Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good

Conclusions begin on page 39 of the report.

https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-n...t-covid-deaths

Think a lot thought that Churchill once said of scientists "" . Let us make sure that they are servants, but not our masters.""

Does that mean Drakeford would still be in lockdown now caused more damage than was needed in Wales ? I clearly rembering him and dodgy Nicola challenging Boris over his decesion to not let the Omicron variant create complete lockdowns in fact England opened up early than everyone else.

Schools should never have lockdown sadly they were forced into that by unions and the opposition.

All we have now is a country of anxiety sadly it includes children .

Thanks Sage .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Think a lot thought that Churchill once said dont let scientist's make desesions just listen .

Does that mean Drakeford would still be in lockdown now caused more damage than was needed in Wales ? I clearly rembering him and dodgy Nicola challenging Boris over his decesion to not let the Omicron variant create complete lockdowns in fact England opened up early than everyone else.

Schools should never have lockdown sadly they were forced into that by unions and the opposition.

All we have now is a country of anxiety sadly it includes children .

Thanks Sage .

---

T.B.F I think it's all that could have been done at the outset, the disappointment was that, scientists who as the event was progressing were trying to say hold on a min there might be an alternative, and I'm thinking the Barrington declaration and Geert Vanden Bossche were basically told to facking p1ss off and shut the F up, we'll never really know and "it is what it is" (I hate this saying which seems very popular at the moment) Lessons learnt for the next one ? I doubt it, we often read that Lockdowns saved nnnn amount of lives, the linked study from what i believe to be a credible source suggests differently.

An 18 month old study of the impact of lock-down in the US?

I skimmed it, but it doesn't say anything different from other similar 'studies' that detail the economic impact of lockdown (not very contentious) whilst selectively picking through health data.

In the UK the lockdown - even when started too late, badly managed, without effective test and trace systems, and suspended for 'eat out to spread it about' and hug a granny at Christmas - prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed.

The prevention of that catastrophic harm is not a feature of this old US study - and why would it be. But it is the main point for many of us in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

An 18 month old study of the impact of lock-down in the US?

I skimmed it, but it doesn't say anything different from other similar 'studies' that detail the economic impact of lockdown (not very contentious) whilst selectively picking through health data.

In the UK the lockdown - even when started too late, badly managed, without effective test and trace systems, and suspended for 'eat out to spread it about' and hug a granny at Christmas - prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed.

The prevention of that catastrophic harm is not a feature of this old US study - and why would it be. But it is the main point for many of us in the UK.

---

A little more context Bob.

The study was produced by a few economists and found light 15 months ago, got heavily criticised then got rehashed in May last year. Even then it was heavily challenged by epidimiologists. Rather than go through a peer review process it seems to have resurfaced as a pamphlet published by the Institue of Economic Affairs rather than a "John Hopkins" study.

You will last remember them as the uber-libertarian body behind Kwasi Kwarteng's budget that probably cost the country more in one week than lockdowns cost the economy in the last two years.

If you want to know what the scientific community thought of the economists' work you can read it here.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...-19-lockdowns/

I think this comment is pretty representative.

They even have a “quality score” for the studies that they did include. All good, you might think. Except it isn’t. First, by picking only a very particular type of study they ignore the vast majority of the evidence. Indeed, the report devotes page after page to why they are disregarding this (type of) study or that. If you ignore all the data that you don’t like, you tend to get the answer you were looking for in the first place.

Still, it is trending in libertarian circles such as GB News, the Telegraph and Mail and even seems to have found its way to the dark bits of the web that find Nels so another day in paradise no doubt awaits!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

A little more context Bob.

---

Sorry Jon!:facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

T.B.F I think it's all that could have been done at the outset, the disappointment was that, scientists who as the event was progressing were trying to say hold on a min there might be an alternative, and I'm thinking the Barrington declaration and Geert Vanden Bossche were basically told to facking p1ss off and shut the F up, we'll never really know and "it is what it is" (I hate this saying which seems very popular at the moment) Lessons learnt for the next one ? I doubt it, we often read that Lockdowns saved nnnn amount of lives, the linked study from what i believe to be a credible source suggests differently.

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Sorry Jon!:facepalm:

---

When the excitement reached you to get your alternative report Infront of your peers, and after rushing out from under the bed, your fingers were typing before you got the 3rd mask off which has contributed to a little faux pas :thumbup:
we've all done it (well not the three face masks bit!!!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

When the excitement reached you to get your alternative report Infront of your peers, and after rushing out from under the bed, your fingers were typing before you got the 3rd mask off which has contributed to a little faux pas :thumbup:
we've all done it (well not the three face masks bit!!!).

---

It's ok Nels. I already knew you had an incredibly fertile imagination unconstrained by facts.

Now that you have the fact that this is not a John Hopkins study, indeed John Hopkins School of Public Health couldn't have put more distance between it and the authors; that it is a rehash of a discredited non-peer reviewed study of 15 months ago published instead as a book by the Liz Truss supporting Institute of Economic Affairs.

Do you still think that you linked a study from what you believed to be a credible source and if so, apart from the confirmation bias to your beliefs, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

An 18 month old study of the impact of lock-down in the US?

I skimmed it, but it doesn't say anything different from other similar 'studies' that detail the economic impact of lockdown (not very contentious) whilst selectively picking through health data.

In the UK the lockdown - even when started too late, badly managed, without effective test and trace systems, and suspended for 'eat out to spread it about' and hug a granny at Christmas - prevented the NHS from being overwhelmed.

The prevention of that catastrophic harm is not a feature of this old US study - and why would it be. But it is the main point for many of us in the UK.

---

My mind keeps going back to those pictures of NHS staff head-to-toe in Hazmat suits, restraining a couple from holding their terminally ill 13yr old son dying in his hospital bed. Lockdown was cruel, wicked, and shows the power of authority and the influence it has on a large proportion of the population. Servants not masters, Churchill was right about that/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

It's ok Nels. I already knew you had an incredibly fertile imagination unconstrained by facts.

Now that you have the fact that this is not a John Hopkins study, indeed John Hopkins School of Public Health couldn't have put more distance between it and the authors; that it is a rehash of a discredited non-peer reviewed study of 15 months ago published instead as a book by the Liz Truss supporting Institute of Economic Affairs.

Do you still think that you linked a study from what you believed to be a credible source and if so, apart from the confirmation bias to your beliefs, why?

---

What evidence do you have that suggests lockdowns were a more positive outcome as almost everything I’m reading suggests otherwise in terms of the economic, social and general health ( see excess deaths on the ONS website ).

Perhaps they were used in lockstep to test the impact of climate change and the policies that are currently being implemented at pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

My mind keeps going back to those pictures of NHS staff head-to-toe in Hazmat suits, restraining a couple from holding their terminally ill 13yr old son dying in his hospital bed. Lockdown was cruel, wicked, and shows the power of authority and the influence it has on a large proportion of the population. Servants not masters, Churchill was right about that/

---

Lockdowns aren't cruel and wicked; the effects of viruses are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Lockdowns aren't cruel and wicked; the effects of viruses are.

---

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds
Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries

Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.

Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.

Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.

The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.

Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.

The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”

The detrimental impact of lockdown on children’s health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly clear since the policy was introduced.

Tellingly

However, The Telegraph recently revealed that a secretive government unit worked with social media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curtail criticism of controversial lockdown policies.

The Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it considered to be “potentially harmful content”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...k-study-finds/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

What evidence do you have that suggests lockdowns were a more positive outcome as almost everything I’m reading suggests otherwise in terms of the economic, social and general health ( see excess deaths on the ONS website ).

Perhaps they were used in lockstep to test the impact of climate change and the policies that are currently being implemented at pace.

---

I have previously given you the excess mortality graphs on Page 2 of this report. They show the exponential increasing number of excess deaths covid related leading up to lockdowns before they return to some reduction following it. Probably a similar picture in all the countries, democratic, authoritarian, east, west, north or south who imposed restrictions before vaccines became widely available.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrI...Y2NiIsImMiOjh9

As you may have heard so many times, deaths are the tip of the iceberg. For each death there are many more hospitalisations and deprioritisation of routine preventative surgery and treatment. Nobody I know liked lockdowns, most sane people understood their purpose.

But in between there was social distancing, broken record from you on how irrelevant that was, coupled with the vaccination programme that eliminated the need for lockdowns but to0 you was the devil incarnate delivered by the WEF, Gates and the WHO.

And then you finish a reasonable question with some vague Reset bollocks straight out of the Gluey playbook.

If you could source the "every thing you are reading" from your peer reviewed twitter feed that should give enough laughs for the rest of the evening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds
Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries

Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.

Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.

Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.

The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.

Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.

The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”

The detrimental impact of lockdown on children’s health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly clear since the policy was introduced.

Tellingly

However, The Telegraph recently revealed that a secretive government unit worked with social media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curtail criticism of controversial lockdown policies.

The Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it considered to be “potentially harmful content”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...k-study-finds/

---

It's like groundhog day. The study guy is a libertarian economist in the Economics faculty. As I said earlier John Hopkins School of Public Health couldn't have put more distance between it and the authors if it tried.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/sc...d-19-pandemic/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

It's like groundhog day. The study guy is a libertarian economist in the Economics faculty. As I said earlier John Hopkins School of Public Health couldn't have put more distance between it and the authors if it tried.

---

So, just to be clear because the study is against what you believe in , we have to discount it do we ?

I’m sure the government misinformation department would have removed the article if there was no truth in it.

Groundhog Day , it seems you can’t accept another peoples opinions. There are literally hundreds of articles suggesting the same thing , but governments are not going to come out and admit it are they ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

So, just to be clear because the study is against what you believe in , we have to discount it do we ?

I’m sure the government misinformation department would have removed the article if there was no truth in it.

Groundhog Day , it seems you can’t accept another peoples opinions.

---

It's not a peer reviewed study though is it? If so it would have been published in a scientific journal not resurfaced as a book by a libertarian think tank last in the news for feeding Truss and Kwarteng with the bullets for a budget that tanked the economy, probably dwarfing the amount of economic growth that lockdowns achieved. Still if you want to run with those type of hounds because they manipulated a flawed study into your favourite feeds what can I do to stop you thinking you are gifted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

It's not a peer reviewed study though is it? If so it would have been published in a scientific journal not resurfaced as a book by a libertarian think tank last in the news for feeding Truss and Kwarteng with the bullets for a budget that tanked the economy, probably dwarfing the amount of economic growth that lockdowns achieved. Still if you want to run with those type of hounds because they manipulated a flawed study into your favourite feeds what can I do to stop you thinking you are gifted?

---

I’ve just told you there are literally hundreds of articles suggesting the same thing.,I just happened to post an article to back up the O.P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

I’ve just told you there are literally hundreds of articles suggesting the same thing.,I just happened to post an article to back up the O.P.

---

You posted the same study as the OP just through the filter of libertarian MSM. There are probably hundreds of articles suggesting the same thing in your feed but if they all flow from a single flawed study then that probably says more about "almost everything you are reading" than it does about any science on this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds
Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries

Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.

Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.

Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.

The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.

Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.

The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”

The detrimental impact of lockdown on children’s health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly clear since the policy was introduced.

Tellingly

However, The Telegraph recently revealed that a secretive government unit worked with social media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curtail criticism of controversial lockdown policies.

The Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it considered to be “potentially harmful content”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...k-study-finds/

---

1700 deaths prevented is good in my book. That's up to 1700 families spared the sadness and trauma of losing a loved one 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

So, just to be clear because the study is against what you believe in , we have to discount it do we ?

I’m sure the government misinformation department would have removed the article if there was no truth in it.

Groundhog Day , it seems you can’t accept another peoples opinions. There are literally hundreds of articles suggesting the same thing , but governments are not going to come out and admit it are they ?

---

You are wasting your time, his experts are more credible, you must understand that Shirley 👍 I think the amount of masks he wears makes him irritable I throw a bone now and again he cannot resist jumping in both feet, bit concerned at the moment he seems to be becoming a bit of a stalker but it's harmless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

You are wasting your time, his experts are more credible, you must understand that Shirley �� I think the amount of masks he wears makes him irritable I throw a bone now and again he cannot resist jumping in both feet, bit concerned at the moment he seems to be becoming a bit of a stalker but it's harmless.

---

There was me wondering why you hadn't confirmed your delight that Trump was further down the Orange Suit process than Sturgeon and the best you could do was this? Well done for the trolling confession though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

You are wasting your time, his experts are more credible, you must understand that Shirley 👍 I think the amount of masks he wears makes him irritable I throw a bone now and again he cannot resist jumping in both feet, bit concerned at the moment he seems to be becoming a bit of a stalker but it's harmless.

---

Harmless , but draining …. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Harmless , but draining …. :thumbup:

---

The rent is free, apparently :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Tellingly

However, The Telegraph recently revealed that a secretive government unit worked with social media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curtail criticism of controversial lockdown policies.

The Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it considered to be “potentially harmful content”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...k-study-finds/

---

Covid disinformation unit made 'hourly contact' with tech firms to flag dissent, says Sarah Connolly

Sarah Connolly can today be revealed as head of the secretive government unit that flagged critics of lockdown and pandemic policy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...kdown-dissent/

http://web.archive.org/web/202306110...kdown-dissent/


‘The BBC has a reputation as a truth-teller – but in Covid it did what the Government wanted’

Current and former staff members say debate around lockdown at the corporation was often stifled

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...e-broadcaster/

http://web.archive.org/web/202306101...e-broadcaster/

Why didn’t the government at the time follow the ScieNce

https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/stat...LhmySD2aRt-GNgAttachment 5612

Sounds close to home this paragraph

The Telegraph has spoken to current and former BBC journalists who described a “climate of fear” existing in the corporation during the pandemic, with experienced reporters “openly mocked” if they questioned the wisdom of lockdowns, or called “dissenters”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Sounds close to home this paragraph

The Telegraph has spoken to current and former BBC journalists who described a “climate of fear” existing in the corporation during the pandemic, with experienced reporters “openly mocked” if they questioned the wisdom of lockdowns, or called “dissenters”.

---

I wonder how much of the propaganda got regurgitated on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

I wonder how much of the propaganda got regurgitated on here?

---

You mean is still being regurgitated :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

You mean is still being regurgitated :hehe:

---

I remember some posters getting quite shirty when they were telling others what they should be doing. Turning the majority into propagandists is actually quite brilliant when you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

I remember some posters getting quite shirty when they were telling others what they should be doing. Turning the majority into propagandists is actually quite brilliant when you think about it.

---

“Shirty”, that’s a diplomatic way of saying it.

I’ve respect for anyone who recalls what things were like in early 2020 and acknowledges that something had to be done to moderate the effects of the coming pandemic.if such people now have doubts about the methods used based on experience and subsequent studies, then, fair enough - lessons were learned and you’d hope we’d be better placed when the next one comes along as a result.On the other hand, I have no respect whatsoever for the group on here who were dismissing Covid through those early months of2020 as just the flu, a Chinese plot etc and are now trying to come over all I told you so - the spring of 202p proved them to be completely and dangerously wrong and some of us will never forget that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’ve respect for anyone who recalls what things were like in early 2020 and acknowledges that something had to be done to moderate the effects of the coming pandemic.

---

So you're sticking with the government and media propaganda line that was used to terrify the public into accepting the response?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

if such people now have doubts about the methods used based on experience and subsequent studies, then, fair enough - lessons were learned and you’d hope we’d be better placed when the next one comes along as a result.

---

Many experts raised the alarm at the time, but they were silenced and labelled as conspiracy theorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

On the other hand, I have no respect whatsoever for the group on here who were dismissing Covid through those early months of 2020 as just the flu, a Chinese plot etc and are now trying to come over all I told you so - the spring of 2020 proved them to be completely and dangerously wrong and some of us will never forget that.

---

So you're going to ignore all the current data and information about the lab leak, etc? Fair enough, at least you are always consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

So you're sticking with the government and media propaganda line that was used to terrify the public into accepting the response?

Many experts raised the alarm at the time, but they were silenced and labelled as conspiracy theorists.

So you're going to ignore all the current data and information about the lab leak, etc? Fair enough, at least you are always consistent.

---

Here he is, I told you so merchant number one, despite the fact that he did nothing of the sort, I can remember you going from it’s only the flu in the beginning to seizing on US modelling that calculated “only” 7,000 would die in the UK such was your desperation to make out that Covid was not as bad as it was being predicted to be around February 2020. Remember that modelling which predicted 66,000 dead in the UK which was greeted with a mixture of horror and incredulity on here in March 2020 - this was at the time that Chris Valance I think it was predicted 20,000 dead would be a “good” outcome.

Instead, the official figures show 200,000 plus died and all the sceptics can do about this shocking figure is bleat on about them not really dying of Covid! The pandemic turned out to be the worst crisis UK residents who were not alive in the 1940s have been through in their lives - it was clear from the start that drastic measures were needed and with a vaccine that needed to be developed against a speed is of the essence background, there always could have been repercussions later on. The pandemic will turn out to be a once in a lifetime event for many who came through it, there were very few precedents to fall back on and so mistakes were bound to be made, the important thing now is that they are acted upon and people use the experience they gained to best effect in preparation for the future.

What serves no purpose whatsoever is the gifted ones on this board chucking stones from their usual position on the sidelines as they indulge themselves in a fantasy “if only they’d listened to us” world - if the likes of you had been listened to by the powers that be in early 2020 that horrendous 200,000 plus figure would be far, far higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Here he is, I told you so merchant number one, despite the fact that he did nothing of the sort, I can remember you going from it’s only the flu in the beginning to seizing on US modelling that calculated “only” 7,000 would die in the UK such was your desperation to make out that Covid was not as bad as it was being predicted to be around February 2020. Remember that modelling which predicted 66,000 dead in the UK which was greeted with a mixture of horror and incredulity on her in March 2020 - this was at the time that Chris Valance I think it was predicted 20,000 dead would be a “good” outcome.

Instead, the official figures show 200,000 plus died and all the sceptics can do about this shocking figure is bleat on about them not really dying of Covid! The pandemic turned out to be the worst crisis UK residents who were not alive in the 1940s have been through in their lives - it was clear from the start that drastic measures were needed and with a vaccine that needed to be developed against a speed is of the essence, there could be repercussions later on. The pandemic will turn out to be once in a lifetime event for many who came through it, there were very few precedents to fall back on and so mistakes were bound to be made, the important thing now is that they are acted and people use the experience they gained to best effect in preparation for the future.

What serves no purpose whatsoever is the gifted ones on this board chucking stones from their usual position on the sidelines as they indulge themselves in a fantasy “if only they’d listened to us” world - if the likes of you had been listened to in early 2020 that horrendous 200,000 plus figure would be far, far higher.

---

As I said above, you are going to stick with your version of events as seen through the prism of the BBC and that's fair enough, but please don't try to make out that everything you say is fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

As I said above, you are going to stick with your version of events as seen through the prism of the BBC and that's fair enough, but please don't try to make out that everything you say is fact.

---

So you’re saying you didn’t go on about the 7,000 dead modelling? There was no 66,000 dead modelling, it was not claimed that 20,000 dead would be a good outcome and that Government figures do not say that 200,000 plus have died in the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’ve respect for anyone who recalls what things were like in early 2020 and acknowledges that something had to be done to moderate the effects of the coming pandemic.if such people now have doubts about the methods used based on experience and subsequent studies, then, fair enough - lessons were learned and you’d hope we’d be better placed when the next one comes along as a result.On the other hand, I have no respect whatsoever for the group on here who were dismissing Covid through those early months of2020 as just the flu, a Chinese plot etc and are now trying to come over all I told you so - the spring of 202p proved them to be completely and dangerously wrong and some of us will never forget that.

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you’re saying you didn’t go on about the 7,000 dead modelling? There was no 66,000 dead modelling, it was not claimed that 20,000 dead would be a good outcome and that Government figures do not say that 200,000 plus have died in the UK?

---

I think “Covid only “ is much much less than 200k ,although sadly it’s probably on point with Covid mentioned on the death certificate

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/trans...dbycovid19only


Anyone know how many influenza deaths there were during the same period ( with flu mentioned on the death certificate )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you’re saying you didn’t go on about the 7,000 dead modelling? There was no 66,000 dead modelling, it was not claimed that 20,000 dead would be a good outcome and that Government figures do not say that 200,000 plus have died in the UK?

---

You will probably ignore the DNAR notices, the COD including with and not from covid on the death certificates, the increased use of end of life protocols, a lack of early treatment and treating bacterial pneumonia with ventilators instead of antibiotics, plus the official all cause excess mortality figures, etc., so getting into the specifics is a pointless exercise as you are only going to see what you want to see, and you will never question anything that the BBC has ever published.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Anyone know how many influenza deaths there were during the same period ( with flu mentioned on the death certificate )

---

Not very many!