Coronavirus - Part Two.

[The_DADDY 3,461]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Why ?

Because it was. 

If you can't see that then I can't help you. 

 

[The_DADDY 3,461]

19 minutes ago, West 77 said:

 

The post most certainly isn't vile.  You're the one with a big problem on this topic.

Yes it is. If you can't see that then you are the one with the problem. 

[onewheeldave 22]

1 hour ago, Carbuncle said:

How about:

1.1 Health statistics should generally be treated as at minimum somewhat approximate.

1.2 Scientific research, especially single papers, should never be regarded as definitive and unchallengeable.

1.3 One should anticipate some level of corruption/ contamination everywhere. Levels vary hugely.

2.1 The covid measures have had a significant detrimental effect on the economy.

2.2 The covid measures have probably had a significant detrimental effect on domestic abuse and mental health.

2.3 MSM and government pronouncements on the pandemic warrant considerable scepticism due to ulterior motives.

2.4 Politicians frequently fall short in terms of integrity.

3.1 Covid does not match the black death as a threat to human health.

3.2 The mitigated epidemic, at this stage, appears to be less of a threat to human health than the Spanish flu epidemic.

 

Can you put your finger on what worries you about the excess mortality figures? I had thought this would pass muster as, as far I understand it, it relies simply on being able to count deaths as and when they occur.

Concerning the numbered points- I'd go a lot further on most of them e.g.

'1.2 Scientific research, especially single papers, should never be regarded as definitive and unchallengeable.'

of course, that's obvious. What's not anywhere near acknowledged is the extent of how badly many of them are damaged by the effects of the various vested interests, and, by the factors mentioned in the 'meta-science/meta research' link. To the extent that a lot of them are not fit for purpose.

 

'2.4 Politicians frequently fall short in terms of integrity.' Again, that's putting it very mildly. Just the way the system is set up pretty much ensures that any honest individuals with integrity can't succeed in politics; whereas expert manipulators with the right social connections and the ability to lie well, will tend to do very well.

 

As for the excess mortality figures, the posters below make relevant points as to why they may not be accurate

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

 

 

Excess mortality.

Now there's a minefield.

That will include people whose health has suffered as a result of this pandemic.

Sorry, as  a result of the governments crude suppression policies.

That's more accurate.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Axel said:

I was thinking about the suicide rates and attempted suicides over the past couple of years but was reminded that I know of someone who died of a drugs overdose , it was recorded as a covid death causing great distress to the family.  Also a friend who died of cancer last year was recorded as a covid death (caught in hospital), this skews the statistics somewhat.   I fear that in years to come the true death toll will be enormous.

I'm aware of lots of these too.

 

Carbuncle- "Forget the interpretation for a moment. Would you expect the ONS to have done a good job of preparing the statistic?"

 

I don't know- it's an organisation like any other and therefore could have the same issues.

But even if they had done a good job, if the results are innacurate [due to any of the above reasons] then they are of no use to me in coming to conclusions.

 

I'm not sure if you're understanding me on this? Don't you agree that the ONLY really important things is that a stat is [reasonably] accurate. If they're not [reasonably] accurate then whether the organisation involved is sincere/competent is of no real relevance, is it?

[butlers 259]

Wacky story from Germany.

 

Hundreds of People Queued Up To Be Injected With an Illegal ‘Homemade’ Vaccine

https://flip.it/XYG6r6

[Baron99 779]

For those of you using First buses in South Yorkshire, (presumably everywhere else they operate), following on from the Govt's announcement that face coverings will be a mandatory requirement as from 00:40am on 30th Nov, my wife has just had a email from First Group stating the following:

 

"Wearing masks and ventilation
From 30th November it is a legal requirement to wear a face covering on board our buses for the duration of your journey. Please remember to bring a face covering as without one you will be unable to travel, unless you are exempt. If you are unable to wear a face covering, you might want to get a journey assistance card, to help you let people know. Please contact us if you would like one."

 

That's going to be interesting for bus travellers.  I've heard a few things today that like retailers, bus company staff won't directly challenge the public not wearing a face covering or refuluse them travel.  

 

The usual story of 'It's not down to us, it's for the police to enforce.'

Edited November 29, 2021 by Baron99

[onewheeldave 22]

It will be interesting to see what happens in terms of mask complience this time around. I'm getting the sense that a lot more people are going to refuse to comply.

I've also noticed in this thread, we're getting a bit more balance now, which is good. 

[butlers 259]

The last survey I saw was the vast majority were happy to put up with masking in the appropriate situation.

 

[onewheeldave 22]

1 minute ago, butlers said:

The last survey I saw was the vast majority were happy to put up with masking in the appropriate situation.

 

Forgive me for not falling into despair over a survey

I'll wait to see what actually does happen.

[melthebell 862]

10 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

For those of you using First buses in South Yorkshire, (presumably everywhere else they operate), following on from the Govt's announcement that face coverings will be a mandatory requirement as from 00:40am on 30th Nov, my wife has just had a email from First Group stating the following:

 

"Wearing masks and ventilation
From 30th November it is a legal requirement to wear a face covering on board our buses for the duration of your journey. Please remember to bring a face covering as without one you will be unable to travel, unless you are exempt. If you are unable to wear a face covering, you might want to get a journey assistance card, to help you let people know. Please contact us if you would like one."

 

That's going to be interesting for bus travellers.  I've heard a few things today that like retailers, bus company staff won't directly challenge the public not wearing a face covering or refuluse them travel.  

 

The usual story of 'It's not down to us, it's for the police to enforce.'

where in that email quoted does it say they wont directly intervene? it states no face covering no journey...somebodys obviously going to stop them travelling if they dont have a mask

[The_DADDY 3,461]

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

where in that email quoted does it say they wont directly intervene? it states no face covering no journey...somebodys obviously going to stop them travelling if they dont have a mask

Then they will be discriminating against somone who probably has a hidden disability. 

Are you OK with that? 

[Carbuncle 0]

47 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Concerning the numbered points- I'd go a lot further on most of them

Of course, I understood that from the phrasing of your numbered points. I was trying to acknowledge what I feel to be the case in the subject areas you were highlighting. One difficulty in discussing this is that given the extent of polarisation, we each regard certain things as obvious that the other would not accept.

 

You think it is obvious that the covid restrictions caused certain harms eg to the economy. Harms have occurred but I think there is a problem with attribution. Had we tried to go without the restrictions would we actually have avoided those harms? [In my opinion,] had we managed to proceed with no restrictions, we would certainly have taken a far bigger hit from covid ... and something would have happened to the economy - I am not exactly sure what - in the resulting catastrophe.

 

47 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Carbuncle- "Forget the interpretation for a moment. Would you expect the ONS to have done a good job of preparing the statistic?"

 

I don't know- it's an organisation like any other and therefore could have the same issues.

But even if they had done a good job, if the results are innacurate [due to any of the above reasons] then they are of no use to me in coming to conclusions.

How has the counting of deaths been affected? I am not talking about the assignment of cause of death just the number and timing of deaths ... the bits one needs to calculate excess mortality. The ONS has been doing this for many years and I had assumed it was fairly bulletproof. If you feel this is somehow tainted can you suggest some data source which you would regard as more reliable ... um, err on any aspect of the pandemic. Do you feel the ONS's GDP numbers have remained reliable, for example? The process of their collection seems complex and involves methods of estimation that might become vastly less reliable in a pandemic.

 

It is a perfectly honourable position to think that no data sources are reliable but the consequence is that one says 'I don't know' to every question. One doesn't get to know the negative consequences of restrictions or that covid deaths have been lower than reported.

 

So, ... do you have any sources of data you feel you can trust?

Edited November 29, 2021 by Carbuncle

[melthebell 862]

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

Then they will be discriminating against somone who probably has a hidden disability. 

Are you OK with that? 

thats not what it says stop being aknob, it also states you can get an exemption card, lanyard (some people probably already have)