown' is imposed, but in reality there is a delay of weeks to take effect.

It's muddled, but can probably be put to use and may be modified after peer review.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

The effects of the lockdowns and other measures were very obvious from the statistics. The near immediate reduction in the rate of increasing infections is indisputable.

Cal

Were lockdowns so crucial to controlling COVID-19?

Didn't the person who provided the figures to justify the lockdown break the lockdown rules himself?"

No, the figures come from the actual collection of data. These figures are given to the government & media representatives, they are coming from them.

You have to remember that the likes of Boris and his chums were breaking the rules, not because they didn't think they worked... but because they cared more about having fun than they did about looking out for others.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People will argue for years to come about whether lockdown was a good idea or not.

Personally we feel it was a bad idea maybe it was good for stopping the spread of covid.

But with suicides up alcohol drug abuse and domestic violence up . Not to mention people not being treated for other diseases on the NHS namely cancer.

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Was listening to the head of the union for head teachers on the radio when we was in lockdown and he was saying. The stories what he was earring on a daily basis. About children being neglected and abused because of the lockdown would make people weep.

Oh and not to mention the financial cost of it all .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimrose and TonyCouple over a year ago

Farnworth

"And don't forget that all the mass spreading events in Downing street."

Actually, where has there been any suggestion that whatever may or may not have happened in downing street that caused any mass spreading? This is actually still adding to the rubbish already spouted

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orny PTMan over a year ago

Peterborough

This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ity_BoyMan over a year ago

London

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates."

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference."

Depends how you want to look at it . We can all search for stats and figures what support our argument ( confirmation bias ) still they keep saying it on the radio that there's not much difference in between Florida and California death rates.

Anyway here's a story from the Daily Mail , I get the feeling you won't accept stories from the Daily Mail but that then makes it easy for me to reject stories what you might want to post response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along.

The effects of the lockdowns and other measures were very obvious from the statistics. The near immediate reduction in the rate of increasing infections is indisputable.

Cal

Were lockdowns so crucial to controlling COVID-19?

Didn't the person who provided the figures to justify the lockdown break the lockdown rules himself?"

Yes.

No.

Winston

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *instonandLadyAstorCouple over a year ago

Not where we seem to be...

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked."

You'd think that to be true.

Virus forum suggests otherwise.

Winston

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked.

You'd think that to be true.

Virus forum suggests otherwise.

Winston"

Actually .... I was watching an expert on youtube and they said if you look at the graphs via the reflection of a mirror whilst standing on your head it shows definitively that the lockdown made things worse. You just gotta know where to look.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

PDI

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected."

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of… "

Not my excess numbers, the ONS published numbers. 'with or of' dunno go look them up yourself as it seems to bother you. 14% higher than expected however you want to dress it up/disect it to fit your belief. Maybe there was a severe outbreak of obesity and its nothing to do with Covid at all?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

61 people in ireland died of covid with no other conditions, 3 were under 65, over half the deaths with covid were linked to care homes/nursing home, there were 4000 patients transferred from hospitals to care/nursing homes without being tested, nursing homes asked to lockdown but were told not to....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ity_BoyMan over a year ago

London

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Anyway here's a story from the Daily Mail , I get the feeling you won't accept stories from the Daily Mail but that then makes it easy for me to reject stories what you might want to post response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html"

There is literally no other way to look at it. Florida's death rates are much higher.

You can not interpret it any other way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Anyway here's a story from the Daily Mail , I get the feeling you won't accept stories from the Daily Mail but that then makes it easy for me to reject stories what you might want to post response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html

There is literally no other way to look at it. Florida's death rates are much higher.

You can not interpret it any other way."

You wanna bet? You must not have been exposed to fab logic before.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Anyway here's a story from the Daily Mail , I get the feeling you won't accept stories from the Daily Mail but that then makes it easy for me to reject stories what you might want to post response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html"

"They keep saying it" on the radio do they? Sure "they" do. Do they say what the Mail says or do they come to a different conclusion when it is discussed?

It doesn't really "depend how you want to look" at directly comparable numbers.

The question posed is not, actually answered in this Mail article anyway

Florida and California "ending up in the same place" as a snapshot now.

Pointless comparison anyway.

Even the Mail article shows quite clearly that even though the trends of the graph are similar for both states the outcome per population has been consistently better for California, even though Florida has attempted to not even measure the data and attempted to manipulate it.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article249576943.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-coronavirus-death-data-cases-election-b1774991.html

Economy performing similarly over the period, so no economic argument to stay open and have a higher rate of illness and death.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2021/08/04/2021-us-states-by-gdp-and-which-states-have-experienced-the-biggest-growth/

How about looking at the full data set over time?

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-29/california-vs-florida-covid-cases-deaths-after-delta-variant

A reduction of a few percent in illness or death is thousands of people. Is that still not clear after all of this time? This is what "better" means in reality to actual people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimrose and TonyCouple over a year ago

Farnworth

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference."

Failed at maths then?

Think you'll find its around 33% without going into the schematics..

It's a massive 'about'. Only 17% out which is about a 50% exaggeration.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimrose and TonyCouple over a year ago

Farnworth

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected."

Can you actually quote the individual years of 2015/6/7/8/9

Plus obviously each year, year on year more population so expected 2020 to be higher

The ONS also produces figures from 1960. Might be worth examining those before shouting how excessive 2020 was

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ity_BoyMan over a year ago

London

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Failed at maths then?

Think you'll find its around 33% without going into the schematics..

It's a massive 'about'. Only 17% out which is about a 50% exaggeration. "

Florida's death rate is 1.5 times Californias.

300/200=1.5

That is a 50% increase.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ity_BoyMan over a year ago

London

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

Can you actually quote the individual years of 2015/6/7/8/9

Plus obviously each year, year on year more population so expected 2020 to be higher

The ONS also produces figures from 1960. Might be worth examining those before shouting how excessive 2020 was "

I'm referring to the Covid death rate, not overall death rate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimrose and TonyCouple over a year ago

Farnworth

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

Please bear in mind that in 2020, nobody died of flu or respiratory diseases which normally or usually accounts for between 25 and 50 thousand.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rimrose and TonyCouple over a year ago

Farnworth

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Anyway here's a story from the Daily Mail , I get the feeling you won't accept stories from the Daily Mail but that then makes it easy for me to reject stories what you might want to post response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html

There is literally no other way to look at it. Florida's death rates are much higher.

You can not interpret it any other way."

In all honesty you cannot compare state with state much as you cannot compare country with country unless you can quantify again the population mix and density.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference.

Anyway here's a story from the Daily Mail , I get the feeling you won't accept stories from the Daily Mail but that then makes it easy for me to reject stories what you might want to post response.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9262397/How-California-Florida-took-different-approaches-ended-result.html

There is literally no other way to look at it. Florida's death rates are much higher.

You can not interpret it any other way.

In all honesty you cannot compare state with state much as you cannot compare country with country unless you can quantify again the population mix and density. "

Correct. You cannot when Florida has been trying to obfuscate its figures.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article249576943.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-coronavirus-death-data-cases-election-b1774991.html

What is the comparison that you would prefer?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lym4realCouple over a year ago

plymouth

The Daily Mail actually thought Boris was a great idea though ??? and lockdown was about stopping the spread but we locked down to late ??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hancer666Man over a year ago

Redbourn

[Removed by poster at 06/02/22 21:07:34]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You're citing the daily mail as 'proof'?

The study wasn't carried out by the Daily Mail... Funnily enough I couldn't find this news on the BBC or Guardian, sorry.

There’s a reason for that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aximumperversionMan over a year ago

Nationwide

"And don't forget that all the mass spreading events in Downing street."

I think the question that need to be asked about the parties is not them breaking lockdown rules but why they weren’t scared of the cold virus that petrified the country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ylonSlutTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

Please bear in mind that in 2020, nobody died of flu or respiratory diseases which normally or usually accounts for between 25 and 50 thousand. "

Flu doesn't highest year since proper figures have been kept is 26000. The usual flu deaths number pre covid is 5 or 6 thousand and has been as low as 1500. Depends on the strains circulating that year and if they get the vaccine right that year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ob198XaMan over a year ago

teleford

"And don't forget that all the mass spreading events in Downing street.

I think the question that need to be asked about the parties is not them breaking lockdown rules but why they weren’t scared of the cold virus that petrified the country"

Well as they can’t even keep a drinks party secret, leak more than old garden hose and are always ready to knife each other in the back, any suggestion there was some collusion to intentionally over playing the seriousness of the situation really is laughable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And don't forget that all the mass spreading events in Downing street.

I think the question that need to be asked about the parties is not them breaking lockdown rules but why they weren’t scared of the cold virus that petrified the country"

It's not a cold virus. You should know that by now.

And why were they willing to party like that and break the rules? Possibly because they're really fucking arrogant, so they thought they wouldn't get ill or get caught?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of… "

Define exactly what you mean by with & of? If you Have Covid and your oxygen levels deplete and you go into cardiac arrest or organ failure, is that Covid or not? Because the only reason those events have happened is because of Covid, even though, technically, it's not actually Covid that's killed them. Seems to be arguing semantics.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

You see this sort of thing a lot on here from certain people. They desperately try to pretend that Covid is less dangerous. Feels basically like an attempt to justify ignoring rules, not getting vaccinations, not wearing masks etc...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Even if Covid was not the direct cause of death, if it was the primary aggravation or accelerator for a pre-existing condition, then it is still THE major driver of death (even though this is “died with”).

There is also a flaw in the 5yr average argument as it needs to take account of a massive/unprecedented change in behaviours over the pandemic that has reduced exposure to other risks as well as Covid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"And don't forget that all the mass spreading events in Downing street.

I think the question that need to be asked about the parties is not them breaking lockdown rules but why they weren’t scared of the cold virus that petrified the country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

Then you only have to look to the US where Florida stayed open and California shut down hard and there's not much difference in between the death rates.

Florida's Covid death rate per 100,000 is 304. California's is 204.

That's about 50% higher.

Pretty significant difference."

Also, lockdown strategy was resigned to slow the spread, to keep R at a manageable level, to smooth out the peaks and try the ensure that the nhs wasn’t overrun.

To reiterate, it was to SLOW the spread, not to eliminate the virus. Some people seek to forget that.

And lockdowns were very successful in that regard. When we had subsequent waves and restrictions were reintroduced, numbers came down and the spread was slowed again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

Agreed. Because restrictions and vaccines have worked so well, and the virus is becoming less dangerous, complacency kicks in and some people seek the think they we didn’t need the restrictions in the first place. It’s like going out for a drive, not having a crash, and concluding that you didn’t need to wear the seatbelt or have any airbags.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

To both your posts above.

I've given up trying to explain this to my colleagues who I thought were intelligent people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

PDI

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

Except that’s not what I’m asking at all. Deaths at home appear to have skyrocketed over the past 2 years (although I’m sure someone will be along soon to say they haven’t). How many people were unable to access NHS services, or thought they shouldn’t - because of Covid! Sadly I feel the worst is yet to come regarding the collateral damage of a Covid only public health strategy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

For many people, the collateral damage is both perfectly acceptable and an uncomfortable truth that should not be spoken about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

For many people, the collateral damage is both perfectly acceptable and an uncomfortable truth that should not be spoken about."

I don’t know a single person who matches that description, thinking that the collateral damage is ok. Every death and sickness is tragic, and the authorities have an unenviable balancing act to perform.

I also see the overall nhs strategy differently, I don’t see it as covid-only, never was ... even at its worst, I knew plenty of people who were getting treatment for other conditions.

Focus is now shifting to fetching up on backlogs, which is a huge positive, a big step back towards normality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

For many people, the collateral damage is both perfectly acceptable and an uncomfortable truth that should not be spoken about."

Of course there is damage, however, lots of people ignoring restrictions and doing as they wished, combined with government advice that pandered to the worse of society, allowed this to continue to this point. Since the first lockdown we've never had a lockdown, apart from in name.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izandpaulCouple over a year ago

merseyside

""Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html#comments

This proves what many of us have been saying all along."

Nope.

It just proves that bias reinforcement is alive and kicking...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

A man born in 1938 was driving from age 12 and had never had a licence, or insurance, when stopped by Nottingham police recently. He proved that these weren't necessary either. Seatbelts, airbags etc not being used and journeys all fine, demonstrate that vaccines were unnecessary to people like him. Never had a problem in over 70 years

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"This death toll has to be measured against the expected natural causes of death, especially in the elderly, nursing homes and terminally ill.

Has any one seen any posters of "Norovirus, or flu infecting homes so no vistors can come in today lately"?

Even news reports are stating that "died with covid, is not the same as died from it".

It's a case of, step back and read behind the headlines.

Behind the headlines England and Wales

Deaths registered in 2020 = 569,700

Five yr average 2015-19 = 497,442

Thats 14% higher than expected.

How many of your excess numbers died ‘ because of Covid’! . Not with or of…

Statistical outliers prove nothing. We all know an old granny in her 90’s who has smoked for 80 years ... doesn’t prove that smoking isn’t bad for you, just means she got lucky.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orking Class GentMan over a year ago

Warrington

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked."

Indeed, and no doubt would help quell speeding, robbery and all other sorts of bad things. A wise person would look at the whole picture.. which the WHO have done in the past and the conclusion was that, on balance, lockdowns are not effecive. Which is probably why containing the healthy has never been part of anyone's pandemic planning.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdown-science-pandemic-imperial-college-london-quarantine-social-distance-covid-fauci-omicron-11639930605

Hope the WSJ link is a bit more respected than the Daily Hate..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdown-science-pandemic-imperial-college-london-quarantine-social-distance-covid-fauci-omicron-11639930605

Hope the WSJ link is a bit more respected than the Daily Hate.."

Assessing whether lockdowns at effective or not depends on what the goals of the lockdowns are.

On our case, lockdowns were implemented for the specific purpose of trying to ensure that the nhs and icu’s were not overrun. In the early days, the limiting factor was ventilators ... if too many people needed ventilators at the same time then there would be people dying who could have new saved.

Against that goal, the lockdowns were effective, icu’s and ventilators never reaching breaking point.

Of course, there is a bigger picture, and other consequences of lockdowns, hence the reluctance to go into lockdowns and the speed with which we came out of them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

"Even an idiot can look at the graphs of infections/hospitalisation/deaths and the impact of the various restrictions and lockdowns and see they worked.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdown-science-pandemic-imperial-college-london-quarantine-social-distance-covid-fauci-omicron-11639930605

Hope the WSJ link is a bit more respected than the Daily Hate..

Assessing whether lockdowns at effective or not depends on what the goals of the lockdowns are.

Against that goal, the lockdowns were effective, icu’s and ventilators never reaching breaking point.

Of course, there is a bigger picture, and other consequences of lockdowns, hence the reluctance to go into lockdowns and the speed with which we came out of them. "

You've covered the other aspects of lockdowns, including timing and the types of restrictions and the UK didn't fare well enough with several of them. But did get the NHS leeway, such as with ventilator capacity etc.

This global report, when every country introduced very different measures, isn't likely very apt to the UK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtysnapperMan over a year ago

Bromsgrove

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome "

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart… "

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *azirlMan over a year ago

Marbella

"You're citing the daily mail as 'proof'?

The study wasn't carried out by the Daily Mail... Funnily enough I couldn't find this news on the BBC or Guardian, sorry.

The Daily Mail will carry many things as click bait, that suits their agenda.

Other media will wait for the peer-review process to be undertaken, so that they can warrant any credibility that may be in it. "

Name the “other media” that waits for the peer-review process to be undertaken so they can warrant any credibility that may be in it. Pretty much all media is clickbait at this stage and the so called journalists hide behind “opinion” pieces so that they can get away with presenting bs. I think you’ll be hard pressed to name a media source that hasn’t blatantly lied and jumped on narratives that had no credibility over the last few years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart."

... if medical professionals don’t have our best interests at heart, then I’m struggling to think of anyone who does!

In my book, medical professionals are pretty much at the top of the list of people who might have people’s welfare at heart.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"You're citing the daily mail as 'proof'?

The study wasn't carried out by the Daily Mail... Funnily enough I couldn't find this news on the BBC or Guardian, sorry.

The Daily Mail will carry many things as click bait, that suits their agenda.

Other media will wait for the peer-review process to be undertaken, so that they can warrant any credibility that may be in it.

“Blatantly lied” . That’s quite an allegation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtysnapperMan over a year ago

Bromsgrove

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart."

Hahaha and you think the Daily Mail does? I’m out…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart.

... if medical professionals don’t have our best interests at heart, then I’m struggling to think of anyone who does!

In my book, medical professionals are pretty much at the top of the list of people who might have people’s welfare at heart. "

You're naïve if you think they are all pure as the driven snow!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *immyinreadingMan over a year ago

henley on thames

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart.

... if medical professionals don’t have our best interests at heart, then I’m struggling to think of anyone who does!

In my book, medical professionals are pretty much at the top of the list of people who might have people’s welfare at heart.

You're naïve if you think they are all pure as the driven snow!"

Did I say they were? We are all human, but medical professionals are near the top of my list when it comes to having people’s welfare at heart.

Given the grades needed to go into medicine, for example, doctors could go into much more lucrative lines of work, with shorter hours, less stress.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart.

... if medical professionals don’t have our best interests at heart, then I’m struggling to think of anyone who does!

In my book, medical professionals are pretty much at the top of the list of people who might have people’s welfare at heart.

You're naïve if you think they are all pure as the driven snow!

Did I say they were? We are all human, but medical professionals are near the top of my list when it comes to having people’s welfare at heart.

Given the grades needed to go into medicine, for example, doctors could go into much more lucrative lines of work, with shorter hours, less stress. "

So we agree that not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"You missed this bit OP...

...you're welcome

This. Why are people determined to contradict the majority of scientists and medical professionals? Economists do not have our best interests at heart…

Not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart.

... if medical professionals don’t have our best interests at heart, then I’m struggling to think of anyone who does!

In my book, medical professionals are pretty much at the top of the list of people who might have people’s welfare at heart.

You're naïve if you think they are all pure as the driven snow!

Did I say they were? We are all human, but medical professionals are near the top of my list when it comes to having people’s welfare at heart.

Given the grades needed to go into medicine, for example, doctors could go into much more lucrative lines of work, with shorter hours, less stress.

So we agree that not all scientists and medical professionals have our best interests at heart."

What did that particular "win" prove? Out of interest?

I would say that those encouraging people not to get vaccinated or take chloroquine or invermectin despite the huge body of evidence are the ones who do not have our best interests at heart.