Forum menu
TiRed has been invaluable in the understanding he has brought to this thread, and in the measured way he has calmed people down, no matter what their views and information sources. He should not have to put up with a troll, who made a new account purely to troll people about this subject, accusing him of scaremongering to try and get a rise out of him.
There is a reason why we were not overwhelmed in the Spring, and some cancer patients will sadly now be less well treated as a consequence.
What. Is. Your. Plan? My best friend really wants to know. Why? Because she is triaging the arrivals with hypoxia at the Royal Berkshire this evening. And they aren't all frail old people with comorbidities. They are you and I. This is not, I am afraid scaremongering. Hospitals have been filling at a rapid rate with patients presenting with hypoxia (I deliberately do NOT count test results here - admissions are based on symptoms). The Nightingales are a distraction for when things are so bad we have nowhere to put the bodies. There is no fancy modelling involved in that simple projection. None, it's data-driven.
Somebody in the NHS has the job of ordering body bags. How many extra will be required over the winter? I am on record as stating 30k with appropriate control measures (a bad flu year). How many would you like without such measures? Sorry to be blunt, but decisions are required. I don't do scaremongering, just facts.
I would argue if that is the case, that the NHS and the people who run and advise it are not fit for purpose.
Well it seems we agree on something. But that won't help with that order.
He should not have to put up with a troll, who made a new account purely to troll people about this subject, accusing him of scaremongering.
It helps clarify the arguments. Sceptical points are always welcome, but one has to make decisions based on available information and valid methods of inference. I don't normally like being so blunt, but that is the situation we find ourselves in.
The hospitals were not overwhelmed with the first wave
With a lot of colleagues who worked in ITU during the 1st wave, I'd really like you to say that to their faces so you could see their response
The hospitals weren't overwhelmed because they cancelled operations that would arguably been better use of beds. A relative had to drive to Malaga to get cancer treatment because the NHS had put treatment on hold to free off resources for Covid. A 50 year old cancer patient lost a bed to an elderly patient with Covid because the elderly paient was in immediate risk of death whereas it was considered that delaying the treatment to my relative would only increase risk of death. Happily the Spanish health service had different priorities.
Edit to reply to Kimbers. Officially pondlife is right:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-and-other-professional-bodies-response-to-sunday-times/
Edukator
and may well have had it unless I had something a lot like it in the first week of lockdown 1
I think you can find out or was told so.
I understood pharmacies in France have a test you can get.
nah, not feeding it.
You're right, stevextc, but even the publicity for the tests gives a curve that shows you're unlikely to test positive on it beyond five months. My doctor is highly sceptical about test results beyond the peak in antibodies at about three months for anyone who had a mild case. My symptoms were mild and could have just been bad asthma but Madame had more classic symptoms as did a colleague, I fail to see how I didn't get it from her unless you can do what people who like each other a lot do lots without transmitting.
EDIT: Deleting my post. Crikey has the right approach.
TiRed has been invaluable in the understanding he has brought to this thread, and in the measured way he has calmed people down, no matter what their views and information sources.
+1 and er, wow.
Why are you all pandering to this absolute clown? He's a sad little man who has created an account simply to troll you all..his contribution is worthless
Ignore him..
pondlife - as our newest troll, would you care to tell us whether you have any relevant experience in any of... epidemiology or virology or statistical modelling or mathematical forecasting?
If so, point us toward the evidence that proves it.
Any halfwit can post deliberately provocative comments with no background in, experience or knowledge of the subject they opine about.
This becomes particularly offensive when human life is at risk.
Your comments are windbaggery, a bag of bollocks.
Why are you all pandering
Because he makes a lot of valid points. If you think he's posting rubbish counter it point by point. His observations seems sound but I disagree with his personal atitude, I won't be visiting family at Christmas unless events take that choice out of my controL.
Nice one Frank. Where's the like button when you need it?
You call that sad, I call it an utter disgrace!
Half my family died of cancer. I am more than familiar with the stresses involved in denial of treatment and postponement of operations. I think it was a poor decision.
But aside from no lockdown at all, which will demonstrably swamp healthcare, what's your plan? Mine is exit lockdown into a tiered strategy dependent on regional variation, with forward projection of future hospitalisations using the COVID ONS population-level survey data (not cases). Followed by roll-out of vaccination, and a possible (not eventual) return to more normal behaviors in 2H21. Pretty measured stuff. No models required.
Again, what would you do? I am genuinely interested in the sceptical proposal. Debate is always interesting, and the critics role is always an easy one, but when wants an opinion, what will you recommend? The Great Barrington accord takes no account of this country's risible past history in protecting the vulnerable. And the inference of immunity is entirely untested - how much would you rely on T cell cross-reactivity? Because removing lockdown is reliant on just that. When would you revert to another policy? When deaths are 50% above baseline? 75% above? 100% above? (as they were in April). I genuinely am interested, because few choose to enter such debate.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is very easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment."
I respect his opinion and value his contributions but he seems to disregard rather flippantly a lot of very eminent scientists with different views to his own
Sorry that's just not my style - point to a single example? All I ask is that when scientists make assertions they provide evidence. i see such confident assertions every day at work, It very seldom ends well in the long run. Science isn't like that.
that have been ‘censored’ by the government via Ofcom not to present alternative versions of ‘the science’
let me guess all pcr tests are just swamped by false positives etc etc
I’ve done my research and I suggest you do too rather than believe all that you hear on the BBC and Guardian websites and most of the other mainstream media channels that have been ‘censored’ by the government via Ofcom not to present alternative versions of ‘the science’.
Look into it, do you own research........
Hmmm....I smell shite....
Oh and the regular focus on the marathon runners (always marathon runners or other fitness fanatics) with Long Covid symptoms! Scaremongering of the top level!
On an unrelated point, if you substitute national-level 12-hr time trialist for marathon runner - then that's me. I try NOT to let it cloud my judgement. So little is known about the pathogenesis of this new pathogen. We've had influenza for an age, but this is not influenza. There was a time when stomach ulcers were caused by stress... Much to learn. Feynman was so right. 🙂
let me guess all pcr tests are just swamped by false positives etc etc
Reliability of positive results is good, reliabilty of negative results much less so.
I'm surprised you can't find anything in Pond Life's arguments to counter and have to resort to putting words into his mouth invoking something he hasn't.
I recognise the technique, it's used against me by people who are failing. So rather than throwing in red herrings get stuck into what he has said rather than what you want him to have said that he hasn't.
Edit: ex world-championship level triathlete here. 😉 Can't run up the local hill without walking since March. 🙁
Again, what would you do? I am genuinely interested in the sceptical proposal. Debate is always interesting, and the critics role is always an easy one, but when wants an opinion, what will you recommend? The Great Barrington accord takes no account of this country’s risible past history in protecting the vulnerable. And the inference of immunity is entirely untested – how much would you rely on T cell cross-reactivity? Because removing lockdown is reliant on just that. When would you revert to another policy? When deaths are 50% above baseline? 75% above? 100% above? (as they were in April). I genuinely am interested, because few choose to enter such debate.
T-Cell cross reactivity or some level of existing population who are not susceptible has never been disproved has it? Does anyone honestly believe that 100% of the population are susceptible?
I would largely follow the recommendations made by the Great Barrington Declaration. People dismiss the Barrington declaration saying that we somehow can't miraculously protect the elderly. Well we haven't exactly done a very good job of this with the current approach have we? We've also trashed the economy and the lives and livelihoods of many other people in the process.
The fact is we have to accept as a society that old and ill people sometimes die and that the death rate of any population is always 100%. We can't change that. We can't extend everyone's life with no regard to the costs involved. We need to measure life not by length but by quality.
We also need to keep an eye on the health of the country long term, not cripple the economy that pays for our NHS by trying to play god with a virus. No long term good will come from our current approach, but most people seem fixated only on the here and now with scant regard for our future and our children future.
I’m surprised you can’t find anything in Pond Life’s arguments to counter and have to resort to putting words into his mouth invoking something he hasn’t.
I was trying to figure out what he meant by 'the science'
Im still not sure what that is, especially which bits have been 'censored by Ofcom' ?
"Censored by Ofcom" has popped up in the media so it's not Pond Life's invention. First Google non-ofcom result follows, the next was the Spectator which I personally would only use wrap up broke glass before throwing it in the bin but hey, some people are happy to read it.
Does anyone honestly believe that 100% of the population are susceptible?
Yes, I am afraid that is the null hypothesis and has been borne out by experiment so far. Tested by release of lockdown and absence of reductions in rates of hospitalizations (forget cases) by region and country. Nobody has done an experiment to show that cross-reactivity of T cells confers any immunity to infection. Nor whether such people can pass on the virus. Without that important information, I simply do not think it worthy of the risk. I do think they are likely to suffer less severe and possibly asymptomatic infection. But sterile immunity - we do not know.
As I have shown (and was presented to SAGE) countries that fail routinely to protect their vulnerable have already had a poor outcome from COVID19. If we were Norway, who seldom see excess influenza mortality in any year, then I would be questioning matters more deeply. We most definitely are NOT Norway - I wish we were.
I don't give public comment, I do my own research (for work and fun) and I don't call for lockdowns nor make a lot of noise. I am only interested in the facts. Because a clearer understanding of facts makes decisions easier.
I also think it's not unreasonable to think that many things could have been handled differently. Testing and care home support being first in line. lastly, the facts could also have been communicated more clearly; that this is a grave situation; control measures are necessary; there will a solution; expect 18 months of disruption. I've said that since March.
Not sure if this has been shared, but BBC has a documentary tonight looking at the science and modelling behind the first lockdown. BBC2 at 9pm
I may not bother watching it as this article seems to cover most of it
BBC News - Was the scientific advice for lockdown flawed?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54976192
Guardian websites and most of the other mainstream media channels that have been ‘censored’ by the government via Ofcom
How is Ofcom able to censor the Guardian and other news websites? BBC maybe but the Guardian and other papers have the toothless IPSO.
Edukator
Free Member
“Censored by Ofcom” has popped up in the media so it’s not Pond Life’s invention. First Google non-ofcom result follows, the next was the Spectator which I personally would only use wrap up broke glass before throwing it in the bin but hey, some people are happy to read it.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/15/planet-normalofcoms-coronavirus-guidance-akin-censorship-says/
/blockquote>Im afraid your link is censored by a paywall
How is Ofcom able to censor the Guardian and other news websites? BBC maybe but the Guardian and other papers have the toothless IPSO.
Here:
Seem to remember there was some other more blatant stuff too, but can't seem to find it now with a quick Google search. If I do I will post.
Basically Ofcom have been used by the government to make sure that the mainstream media only communicate the governments Covid narrative in a favourable light. Any alternative scientific opinions can be classed as mis-information. Clearly the 5G stuff is mis-information and should be rightly quashed but sadly it would seem it also applies to alternative scientific opinion regarding Coronavirus response. Alternative science that happens to disagree with the government and NHS narrative.
Really sorry for the Telegraph link but ex senior BBC Sue Cook gives a good account of this here in the latter half of this podcast (approx 30 mins in):
Using language such as "tsunami" is simply hyperbolic fear-mongering of the type that lead to ill-thought panic measures such as the discharge of sick patients from hospitals into care homes.
I agree that it is not unexpected that countries with poor records of protecting the vulnerable can be expected to perform similarly badly when faced with a novel virus. This seems to me an consequence of an electorate which knowingly chooses not to prioritize public health- consequently I don't see that there is a mandate for an indefinite lockdown.
Im afraid your link is censored by a paywall
Not on my PC in France, I'd never pay to read that. Thank's for letting me know though I'll link to the Spectator in future instead, same inventive style of journalism. I see Pondlife has provided a Youtube link to the same content from Sue Cook.
Seem to remember there was some other more blatant stuff too
Maybe I should have made it clearer.
Ofcom has no authority over the Guardian or the other papers.
It has some over the BBC.
Using language such as “tsunami” is simply hyperbolic fear-mongering
Not really - a Tsunami is not a huge tidal wave, it is a continued surge - low but sustained - it just keeps coming, which is what we will see with COVID cases without control or a vaccine. High but stable levels of transmission are unsustainable. Swamping is the tidal wave.
This seems to me an consequence of an electorate which knowingly chooses not to prioritize public health- consequently I don’t see that there is a mandate for an indefinite lockdown.
Nor do I and have never advocated one. But past choices have consequences.
brainwashed by the relentless and one-sided government propaganda and fear mongering on this one.
Why are the government trying to brainwash me? What are they hoping to gain by doing that?
However, we remind all broadcasters of the significant potential harm that can be caused by
material relating to the Coronavirus. This could include:
• Health claims related to the virus which may be harmful.
• Medical advice which may be harmful.
• Accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.We will be prioritising our enforcement of broadcast standards in relation to the above issues. In these
cases, it may be necessary for Ofcom to act quickly to determine the outcome in a proportionate and
transparent manner, and broadcasters should be prepared to engage with Ofcom on short timescales.
Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be
potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the
imposition of a statutory sanction.
I'm not sure that's unreasonable in light of people attacking 5g towers
Though there is scope there regarding criticism of government policy for censorship
I would largely follow the recommendations made by the Great Barrington Declaration.
Could you define what they are please.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that I want to be protected from COVID19.
Not because I’m at risk of dying, that is a small risk. But because being fit and healthy and fast on my bike is part of who I am.
Too many people that I know have been ill for too long with covid for me to be comfortable about the risk.
I’m not happy for it to be ‘let rip’. I want there to be a low risk that I (a fit forty something female) catch it if I do normal things. And I am not happy to do normal things - get on a train, spend time indoors in a pub or cafe, sit in a room in a meeting - when 4% of people in my local community are positive. There is no way of knowing - if I caught it - how bad it would be. Too much of a lottery. Sorry.
I have work that means I can avoid risk - but I don’t want others to be put in a position where they are at risk either. That’s why we need universal rules to reduce the levels and the risk.
That’s beside knowing that my neighbour is working under huge pressure at one of the north Manchester hospitals - wards being closed due to positive cases, so the logistics of running the service are enormously complex. You can’t ‘let it rip’ in a hospital - MSRA was a scandal at a much lower level, letting Covid spread in a hospital would be utterly unacceptable.
Your statements are a simple and pure insult to all people working on the frontline against this horrendous illness
Agreed, colleagues have found it incredibly tough, particularly in cases where patients weren't old and had children etc
You are doing nothing for the cause of your profession calling people scum, speedstar. A family member has a shut down tourist business. At the present rate he'll be taking early retirement, shutting down and laying off 9 workers. He isn't calling anyone scum. Nor is the cancer patient in Spain, nor am I. Crikey perhaps wisely dipped out.
People having different priorities favouring young cancer patients over elderly people or favouring the highest level of economic activity possible compatible with amintaining the virus at a manageable level doesn't make them scum.
If you call people scum you need to take a long hard look at what you are yourself.
That is fundamentally not what he's saying though is it. If you will look further back he goes as far as to say "people are dying of respiratory diseases but not covid." I can assure you very much that they are dying of covid.
Edukator, go back and read his posts. It is not appropriate to tell anyone to be quiet when someone is literally denying the disease exists. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you do.
Id also like to see evidence of what science is being censored
Edukator, go back and read his posts. It is not appropriate to tell anyone to be quiet when someone is literally denying the disease exists.
He is not though, he is suggesting that you don't call people you disagree with scum, I would agree with him, says more about you than the person you are criticising.
He is not though, he is suggesting that you don’t call people you disagree with scum, I would agree with him, says more about you than the person you are criticising.
A very valid points. Insults undermine even the strongest argument.
Worth checking out that BBC2 documentary. Really interesting, very open about some of the errors the scientists and modellers made early on. Some of them clearly very aware of the consequences of their errors.
Very damning comment from one of the behavioural science advisors, that the government was using "behaviour fatigue" as a reason not to lock down early when a) the phrase isn't apparently recognised by experts in the field and b) they hadn't asked the behaviour subcommittee.
Do you not question all those billions spunked up the wall to mates of the Tories on the various Covid contracts too?
Billions? Really? Citation needed. Maybe if the roughly £100 billion squandered by a previous Labour government on an IT system for the NHS had been spent on staff and facilities we’d be much better off as well...
BBC2 documentary. Really interesting,
Only some of them made errors. Not all were interviewed. But very interesting nevertheless. Lorenzo Pellis produced an analysis that broadly replicated mine using U.K. and Italy data. Mine used the entire global epidemic dataset from ecdc to Date in early March. I posted it on Facebook on March 14 and it was presented to SAGE a day later.
Billions? Really? Citation needed. Maybe if the roughly £100 billion squandered by a previous Labour government on an IT system for the NHS had been spent on staff and facilities we’d be much better off as well…
Citation please?
I thought NHS IT was £10bn when abandoned?
UC is looking £12bn when it's finished, (in 4 years time, 14 years after it was started & 7 years late)
I believe PPE contacts awarded to Tory donors so far amount to about £500m? But that's not including Serco or Delloite
Maybe if the roughly £100 billion squandered by a previous Labour government on an IT system for the NHS had been spent on staff and facilities we’d be much better off as well…
UK govs of all colours have a piss poor record of successfully delivering large scale projects of any type - it's not just NHS IT and it's not unique to Labour.
The multiple failed schemes have been widely covered in Private Eye over the past 20 years; the mainstream press have expressed no serious interest in exposing any of them and asking the hard questions.
PPE contracts to dodgy providers massively exceed £500 mill; no need to provide any citations as it's recently received some much needed coverage in mainstream media.
The National Audit Office report reckoned about £10bn was spent outside of usua competition rules
Dodgiest thing seems to be the way ministers & MPs were able to refer favored suppliers to priority procurement chanel
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
I don’t understand the drive behind the naysayers! I am suffering a bit of Covid fatigue and will admit to being somewhat selfish in thinking I want my pre-Covid life/allowances back, however, I keep hearing the moaners calling for a slackening of the restrictions and to do so soon for fear our economy will collapse - but - to what aim is this government doing this? Why would destroying the economy medium long term be part of a plan? Inept they may be but genuinely crippling the economy? For what?
Boom!
And there goes the neighbourhood. And it's a real f**ing shame.
It's all well and good saying *debate is healthy* and *echo chamber* or something or other.
Fact is, once you let them in, they take over and spoil it all. There is a good story somewhere about how they do this in real spaces - the one with the bartender telling someone to do one out of nowhere, someone knows what i'm talking about - give them an inch and they'll keep taking and taking, miles and miles, and answering questions with questions, and what were we talking about?
This thread has been, for me, invaluable from the start. I was thanking TiRed before it was cool...
As has been alluded to ^above, many people could see which way the wind was blowing way before anything was mandated; behaviours were changing weeks before laws were being crafted; some people were imposing their own lockdowns at least two weeks before v.01.
I don't know why people want to be so contrary.
When disinterested people who know things give you advice, you assume it is given in good faith, do you not?
If i needed to dredge the bottom of the pond, i could look at my local facebook group page. There are people talking all sorts of crap there - please make it stop here.
Can i just clarify one point @pondlife ?
When you previously mentioned the 'research' that you had done, whilst suggesting the rest of us should do some, was that just reading something that someone said on the internet?
Because that's not really research, is it? It's just reading what someone said on the internet.
I have spent much of the last hour listening to Gil Scott Heron tunes on YouTube, but i would baulk at suggesting that it was some sort of 'research'.
Seems to me that people like @Tired and @thecaptain have been doing actual research, and reporting their findings to an eager public.
Let's not forget that the Barrington Declaration was open to whoever wanted to be a signatory, so ended up being endorsed by, as an amalgam, Dr Jonny Bananas (Professor of Hard Sums).
It is a strange hill upon which to choose to die.
Whenever there's a crisis you find new names turning up and chipping in loads, normally well expressed and well spelt, after about two days of free membership. The drift I'm getting is kin awful, very much in line with Clover's comments and it is appalling that people want to make light of this, if anything it's much worse than is being reported.
What I’d really like to know about SAGE is how and why the mountain of empirical evidence for a rapid doubling time was rejected in favour of some poorly-supported modelling.
I did hear that one particular character was an arrogant bully with undue dominance in the field but have no evidential basis so won’t repeat their name. Regardless of personal faults it was a catastrophic structural and systemic failure. This is something that basically everyone with a spreadsheet could work out for themselves at that time (ie about the middle of March, I first mentioned it publicly on the 9th, after tracking the numbers for a little while).
Getting that right was pretty much the main purpose of SPI-M at that time in predicting the onset of the outbreak. At least, it should have been.
BTW whatever silliness SAGE comes up with today, the R number is likely close to 1, meaning that the peak isn’t going to get worse but isn’t going away any time soon either.
to what aim is this government doing this? Why would destroying the economy medium long term be part of a plan? Inept they may be but genuinely crippling the economy? For what?
I asked him why the gov was trying to brainwash us pages ago, he hasnt answered.
There comes a point where you just say no. I'm not calling him out on economic arguments but on his aim to develop doubt in what is very robust science. Those who aren't angry that someone comes on the forum 2 days ago then starts writing screeds of conspiracy nonsense of the internet are either not understanding this or want some of it to be true. These arguments have been had in finitum already on here yet as soon as some koolaid sponsored fool comes on he's given legitimacy? Why don't you all (Edukator and mr Ike) pop to your local hospital and start rolling his arguments about in ITU? Try it and then report back here instead of banding internet-accumulated nonsense
What I’d really like to know about SAGE is how and why the mountain of empirical evidence for a rapid doubling time was rejected in favour of some poorly-supported modelling.
I came away with the opinion that there was a mountain of evidence both ways but the key point I got was that many of the experts and modellers lived in a bubble if scientific theory. One interviewed said he should have realised if it was ripping through Italy it was ripping through other European countries, another talking about care home deaths said they didn't understand how they operated in the real world - and I got the impression he was about to break down at that point.
Wise old heads with previously proven experience will always be listened to more than new young guns presenting new realities. Hopefully that lesson has been learnt and we'll lockdown harder and faster next time when the experts get it right- oh ****, no we didn't
Basically ALL science that does not agree with our public health authorities narrative.
Here is the letter from Ofcom that I was looking for:
Yeah, that's the letter
What I'd like to see is the censored science you've uncovered with your research, to back up your claims
Interesting Development in Australia....
The lockdown in South Australia (Adelaide) is going to be lifted early - tomorrow. Some smaller restrictions will remain, but in the most part its being lifted. But Why?
Turns out the bit of the contract tracing that had them most worried - was a blatant lie. Turns out the chap in question had a second job at the pizza restaurant in question, and hadn't just picked it up from ordering takeaway (which was his original story I think)
Pitchforks are being sharpened and torches being lit as we speak - or the Australian equivalents. The locals are revolting.
Dude's going to have to go into hiding.
I've not read most of the last few pages but the modelling has to take into account the uncertainty associated with the various transmission scenarios. The uncertainty can be many times larger than the phenomena being predicted/extrapolated.
It's not a surprise that different models with different parameters provide wildly different projections.
What I’d like to see is the censored science you’ve uncovered with your research, to back up your claims
Another request for this please.
Responding with “do your own research” or some other deflection just invalidates your opinion.
If you will look further back he goes as far as to say “people are dying of respiratory diseases but not covid.” I can assure you very much that they are dying of covid.
Well the British government isn't counting people who die after 28 days after a positive test as dying of Covid, they are just dying of a respiratory disease. It's bollocks of course.
The semantics are a problem. I got picked up by TiRed for using "T-cell immunity" a few weeks back despite that exact term being used to describe what I wanted to mean in several serious sources. A few pages back TiRed makes the distinction betwee SARS 2 infection and having Covid. Scientists are just muddying the water and the conspiracy theorists jump on the bits that please them.
Just call it Covid from a positive test to death whenever that is a direct result FFS and there will be less arguing about the detail and more concentration on the fact that effective measures are necessary and those measures don't necessaarily mean shutting down the economy.
Some news on Europe 1 this morning. In the first wave 1/2 French care homes were infected. In wave 2 it's 1/5 half way (hopefully) through the wave. We haven't learned.
As for prisons, a high profile trial is in trouble because the prisoners have Covid (or have tested positve for SARS 2 - rolls eyes). There can't be a better example of strict confinement than a prison, and that confinement has its limits in terms of limiting spread.
(Edukator and mr Ike)
I shouldn't bite at obvious provocation but read evey post I've made on this thread and then see if you want to retract that.
I don't know if Pondlife is trolling or just presenting an alternative opinion in a confrontational way. If it is trolling, he's getting the results he needs (other genders implied)
But some of the things he says are true, or at least need proper debate. I'm a scientist myself and have an opinion derived from what I have read and understood, but there do seem to be some areas lacking - whether they are not relevant, being avoided, or actively covered up I don't know. As example we don't know what the impact of the economic damage will have long term on health / quality of life for poorer members of society. We don't know how many are dying / will die 'because of' the pandemic rather than of the pandemic - I mean those who have delayed treatment for treatable diseases for fear of catching the virus or overwhelming the systems. Increase suicide rates among young, jobless. And so on....
I disagree with how he wants to introduce those discussions, but they are discussions to have. And in case I'm asked - I don't have an alternative plan, I subcontract that to the people that run the country (not that i chose this lot) and in the meantime I'm following the plan we have because it seems to be working. Doesn't mean another plan wouldn't work better - I can light a barbecue with sticks and a match, but I use a chimney starter.
But some of the things he says are true, or at least need proper debate.
Yes, we spotted that technique. Don't fall for it, they are just trolling.
pondlife
official government narrative
You keep mentioning this ... yet we have nearly 500 pages documenting the U turns and almost daily changing and contradictory "government narrative"
As example we don’t know what the impact of the economic damage will have long term on health / quality of life for poorer members of society.
Some of the implications seem likely to be life long.
Local high school has (allegedly) seen a jump in kids no longer attending, these same kids are now drinking heavily several times a week along with other drug consumption. For whatever reason* there has also (allegedly) been a decline in parents/guardians trying to do anything about it.
*arguably the increased strain they are under themselves. I’m in a reasonably safe place financially and the whole thing is still highly stressful and frankly exhausting.
Logical end result is an increase in unemployed alcoholics/drug addicts whose entire adult lives will be blighted or simply destroyed completely. Not all of them of course, but an increased proportion. And that has major wider community implications for decades to come.
No evidence for any of that, anecdotal etc etc
Edukator
The semantics are a problem. I got picked up by TiRed for using “T-cell immunity” a few weeks back despite that exact term being used to describe what I wanted to mean in several serious sources. A few pages back TiRed makes the distinction betwee SARS 2 infection and having Covid. Scientists are just muddying the water and the conspiracy theorists jump on the bits that please them.
I don't think it's really the scientists muddying the waters but the political spin being put on it and the actual questions they are being asked and to some extent the constraints being put on them for funding.
Example:
Politician: Do you have any evidence to suggest the virus is being transmitted in XYZ
Scientist: Not as such, it's obvious so we haven't spent time
Politician: Then you have no evidence
Scientist: It doesn't work like that
Politician: Right so no evidence and you don't understand it ... off to set policy and do a press conference
An extreme example from the other side of the pond?
Have you tried injecting patients with disinfectant?
@TiRed, SAGE didn't meet on the 15th did they? No minutes from that day IIRC. 16th perhaps?
Pellis' claims are slightly weakened by the fact that his paper uses data from the 17th March so could hardly have been written prior to the 18th, and SPI-M changed their estimate of doubling time (to 3-4 days) on the 20th. Maybe he presented an earlier analysis (what and when exactly? Documentation matters) but most importantly, where were these voices in the public sphere when a handful of modellers were still rubbishing the evidence of faster doubling times?
Just watch one minute of this: Pueyo's scared and slightly panicky comment, and Edmunds' utterly dismissive and patronising response (should start 22:40 in):
It chills me every time I see that. There were plenty more of us who could see what Pueyo described, playing out in real time while the "experts" sat on their hands.
@MoreCashThanDash, there was absolutely not a mountain of evidence either way. The only evidence that there ever was for a 5-7 day doubling was a very limited analysis of a few hundred cases at the start of the Wuhan outbreak, which was acknowledged as being highly uncertain by the authors of those papers (ie 5-7 days didn't actually cover the full range of uncertainty) and which had been completely overwhelmed by the evidence from thousands of cases and deaths in multiple European countries by the middle of March.
Interesting Development in Australia….
The lockdown in South Australia (Adelaide) is going to be lifted early – tomorrow. Some smaller restrictions will remain, but in the most part its being lifted. But Why?
Turns out the bit of the contract tracing that had them most worried – was a blatant lie. Turns out the chap in question had a second job at the pizza restaurant in question, and hadn’t just picked it up from ordering takeaway (which was his original story I think)
Pitchforks are being sharpened and torches being lit as we speak – or the Australian equivalents. The locals are revolting.
Dude’s going to have to go into hiding.
Read that. It says far more about the authorities knee-jerk and over-reactive response to an anomaly in the data than any fault of the man in question. I mean the authorities have jumped right in there and assumed it must be some new strain? Lockdown everyone for 60 days, with zero evidence apart from wild assumption?
If you guys think the conspiracy theorists (of which I am not one) are crazy, just take a look at your governments and how they are acting. Rational? Proportionate?
That's the problem with lockdowns. The science does not support them and there is zero evidence they have any positive effects. Possibly the only thing they might achieve is perhaps slightly delaying the death of a few elderly or very sick people, but we still don't know the full costs of lockdown on society and on healthcare in general. Andthey are probably huge, the cure being far worse than the disease.
Not knowing this yet apply lockdowns anyway is negligent at best, criminal at worst. It goes against the fundamental principle of medicine "First - do no harm".
@MoreCashThanDash, there was absolutely not a mountain of evidence either way
I stand corrected, I misunderstood from the way I felt it was presented.
You keep mentioning this … yet we have nearly 500 pages documenting the U turns and almost daily changing and contradictory “government narrative”
All different degrees of lockdown though. If any of them worked why would we need to keep chopping and changing? The virus hasn't changed. In fact we now know it's far less deadly that we thought back in March. Yet the government seems to want to keep doubling down on failure. Oh that last lockdown didn't work, best have even more lockdown then! Test and trace doesn't work - lets have more test and trace!
There are other approaches (GBD), yet I think the government don't want to admit they are wrong and change tack. Personal reputations ahead of the health of the nation. Who'd have thought?
You have to wonder why the government felt the need to censor the media via Ofcom? If the government had nothing to hide why would they? What are they not telling us and why are they doing this?
Pondlife, your not going to get any form of debate on here, I've followed it from the start. As you can see it's just accusations of trolling.
When some of the experts on here contribute to other threads on different sites their data is called into question and their lack of context is made apparent.
When you say ‘knee jerk’ I say ‘using the cautionary principle’. Inexplicable source, inexplicable spread - use the cautionary principle and over-react in the short term until information is available. If we’d ‘over-reacted’ at the start, the shape of the epidemic would have been different - more like say, New Zealand or Australia or even Germany.
As it is, the rates are too high for me to be comfortable and I am personally damaging the economy. Things aren’t as simple as ‘unlock’ and it will save the economy. I’ll contribute more when I consider it low risk for me to.
That’s the problem with lockdowns. The science does not support them and there is zero evidence they have any positive effects.
You keep saying this, but dont back it up with any evidence,
Please could you supply some?
That’s the problem with lockdowns. The science does not support them and there is zero evidence they have any positive effects. Possibly the only thing they might achieve is perhaps slightly delaying the death of a few elderly or very sick people, but we still don’t know the full costs of lockdown on society and on healthcare in general. Andthey are probably huge, the cure being far worse than the disease.
Well the last lockdown greatly reduced the prevalence of the virus, thats pretty damn good evidence. The problem is the government have failed to cime clean that the lockdown was just to prevent every at risk person dying at the same time as it would knock outvthe nhs. This allows the nhs to keep services going as much as possible and now a vaccine is within sight its to delay the nhs. Being overrun enough to get the vacinnes rolled out. Do nothing isnt and wasnt an option as it would mean hundreds of thousands clogging yp the nhs. Its not hard to grasp tbh
Proper lockdowns work pretty well at suppressing the virus. Ours have so far managed to screw the economy and give us the worst death rate in Europe.
There are clearly discussions to be had about how we "ration" NHS treatment. They happen all the time, there isn't an endless pot of money and more importantly resources. Similarly for supporting or minimising damage to the economy, mental health, young people's prospects.
But, that needs to be in the context of a potential additional death toll of 200,000+, and the same again left with long term health issues, with the knock on effect that has on the economy, the NHS, social care, mental health and education.
It's a new virus, we're learning as we go along. But if you want to discuss it, bring some peer reviewed research to the party if you want to be taken seriously.
All different degrees of lockdown though. If any of them worked why would we need to keep chopping and changing?
Erm nope.... not all to do with lockdown .
The government narrative has flipped continually on every aspect I can think of.
(I'm not even going to try and start listing them)
Various forms of half-hearted lockdown are merged into the ongoing narratives but you are only concentrating on the lockdown aspect.
You have to wonder why the government felt the need to censor the media via Ofcom? If the government had nothing to hide why would they? What are they not telling us and why are they doing this?
Partly though the overriding reason is because they don't have a narrative. Indeed they are feeding the media with leaks to see which way the wind blows.
I'm still trying not to list the huge list ....so just examples are "We have more than enough PPE" ... "It's just a mild flu"... "Carehomes are safe"... "pubs are safe", "masks do/don't work" , "kids can't carry the virus" ...
Part of these are driven by public opinion, part are driven cos "some mate offers to make PPE"...
I already commented "the science"... ^ the vast majority is driven by deliberately asking the wrong questions. Absence of evidence is changed to evidence something doesn't rather than "we didn't test because it's obvious"
Well the last lockdown greatly reduced the prevalence of the virus, thats pretty damn good evidence.
No it didn't. There is no evidence for this apart from circumstantial. For proper evidence you need to compare the graphs of countries who did or didn't lockdown, and degrees of this and the shape of the curve is exactly the same. Apart from Aus/NZ of course and a couple of other notable cases who got in early and closed their borders and haven't even had their first wave. We didn't have that luxury.
A quick question for you. All those very old and badly ill people who succumbed to Covid in the Spring (the 95% or so of deaths). Do you think they'd have survived the flu this winter? Are we actually saving lives or simply trying to postpone deaths?
No it didn’t. There is no evidence for this apart from circumstantial
🤪🤪🤪🤪😄😄😄👋👋😬😬😬😬😬😜😜😜😜😆😆😆
I'm out!!
No it didn’t. There is no evidence for this apart from circumstantial
So hospital admissions went from 1000s a day to 0
Because..... ?
Please provide some evidence
Are we actually saving lives or simply trying to postpone deaths?
See my previous post.
#Iamoutreallythistime
So hospital admissions went from 1000s a day to 0
Because….. ?
Please provide some evidence
Here you go, perhaps this guy knows more than you and TiRed put together:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0JWur5LNePt/
I tried to post a YouTube link but it says the above video was removed for violating YouTube terms and conditions. It was only uploaded yesterday afternoon.
More censorship of the alternative science! I wonder why they need to do this? After all if the official narrative is so obviously right and this guy is wrong why not just debate him and all would unravel. Yeadon has asked publicly many times for a debate yet no one from SAGE or the Government has had the balls or conviction to do so. I wonder why?