Reply With QuoteNo you couldn't argue that. Nice try but my advice would be get over it.Originally Posted by TWGL1
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
A warning to the British public from Dr Aseem Malhotra.
https://rumble.com/v1li6a5-freeman-i...-malhotra.html
No you couldn't argue that. Nice try but my advice would be get over it.
Dr Aseem Malhotra 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The sugar anti carb eat loads of fat guy. ????
On another anti vax rant.?
It would have spread , but as the statistics suggest , healthy people under possibly 65/70 would have suffered mild symptoms. If you were really unfortunate you may have been in bed for a few days.
The vulnerable would have been locked down no question there.
It’s fact not a nice try.
No utter rubbish. If you were really unfortunate you may have died.
Chris Whitty didn’t seem to think so, neither did all those M.P’s who broke the diktats whilst at the same time ordering the public to “follow the rules”
The data suggests they were correct as well. Why don’t you just read the article in this post.
ONS data on healthy people
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/trans...onditionsbyage
This data is prior to vaccine rollout
Doesnt that show if you were really unfortunate you would have died.?
One cohort group has a 1:555,000 chance
This group is ten times more likely to die from a dog attack ,which would be even more unfortunate.
If you think someone under 65 without underlying health conditions is more likely to die from a dog attack I give up.
I presume you can’t read data then
🤣🤣🤣I presume you can’t read data then
I can understand your confusion/amusement.
As far as I can tell TWGL1 posted a set of deaths of people with Covid and no other underlying conditions in 2020. It may have been to prove the effectiveness of the control measures or to move onto hospitalisations of recovering groups and the impact that had on both health service management ond deferred treatment of others but then again...maybe not!
Still to nail his point about the ONS statistics that break deaths down into four "cohorts" the first being people aged 0-44 he explains that in an unspecified "cohort" they were 10 times more likely to be mauled to death by a dog than die with covid.
You, unsuprisingly, pissed yourself laughing only to be told again that you can't read data, backed up with what some would call a tell smiley.
Still, that's you told. Another bemused that we did not adopt the model that killed 10 times more Swedes than Norwegians before they locked down in early 2021 like the rest of the sane world at that time!
I feel like we're going to be having this conversation forever but dealing with covid wasn't about whether you would die or not. It was about making sure that health services weren't going to be completely collapse - which would then certainly lead to lots of death.
Just about the entire world quickly came to that conclusion. I can't think of any other action that the whole world agreed with and acted so decisively on in such a short space of time.
But yes, the whole world was wrong and I, after reading a couple of articles that happened to pop up on Facebook, had it right from the start.
I think all these boring posts on the Lockdown/Covid/Vaccines are just the meanderings of an obsessive who finds it difficult to sleep at night because they lost a business or whatever. Well, what do you know, life sucks, some unfortunates lost their lives.
It's a pity of course but blame the virus and get a proper job like most of us do. Being a businessman is never good for your health anyway.
There's much more to get upset about, like Cardiff City's fortunes for example.
Thank god I’ve not lost any business then .. been employed for 33 years in the same job , so what’s a proper job then
Health wise , I’ve never had a days sick apart from when I got stabbed at an away game, and even then I was sent home from work.
Perhaps you lack empathy unless it’s Covid , like the two musketeers on here :who clearly appear to be in the vulnerable group set, and that’s their choice.
With regards to Norway, they submitted different data analysis to Sweden , they had a high death count prior to lockdown and the land mass/ per population differed - yet you failed to comment on that part.I can understand your confusion/amusement.
As far as I can tell TWGL1 posted a set of deaths of people with Covid and no other underlying conditions in 2020. It may have been to prove the effectiveness of the control measures or to move onto hospitalisations of recovering groups and the impact that had on both health service management ond deferred treatment of others but then again...maybe not!
Still to nail his point about the ONS statistics that break deaths down into four "cohorts" the first being people aged 0-44 he explains that in an unspecified "cohort" they were 10 times more likely to be mauled to death by a dog than die with covid.
You, unsuprisingly, pissed yourself laughing only to be told again that you can't read data, backed up with what some would call a tell smiley.
Still, that's you told. Another bemused that we did not adopt the model that killed 10 times more Swedes than Norwegians before they locked down in early 2021 like the rest of the sane world at that time!
ONS data is clearly being ignored here , funny that, ultimately heathy people have a 1:550,000 chance of dying.
Have a look at the data for dog attacks as a comparison ( granted bad choice for data comparison)
Florida governor seeks grand jury investigation into Covid vaccines
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ccines-florida
You'll never win against the Branch Covidians!
Love how when credible data is presented it’s ignored
Go on then Alan Turing, talk us through your credible data workings.Love how when credible data is presented it’s ignored
Did you identify the number of people in an unspecified cohort in England and Wales,
Then deduct the percentage of people who would have underlying health conditions,
Then apply some kind of factor for the effectiveness of lockdowns, social distancing, masks etc. Obviously you don't have the data for your preferred method of allowing the chosen few allowed to sporting events, nightclubs etc bumping into each other like pinballs.
Or did you just take a number and divide it into an unspecified much bigger number?
Then bizarrely conclude from that number that in 2020 people in the unspecified cohort had a 1 in 55000 chance of being mauled to death by a dog?
If you talk us through the credible data workings I guess we can all see your brilliance.
Covidians R gonna branch, innit!Love how when credible data is presented it’s ignored
How many of these “healthy people” with a 1:550,000 chance of dying exist in the UK?
2/3rds of adults are considered overweight or obese in the UK.
Even traffic accidents are more dangerous if you believe the peer reviewed studies.
Posting Permissions