Forum menu
N
if the “purpose” is to get negative tests for bodging the figures
Who is doing this? And why?
We’ve heard lots about the new advice Germany have been issuing for this winter… now for the Netherlands (we’ll be last, won’t we)…
https://twitter.com/dutchnewsnl/status/1338546999440920580?s=21
https://twitter.com/dutchnewsnl/status/1338548278854639620?s=21
https://twitter.com/dutchnewsnl/status/1338548531666227201?s=21
The gamut of acceptable opinions here clearly extends only to those who support “the science”. The same “science” that said masks were bad then good. The same “science” that includes car crash deaths in Covid statistics. The same “science” that has supported different responses in every country of the world.
The same “science” that is now rushing through vaccines with bugger-all testing. The same “science” that will doubtless prove that these vaccines saved the day rather than natural herd immunity or the virus just running its course.
But I am not an epidemiologist or a doctor and I do not have the time or energy to dig up evidence for a dissenting view. I bet it’s out there.
That said, how would anyone find evidence proving it was a plandemic if it was one? It seems a little arrogant to dismiss this out of hand, no? Where is your evidence to say it isn’t?
Name me a single field of study where there weren’t diametrically opposed factions on, well, everything. I am a world expert in my field, but it doesn’t mean I’m always right. I make mistakes daily.
Explain to me how the BBC (hardly unbiased but you’d assume a vaguely reliable source) says Covid kills 0.1% of people, that we have already had 60,000 Covid deaths, and that we still need to take precautions. Do the math(s) there for a population of 60 million... Somebody somewhere is telling porkies.
So hospitals are filling up. They’re supposed to be full, especially in winter.
Why are excess deaths always compared with an average year, not a peak year?
My friend may be dying because they postponed his cancer treatment.
Somebody here just asked when those under 50 with no underlying conditions will get the vaccine. Why would they want the vaccine? The risk to the under 50s who aren’t fat etc is negligible, even based on government statistics.
So many unanswered questions. Cue lots of “science” in return.
But my point originally, really, was more that here we have an epic thread but the whole of it is just variations on how we need to be even more careful in the face of a devastating virus and how irresponsible the great unwashed are being. Yet I only know a single person in the real world who hasn’t broken the Covid rules. Ironically, or even tellingly, she is one of the conspiracy theorists. So this thread seems surprisingly unrepresentative.
And yes, this is a rant. I have my reasons.
Anyone who ventures a different opinion will get shut down on here. Apparently if you have concerns about this pandemic/plandemic then you’ll be compared to a Brexiteer.
I’ll say this - I’ve run the full social media gamut of “opinions” and “concerns” I know people personally who’ve claimed that Covid is caused by 5g, that Bill Gates is planting microchips in vaccines, that there is no virus or that a 1% mortality rate is acceptable. I’m aware that lots of people have “opinions” about Brexit. My own “opinion” is that noone should be left behind by the state, that it’s possible to reconcile a proper lockdown and wearing of PPE with reducing infection rates.
I invite the person who posted this to listen to the voice of someone the love drowning in their own lung fluid, knowing that their mum will never see their loved ones again after a few hours.
It doesn’t matter one square damn what your opinion is, coronavirus is still out there killing people. As for Brexit, there’s a huge lorry park being built four miles from my home. I’m sure that not paying your license fee or getting your news from online cranks is a heck of a way to “show the libs” or whatever, but it doesn’t change the situation for the better one iota.
And yes, this is a rant. I have my reasons.
Would you like honest well-reasoned arguments rather than "science"?
Would you like honest well-reasoned arguments rather than “science”?
^This - I'll take science over polemicists every single time.
That said, how would anyone find evidence proving it was a plandemic if it was one? It seems a little arrogant to dismiss this out of hand, no? Where is your evidence to say it isn’t?
A basic rule for internet arguing is that the person who proposes something should really be able to back it up, rather than proposing something and then asking for it to be debunked.
It's not arrogant to say 'Show me what you mean'.
So hospitals are filling up. They’re supposed to be full, especially in winter.
Although this is fairly crude, it is arguably accurate.
They are full, of Covid-19 patients, plus other ITU patients.
Who have to be kept separate.
Which is why ITU capacity was extended.
Which is why ITU capacity was not overwhelmed, just.
Which is why ITU staff are looking after 2 or 3 ITU patients instead of 1.
Whatever you are a world expert at, think how you would deal with a workload that just doubled, or tripled...
When you live with this on a daily basis you don’t need explicit threats
I'm really sorry about the problems when you were younger, and I appreciate with Covid and your other issue recently, you must be really stressed.
But saying that kids will be taken into care if they don't attend school due to Covid is factually and logistically wrong. It's misinformation. And putting it out there could be causing more unnecessary stress and worry for anyone who reads it. So please stop.
Hitchen's Razor.
Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
So, if you're claiming a "plandemic", provide evidence.
I’m not claiming a plandemic; I don’t see the logic behind one.
But I instinctively recoil when people ridicule the idea and those who propose it.
Your “science” is ultimately just opinions informed by cherry-picked data from potentially unreliable sources.
You don’t have any more legs to stand on.
As for Hitchens’ razor: the STW massive are the ones arguing that the plandemicists are bonkers, so you prove it!
What nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction is why there is this fuss over something that kills so few healthy people, yet no calls for speed limiters on cars, bans on smoking and alcohol, or laws on healthy eating and healthy living.
You don’t have any more legs to stand on.
And here we go… the idea that conspiracy theories and the weight of scientific evidence are untrustworthy in a similar why.
NO.
kills so few healthy people
This is not true. And surviving doesn’t mean no ill effect. Millions of people have suffered in less than a year, from a new virus… and that is with what would be considered extreme measures in normal times in place. The number of people who would be suffering now, if the world had not acted as it has, is unthinkable. But forget the numbers, talk to someone with first hand experience of a bad case of the disease, or lost multiple loved ones to it.
yet no calls for speed limiters on cars, bans on smoking and alcohol, or laws on healthy eating and healthy living
There are laws about killing people through dangerous driving. Laws that reduce the places where people are exposed to other people’s harmful smoke. Laws about poisons in food, and not keeping your catering areas hygenic. All legal restrictions on you to stop others dying because of your actions. And, yes, we have some laws and guidance to the reduce how many people will catch and be ill, and possibly die, from this virus… and they are in proportion to the danger this virus presents to live and lives… danger that will hopefully be mitigated by other measures over the next year… better treatment, vaccines, and more focused measures to prevent the spread, as we learn more. Science will help. Talks of a plandemic will hinder.
And here we go: dissenting views (or in this case observations and questions rather than views) ridiculed and dismissed out of hand.
I’m not arguing that, say, Icke is equal to science. I’m arguing that you don’t know where the virus came from, so who are you to ridicule and dismiss those theories? Especially when there are so many holes in the science you have put your faith in.
I’m not claiming a plandemic; I don’t see the logic behind one.
But I instinctively recoil when people ridicule the idea and those who propose it.
Your “science” is ultimately just opinions informed by cherry-picked data from potentially unreliable sources.
You don’t have any more legs to stand on.
As for Hitchens’ razor: the STW massive are the ones arguing that the plandemicists are bonkers, so you prove it!
What nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction is why there is this fuss over something that kills so few healthy people, yet no calls for speed limiters on cars, bans on smoking and alcohol, or laws on healthy eating and healthy living.
You have been offered the opportunity to discuss and state your case and you have declined...
We are not here to satisfy you, nor to explain any 'fuss' over 64,170 deaths.
Jog on.
And in response to your edit: no, you have to look at the numbers. That’s what science is about. People die and suffer all the time from other things too. Sad but true.
What nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction is why there is this fuss over something that kills so few healthy people, yet no calls for speed limiters on cars, bans on smoking and alcohol, or laws on healthy eating and healthy living.
It's still quite raw so I'm going to be measured with my response:
I've just lost my mum and my uncle to covid, my father is in hospital with Covid and one of my best friends is a consultant on a high dependency ward who has been working round the clock treating patients of all ages who've been admitted with covid. Does that meet with your satisfaction, am I making a "fuss"?
Your “science” is ultimately just opinions informed by cherry-picked data from potentially unreliable sources.
That is not how "science" works - we have a system of peer review which challenges any notion that data might be "cherry picked" or subject to random sources. Labs often compete with one another to test theories and to gain an advantage over someone else's flawed science. You can read a journal article and conduct the experiment yourself by following that paper, in fact there are scientists doing exactly that right now in every field you can think of.
Somebody here just asked when those under 50 with no underlying conditions will get the vaccine. Why would they want the vaccine? The risk to the under 50s who aren’t fat etc is negligible, even based on government statistics.
To be fair, until this year, I'd have said the same about the flu vaccine. Or rather, I didn't go out of my way to get it. But the logic is clear, being vaccinated can help to reduce the spread, and therefore is beneficial to those who are more vulnerable.
For some reason the reply function doesn’t work for me.
Crikey: yes you just ignore my points and tell me to **** off, that’s what debate is all about.
PJM: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to seem dismissive, fuss was a bad choice of word, but there are loads of other things that people get ill or die from that don’t elicit this kind of response.
you have to look at the numbers
I meant don’t “just” look at the numbers, which should have been obvious as it was a follow on from talking about the millions of people in the world badly effected by this in a very short time period. I urge you to look at the numbers. “Few” is not a word I would use, you did.
don’t elicit this kind of response
Go on. What is damaging so many lives without prompting us to act. Your examples so far have been responded to with laws and social changes… smoking, dangerous driving, etc… the laws introduced to protect third parties from the actions of bad drivers and second hand smoke exist… they are very real. Some people still think laws about drink driving are a terrible imposition on their individual freedoms.
What nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction
What level of evidence would pass that test? I suspect it's a fool's errand trying to guess, would be great if you could spell it out.
Chrispo - I reckon most on here would quite like more rules banning pollution & cigarettes. They are also known quantifiable large scale killers & avoidable. The logic I use to justify lock down also opposes those things.
I’d be willing to take a considerable wager that most opposed to banning those things are also anti mask/vaccine/lockdown.
The general view on here is that if we locked down earlier, properly, then we would be in a much better position economically too. I give you New Zealand’s approach. Oh, and China.
Somebody here just asked when those under 50 with no underlying conditions will get the vaccine. Why would they want the vaccine? The risk to the under 50s who aren’t fat etc is negligible, even based on government statistics.
Does it really have to be spelt out to you? I’m not a scientist and have a useless arts degree but even me with no a-levels and a D in English and maths can see that anyone who wants any interaction with over 50’s or medically vulnerable people would need to be vaccinated (if they so wish) or face having to effectively isolate themselves from half the population.
Crikey: yes you just ignore my points and tell me to **** off, that’s what debate is all about.
You've not engaged at all with anything you've been asked.
'Debate' doesn't work like that. You've simply repeated a load of spurious commentary, backed up by no evidence and then become all offended when no-one has taken you seriously.
So, ask your questions, back up your statements, and then you'll get taken seriously.
What are you a world expert at?
Lots of straw man arguments.
That's why we have the scientific method.
Is it the perfect method? no one debates that, it's the best method we have unless someone can can come up with a more compelling methodolgy.
Get back into the sea.
PJM: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to seem dismissive, fuss was a bad choice of word, but...
and that's the exact point where you lost any credence for me.
Somebody here just asked when those under 50 with no underlying conditions will get the vaccine. Why would they want the vaccine? The risk to the under 50s who aren’t fat etc is negligible, even based on government statistics.
So many unanswered questions. Cue lots of “science” in return.
Well, those under 50 can still catch it and transmit it to other, more vulnerable people, a simple fact that anyone with intellectual capabilities higher than a single-cell organism should be able to grasp.
As for science, it’s there, whether you want to believe in it or not, everything that you do, eat, breathe, drink, etc, involves or is explained by science. And it doesn’t give a shit what you think.
Chrispo, for the sake of your mental health, stop paying attention to QAnon and anti-vaxxing sites, and stay away from vulnerable members of your own family in order that you don’t pass on the virus that you seem to claim doesn’t exist.
At this point it’s worth pointing out that C19 is a coronavirus like SARS, MERS, Influenza, and the common cold, the latter being the only one that won’t kill you, it just makes you feel like death...
The same “science” that is now rushing through vaccines with bugger-all testing. The same “science” that will doubtless prove that these vaccines saved the day rather than natural herd immunity or the virus just running its course.
Yes, about that. Contrary to your claim that there’s been ‘bugger-all testing’, the technology that BioNTech has developed, mRNA, has been the subject of research by a Hungarian couple since the 1970’s, in the belief that it held the key to dealing with viral outbreaks for which there seemed to be few, if any, means to control them. They had a breakthrough some years ago involving Ebola, and then with the MERS and SARS coronavirus, and it was the success of dealing with those viruses which allowed the fast development of a vaccine against SARS-Cov19, BECAUSE THEY’RE ALL RELATED!
I just hope, chrispo, that you never injure yourself in a way that becomes infected, because the science that you seem to want to deny is exactly what will cure the infection.
Or set the bones, or whatever else, ‘cos that’s what medical SCIENCE does, or do you want a return to the 14th Century.
Some responses.
In 2019 a new betacoronavirus emerged in Wuhan that induced a disease similar to previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) seen in 2003. A virus 70% genetically similar to that 2003 virus was identified. Like the first virus, the likely host species was bat, just as birds are the host species for influenza. The genetic code for the new virus was published online (this code was used for development of the mRNA for vaccination).
Initial estimates of case mortality in China were high >1%, but this was largely due to identification of cases (the denominator). Compared with previous SARS (10%) and MERS (30%), this new virus was not as pathogenic. However, the previous two did not spread widely. MERS only spread from camels, and human to human spread was very rare.
Previous attempts to develop a vaccine and treatments against SARS-CoV1 were discontinued as the pathogens were brought under control, hence there were no immediate treatment options for this new disease - hypoxia followed by a profound inflammatory pneumonia. Faced with few treatment options, little or no immunity and rising cases, intervention was necessary to avoid rapidly overwhelming healthcare systems - something noted in all developed countries.
There has been much debate about the infection fatality rate, the role of immunity (preexisting and acquired), the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), and the development of treatments. But there are some solid facts:
1) Mortality is much higher in the elderly - true for all respiratory infections. The overall infection fatality rate is about 0.55% or 1/188. For reference, that is about 4x higher than normal influenza. I have always compared this year's mortality figures with the past 10 years. Last week about 25% more people died that would typically be expected for that week, and about 12.5% more than the highest level in the past 10 years.
In blunt terms, we reached our average annual death quota seven weeks early in 2020, and our peak death quota a month earlier than the previous ten years.
2) Everywhere lockdown has been applied, cases, admissions and deaths have fallen. Where restrictions have been relaxed, cases, admissions and deaths have risen again. If this were solely due to testing, admissions and deaths would not rise and be held back due to immunity. That simply has not happened at a population level.
3) Hospitals normally fill with influenza-like illnesses every year. However, yes they are filling fast, but they are filling fast in the presence of unprecedented population control measures. Think about that. Even with economically ruinous control, the spread of infection and burden of disease is barely controlled. That is very unusual.
4) Eventual control of the new pathogen must be focused on reducing healthcare burden. Hence first antibody therapies, and now "rushed" vaccines, report low to zero severe COVID19. Hence mass treatment has the possibility to reduce the strain on healthcare and allow opening up of economic activity. It may ALSO reduce transmission. That is a huge clinical finding that has taken tens of thousands of patients and hours of study.
5) Speed of vaccine development has not been "rushed" other than in the observation period. All expected nonclinical and review steps have been followed as normal. For the shingles vaccine there was three years of follow-up and a year of review. We will have three-six months of observation. Review is just a throw bodies at it issue, and agencies have been doing just that. Of course subjects will continue to be monitored closely, but there is no substitute for trial length. Wider-short trials are what we have and vaccine use will be based on benefit risk - and we've already seen one change in use from feedback in the NHS. That is how it should work.
Name me a single field of study where there weren’t diametrically opposed factions on, well, everything.
Pure Mathematics 🙂
My friend may be dying because they postponed his cancer treatment.
Now this is something you and I rightly feel strongly aggrieved by. The initial rush to free up healthcare was nothing short of a scandal. There was genuine panic in government. Hospitals were emptied (only to seed nursing homes) and other serious investigations postponed. During the summer we had the opportunity to manage, catch up and prepare. The government seem not to have learned. This winter the NHS is attempting to run normal services including cancer treatments. An influx of COVID admissions filling HDU/ITU is not in anyone's interest as this diverts other treatments.
Somebody here just asked when those under 50 with no underlying conditions will get the vaccine. Why would they want the vaccine?
Well I'm 53, a national-level Time Trialist with no preexisting comorbidities. I've had only moderate COVID19 and just managed to stay out of hospital. I have not ridden a bike since March. Morbidity can be a significant factor. A single anecdote is not data, but the risk factors are likely to be more complex than we currently understand (that "Science" again). Pregnancy is a significant risk factor (4x increase in serious disease). It's not all about dying, it's about prevention, and we don't know how big the underside of the iceberg of COVID morbidity is.
Yet I only know a single person in the real world who hasn’t broken the Covid rules.
I have diligently tried to follow the rules. I have played a small part in their implementation and I am not a hypocrite. It is challenging, I will accept that.
As I have said many times. Beware those who hold strong views on all sides about uncertain facts. The "Science" is uncertain, even after nine months. But robust decisions are insensitive to those assumptions. First lockdown was a robust response to a likely overwhelming surge unprecedented in recent events. The further restrictions graded from lockdown with and without education, to nothing at all, have graded implications which we are only beginning to get a handle on. Balancing societal benefit risk is not the job of "Science".
I really shouldn't have, but at the same time I'm not sorry at all.....I got into it on Saturday with one of the weed smoking dossersprotesters on that Covid conspiracy protest March in Manchester. Take one lost and slightly stressed delivery driver....then push a leaflet through his van window when he's clearly asking you not to.....then swear at him when he throws it out of his van.......bad times.....I should probably try and not react in these situations, but **** me. What a bunch of ****s! Apparently it was Piers Corbyn leading it ffs......what another said indictment of 'the left' (I consider myself rather left wing!)
So current calculated case fatality rate for covid in the uk is 3.5% (i believe this is total calculation so probably not the current rate, plus it ta on confirmed cases so probably 0.5-1% cfr. That means that between 1 in 100 or 1 in 200 people will die of it.
Ok most of them are a result of co-morbidities meaning they had likely a shortened life span. But still they could be losing a lot of years.
Edit : showing my source https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
younger people still get it and can pass it on to older people.
Sure people die and are dying of other things due to restrictions on health care. But would 1 in 100 be dying otherwise?
...and what are you a world expert in?
Who is that being asked of?
Our currently resident world expert, chrispo.
Thank you, Tired and Graham.
Sorry get confused on this thread. Expert in conspiracy theories.
TiRed - I'm not sure your award was enough for your efforts this year. That is the best somethingion of the situation, with calm, rational explanation I have seen.
It's explanations like that which are the reason the majority on here tend not to take too much notice of Covid sceptics with no rational scientific evidence to back up there theories.
And no insulting dismissals or name calling 😉
So chrispo, your expertise?
@TiRed, that’s exactly the kind of explanation that the government needs to be putting out every week.
Well balanced, simple language, easy to understand, perfect. Thank you.
I have presented the only evidence I have: what I see with my own eyes. At least I admit that much.
Contradictory human behaviour all around me, science which keeps changing its mind, and a government that specialises in lying... How could you not have any questions?
That doesn’t make someone a conspiracy theorist.
So there are a few facts out there at the moment. Will you disagree with these?
Covid-19 is a fatal respiratory disease caused by a potentially aerosol virus.
It does kill older people more than younger but it does kill people and has been despite lockdowns in the country.
Tired has posted graphs on excess mortality over the long term average that are going to be linked with covid.
Which would you prefer? Let it propagate without control and watch excess deaths from all causes shoot up or control and hope like hell a vaccine comes soon to allow us to limit the effects.
My biggest concern is we do not know what the long term effects of this virus are and won't for some time.
Science =/= government
And science does change its mind, based on new evidence. That's normal, and healthy.
There is an issue with scientists in the employ of the government (indirectly, I'm one), but of recent times even they have been more prepared to dissent against their paymasters where needed. But you are right, when the gov have memorably in recent times claimed 'we're had enough of experts' it is fair to be sceptical about demands to now listen to 'their experts'
science which keeps changing its mind
I’m not a scientist but can see that’s fundamentally led to huge breakthroughs for the greater good of humanity*
*and unfortunately a few horrible things too.
You volunteered your world expert status...
Contradictory human behaviour all around me, science which keeps changing its mind
Over twenty years in drug discovery and development, five years in infectious disease epidemiology, a PhD in Theoretical Physics and a degree in Physics have given me a thorough grounding in what is known science and what is conjecture. It also makes me comfortable with uncertainty. Because Biology.
Sometimes the science does take a paradigm shift. In Physics there have been several - Relativity, Quantisation (mechanics was not new). Unification of forces. If I had to pick one from 2020, it is the notion that you can take genetic code off the internet. Create a string of nucleic acids into a chain, coat them in a little fat and plastic, inject them into a human and they will be protected from a pathogen they have not seen.
I think that is mind blowing. It really is the future.
Feel free to use and abuse the previous summary. I'll be posting Week 49 mortality tomorrow.
In the meantime... A prediction of deaths up to Christmas from cases (that now look a lot more stable than the earlier "casedemic")
The regression is up to mid-November (red line) everything else is forward projection. If they were share prices projections, I could retire by Friday 🙂