Reply With QuoteWhat do those figures cover?Originally Posted by TWGL1
Much too high for the UK, much too low for worldwide?
Whatever the scope, it seems to show that flu was contained by lockdown, but Covid is much more transmittable and dangerous.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
2016/17 29m
2017/18 45m
2018/19 36m
2019/20 38m
2020/21. 0.0015 m. Covid 32m
Shows how serious things got.
What do those figures cover?
Much too high for the UK, much too low for worldwide?
Whatever the scope, it seems to show that flu was contained by lockdown, but Covid is much more transmittable and dangerous.
Perhaps but the symptoms were almost the same.
NHS staff could put Covid on a death certificate WITHOUT TESTING using the clinical balance of probability.
https://twitter.com/1bjdj/status/159...BWxYyMSXBJfgBQ
It’s worth noting
The CDC, on the other hand, says "covid is clinically indistinguishable from influenza" and that a "test" is the only way to know if you have "it."
When you know the "tests" are not tests at all then ….l
Within 28 days of a positive test or “clinical opinion, which involved no test” must have had a significant impact on ONS data.
Yes, is was a particularly weak strain of flu in 2020 *cough, cough*
And so, three years later, it comes full circle with more claims that it’s just like flu.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..
Supposedly, you can:
1. Have this virus and have a wide range of symptoms
2. Don't have this virus but have the same symptoms
3. Have this virus and have no symptoms
And all these symptoms existed before SARS-Cov2, which was obviously caused by other things, any ideas what ?
Bear in mind the Covid came into the Uk September 2019 and nobody batted a eye-lid
The revisionism is breathtaking. TWGL1 posts some flu case history from the US without any reference to the fact that there was a vaccine to constrain its most dangerous effects in a way that was absent when Covid arrived. Also he focusses on cases not consequences where deaths and serious cases were overwhelming and would have been much worse without social distancing measures.
Thanks to weakening mutation and vaccine we are nearing or at the point where we can thankfully treat covid and the flu in a similar way, but anyone who thinks that this was the case in 2020/21 is frankly off the scale. Just check the graph in the article below and see what bollocks they are regurgitating!
https://fortune.com/well/2022/09/27/...oster-vaccine/
Out of interest have you changed your diet , increased your exercise and maybe cut down on drinking / smoking to mitigate any potential risks from the many viruses in circulation or are you just going to solely rely on medication interventions which perhaps could be allocated to the weakest in society and people who need it most
A not too effective swerve.
I’m not swerving at all What’s your view in the CDC’s directive in that you can’t distinguish SARS-Cov2 from flu without a test , and the feasibility that the IFR rate is the same as flu ?
I haven't got one. What we've got here is a bunch of people who made fools of themselves three years ago as they desperately searched for ways to downplay something that was killing millions trying to rewrite history (at least I'm presuming that with you because you've changed your posting name since then) and, laughably, now trying to make out they were right all along.
No as I’ve said repeatedly, I have not held another account for years prior to this one but if it gives you comfort thinking I have , crack on .
I am not going to change my opinion and it’s clear to me that it’s reasonable to ask questions. I think it’s laughable that agenda pushers like you who are retired with little to lose if we are locked down question business people with families like myself regarding policies that clearly has a more negative impact than a positive one on society.
I think that you had another posting name on here because you have talked in the past about what was on this board three years ago. However, let's accept you're right and you have only ever posted under your current name, it strikes me as odd that' given your strong feelings about lockdowns, you did not make your opinion clear at the time if you're saying you did have access to the board. Could it be that you did not feel the same about lockdowns then?
I find all of these current day claims about the lockdowns in 2020 in particular a bit of a waste of time. I do not remember too big a backlash against lockdowns when they were first imposed maybe because the world was a much different place then than it is now in terms of what we know about Covid and how we could treat it.
If I do have an "agenda" when it comes to lockdowns, it's that they were a necessary evil through 2020 and into early 2021, but not since then and I certainly wouldn't support a Covid related one now.
I see in the perpetual money v people debate which politics boils down to in its simplest terms, you're on the side of money. I'm not and never have been , my views have nothing to do with my age
I'd rather lose a business than one single life.
I’m not motivated by money I’m motivated by a balanced approach. As a father, I was also concerned about my sons personal development.
I don’t expect a guy who’s retired to have the same view as me but at the same time you have to understand that the lockdown approach just kicked the can down the road. It’s clear that the lockdown approach has done more harm than good both fiscally and in terms of long term health and that was obvious at the time. Prove me wrong.
The multi user debate has been done and done , but even if I did have another user name ( I didn’t ) so what ?
It’s clear many people have been driven off the board with the relentless narrative ( pro mainstream)or felt compelled to start afresh under other user name , and that’s more a reflection of you and other “big hitters” isn’t it?
Very noble of you.
You've already said in another thread that you used to post on here using a different name. Do try and keep your story straight.
I posted years ago , do try to keep up.
Even if I did for argument sake so what ?
Thanks, I'm chuffed
There wasn’t a can to be kicked down the road until Covid came along and became the priority.
That modelling in March 2020 that said there could be half a million Covid deaths in the UK if measures weren’t taken to combat it has been ridiculed by the “independent thinkers”on here, but how can anyone know for sure whether it was accurate or not? If it was, just under 300,000 lives were saved with the imposition of the lockdown being a major factor in that. Even if we accept that it was only half right that still points to well over a 100,000 lives saved.
To hear you lot talk, you’d think, first, that nobody who’s had the vaccine thought there was any risk, but the large majority who did knew that there were chances of problems down the line, yet
thought it was a risk they had to take. Secondly, you lot seem to think that everyone would have continued using the NHS as if nothing was happening if there had not been a lockdown. There are two ludicrous assumptions which follow from that second option that you and others take. The first one being no recognition of the numbers who would have died without the lockdown and, second, that all of those additional excess deaths would be avoided if there hadn’t been a lockdown. Of course they wouldn’t have, I can only guess at the numbers who would have not bothered to have gone to their doctors or keep hospital appointments in the spring of 2020 out of a fear of catching Covid even if there had not been a lockdown, but would assume it would be a very, very significant number.
The truth is that if the sort of excess deaths figures referred to in this recent article continue at the same rate
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...aths-overtake/
Then it’s going to take a long time to surpass what I believe is a reasonable figure to assume for deaths saved by the early lockdowns in particular.
You say you are motivated by “a balanced approach”, but your contributions on the subject of Covid, lockdowns and vaccines are not balanced in the slightest, they’re completely one sided.
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5369342]There wasn’t a can to be kicked down the road until Covid came along and became the priority.
That modelling in March 2020 that said there could be half a million Covid deaths in the UK if measures weren’t taken to combat it has been ridiculed by the “independent thinkers”on here, but how can anyone know for sure whether it was accurate or not? If it was, just under 300,000 lives were saved with the imposition of the lockdown being a major factor in that. Even if we accept that it was only half right that still points to well over a 100,000 lives saved.
To hear you lot talk, you’d think, first, that nobody who’s had the vaccine thought there was any risk, but the large majority who did knew that there were chances of problems down the line, yet
thought it was a risk they had to take. Secondly, you lot seem to think that everyone would have continued using the NHS as if nothing was happening if there had not been a lockdown. There are two ludicrous assumptions which follow from that second option that you and others take. The first one being no recognition of the numbers who would have died without the lockdown and, second, that all of those additional excess deaths would be avoided if there hadn’t been a lockdown. Of course they wouldn’t have, I can only guess at the numbers who would have not bothered to have gone to their doctors or keep hospital appointments in the spring of 2020 out of a fear of catching Covid even if there had not been a lockdown, but would assume it would be a very, very significant number.
The truth is that if the sort of excess deaths figures referred to in this recent article continue at the same rate
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...aths-overtake/
Then it’s going to take a long time to surpass what I believe is a reasonable figure to assume for deaths saved by the early lockdowns in particular.
You say you are motivated by “a balanced approach”, but your contributions on the subject of Covid, lockdowns and vaccines are not balanced in the slightest, they’re completely one sided.[/
The modelling was wildly inaccurate hence the ridicule of professor lockdown.
How many people actually died of cov-sars2 and not with - similar to any other flu year
CDC have confirmed cov-sars 2 cannot be distinguished with a “test” and many Covid deaths were of a medical opinion only. This would inflate numbers on a huge scale
[QUOTE=TWGL1;5369349]It was not wildly inaccurate, it was a worst case scenario figure if measures were not taken - measures were taken, so how can you come to that conclusion?
Your use of the term Professor Lockdown blows your claims to be balanced out of the water.
Posting Permissions
