Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Chekhov 488]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Not sure what you mean TBH, but I'll tell you what is absolutely ridiculous, apparently all the kids in my lad's year group (8 years old) at school have been told they have to take  a PCT test whether or not they have any symptoms. This is disproportionate nonsense and I am sick to death of it, I wonder whether Gregg "over reaction" Fell has anything to do with it ? 

Let's just look at the facts :

1 - Kids are at no risk from Covid, in  fact it could even be arguable it would be beneficial for them to catch Covid whilst they were young, like Chicken Pox.

2 - Most of their parents even if unvaccinated would be in little danger from Covid because nearly all would be under 50 and the great majority under 40, BUT they have almost certainly all been vaccinated (or at least offered the vaccine) anyway ! And therefore are at very small risk of even hospitalisation much less death.

3 - Taking a child for a PCT test is a time wasting PITA and not pleasant for the child either.

 

What is is going on ?

Who is driving all this bull**** ?

When is the world going to wake up from this utter UTTER madness ?

Doe this mean this guidance is from "waste everyone's time for no good reason" Gregg Fell ?

 

We have today received further guidance from Public Health which asks for all children in Year 4 to be taken for a PCR test (not just a LFT) unless they have had COVID within the last 90 days.

 

I note it says "asks", well they can take a hike.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Chekhov

[Chekhov 488]

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

The death rates for rich countries are approximate. For poor countries, with possibly a few exceptions, the death rate is basicly unknown. Hopefully, it is lower. If it is lower, having a younger population might well be the main explanation.

It's all in here, though there may be more recent research of anyone has time to look it up :

WHO / Stanford study :
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

 

I think the Stanford study estimated the death rate per infection at about 1 in  450 but that was for (or included) poorer countries ?

[Bargepole23 337]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Because we are all human beings, and there isn't that much difference between us all, which was the correct call to make. It wasn't just China, no children from any other country had died of Covid up to that time. And, incidentally, very very few kids without serious existing conditions have died of Covid in this country either. In fact very few children even with serious existing conditions have died, though every child death really is a tragedy, unlike someone in their mid 80s, which is sad for their family but hardly a tragedy. Mid 80s is still a reasonable age even these days, and the average age of a Covid death in this country is (it certainly was until recently) 82.4 years old.

 

Risk of death [from Covid] for a child 1 in 500,000 :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57766717

No children had died, in the very short period of time for which data was available, but you had no idea if the disease may take longer to show serious effects in young children.

 

Where you live and who you live with can make a big difference to the impact of viral diseases.

 

In short, a guess, which fortunately for you turned out to be correct. And then you use that outcome to try to suggest your initial guess was based on some kind of insight.

 

Nice that you write off the over 80's. Typical callous approach of those opposed to the vaccine, to justify their choice, "keep the vulnerable safe" meaning lock em up in their houses whilst the rest of us crack on.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Bargepole23

[El Cid 220]

16 hours ago, Jim Hardie said:

Abstract 10712 
Steven Gundry is a bit controversial, but if he’s right maybe the boosters should be halted for the time being. Too late for me, lol.

He is a former cardiac surgeon, it seems he is now into selling supplements to make money. Why choose him as your expert?

[Guest makapaka]

“I am OMICRON your new lord and master - kneel to me !”

[Chekhov 488]

What about  this "new variant" ? :

 

1 - If it really does evade the vaccines it's a pity more people (pref vaccinated if over about 45) hadn't caught Covid earlier in the year and got natural immunity from that.

2 - If it does't evade the vaccines there's nothing to worry about.

 

Either way more suppression is not only not needed, it may even be counter productive. 

[Guest makapaka]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

What about  this "new variant" ? :

 

1 - If it really does evade the vaccines it's a pity more people (pref vaccinated if over about 45) hadn't caught Covid earlier in the year and got natural immunity from that.

2 - If it does't evade the vaccines there's nothing to worry about.

 

Either way more suppression is not only not needed, it may even be counter productive. 

It will because this is “OMICRON”.

[Chekhov 488]

6 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

No children had died, in the very short period of time for which data was available, but you had no idea if the disease may take longer to show serious effects in young children.

Where you live and who you live with can make a big difference to the impact of viral diseases.

In short, a guess, which fortunately for you turned out to be correct. And then you use that outcome to try to suggest your initial guess was based on some kind of insight.

No. I am not claiming any insight, I just looked at the data, something far more people should do. I feel very sorry for any parents who were frightened about their kids, it must have been awful. Personally I think it is worse than that, it is unforgivable that parents were allowed to stress themselves out over something they did not need to just to foster fear in order to increase complicity in the government's suppression strategy. I know of many forums which were actually deleting posts saying kids were at no risk, I assume they were doing so out of some misplaced sense of social responsibility, but, since the evidence was there at the time (that kids were at no significant risk) they should be feeling guilty about doing that, giving all those parents unnecessary upset and worry. It was disgusting.

 

Article date 12 March 2020 (that's 2020 not 2021...)

It has been widely reported that children are less likely to get severely ill and die from the new coronavirus. A recent study of 44,672 people with confirmed covid-19 infection found that children under 10 years old made up less than 1 per cent of those cases and none of the 1023 deaths.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237259-why-dont-children-seem-to-get-very-ill-from-the-coronavirus/#ixzz7DLyuaj4P

 

But, weeks after that, the UK government were stating "this virus is indiscriminate".

So the moral of this story is be cynical about anything anyone tells you, even the UK government.....

 

6 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Nice that you write off the over 80's. Typical callous approach of those opposed to the vaccine, to justify their choice, "keep the vulnerable safe" meaning lock em up in their houses whilst the rest of us crack on.

You are wrong in just about everything you have said, have you actually read my posts ! ? !

I have been vaccinated !!

And I advise everyone over about 40, certainly over 60, and/or with health issues to get vaccinated ! ! !

 

And nobody is "writing off the over 80s". I am simply pointing out the obvious that not all deaths are as sad as each other. I'm in my mid 50s, a child dying would be much sadder than me dying. On the other hand, someone dying in their 50s is much sadder than someone dying in their 80s.

To be frank I cannot understand anyone, even those over 80, arguing with that.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Chekhov

[Guest makapaka]

4 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Nice that you write off the over 80's. Typical callous approach of those opposed to the vaccine, to justify their choice, "keep the vulnerable safe" meaning lock em up in their houses whilst the rest of us crack on.

@Chekhovhasn’t said that though have they.

 

youve just gone after them like it’s a binary argument.

 

what an immature response to some valid points.

[Carbuncle 0]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

8 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

The death rates for rich countries are approximate. For poor countries, with possibly a few exceptions, the death rate is basicly unknown. Hopefully, it is lower. If it is lower, having a younger population might well be the main explanation.

It's all in here, though there may be more recent research of anyone has time to look it up :

WHO / Stanford study :
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

 

I think the Stanford study estimated the death rate per infection at about 1 in  450 but that was for (or included) poorer countries ?

I find it hard to believe that you have read both my post and the paper you have linked to since the paper seems to have no connection to my post.

 

I would also note with suspicion that the author of the paper is John Ioannidis. He's famous enough that I have heard of him for two different things. One claim to fame relates to a paper he wrote: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".  By a curious irony, his other claim to fame relates to a paper he wrote early in the pandemic in which most of the research findings were, according to the consensus view amongst experts, false. That paper was on the same theme as this paper and came to similar conclusions.

 

You seem to have misremembered the 1 in 450 or at least I couldn't see it. Be that as it may we now know this paper's conclusions are junk because the population fatality rate for many countries now exceeds his computed infection fatality rate and by some margin. This should never happen!

[Longcol 604]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

What about  this "new variant" ? :

 

1 - If it really does evade the vaccines it's a pity more people (pref vaccinated if over about 45) hadn't caught Covid earlier in the year and got natural immunity from that.

 

And the NHS would have been totally overwhelmed............................................

[melthebell 864]

Virologist talking about the new variant

and before Dr Tops and Dr Daddy go off on one, heres his credentials on the subject

https://acmedsci.ac.uk/fellows/fellows-directory/ordinary-fellows/fellow/Professor-Lawrence-Young-0006337

 

Specialities

viral oncology, tumour immunology, cancer gene therapy, cancer pathology, translational cancer research

Section committee elected by

Cellular and developmental biology, microbiology and immunology, genetics

 

slightly more experienced on the subject than a couple of no marks on the internet