Jump to content


Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

I thought Boris might have shut pubs Mon to Thurs as they dont do much week days and normal opening Fri- Sat- Sun.  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

The vast majority of those 40,000 were in the main extremely ill and would likely have died in the very near future anyway.

Wrong again - although you keep repeating it  - "underlying conditions" (which are attributed to about 95% of covid deaths) and "at deaths door / extremely ill" are two separate things.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/96/?tab=comments#comment-8368062

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Wrong again - although you keep repeating it  - "underlying conditions" (which are attributed to about 95% of covid deaths) and "at deaths door / extremely ill" are two separate things.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/96/?tab=comments#comment-8368062

 

Yes, I recall refuting your confused claim. For whatever reason/s you do not listen to what I'm actually saying- try these

 

https://patient.info/news-and-features/covid-19-coronavirus-what-is-an-underlying-health-condition

 

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1#:~:text=There is increasing evidence that,to COVID-19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

It wasn't the first time, but hopefully we've learnt. 

 

Some wards were made into 'Covid wards' first time, same thing can happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Where does it say people with underlying conditions are "extremely ill"?

 

btw your "refutation" was refuted - so you started banging on about Sweden again soon afterwards.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/97/?tab=comments#comment-8368098

 

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Where does it say people with underlying conditions are "extremely ill"?

is it supposed to? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

is it supposed to? Why?

Because you claimed

 

"The vast majority of those 40,000 were in the main extremely ill and would likely have died in the very near future anyway."

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/110/?tab=comments#comment-8368799

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Because you claimed

 

"The vast majority of those 40,000 were in the main extremely ill and would likely have died in the very near future anyway."

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/110/?tab=comments#comment-8368799

 

Fair point; on reflection that is not accurate. I'd say the majority were extremely ill (diabetes, heart disease etc], very old, and, a fair number of them would have died in the near future either from their health conditions, their advanced age or, whatever infectious disease they got exposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, onewheeldave said:

Fair point; on reflection that is not accurate. I'd say the majority were extremely ill (diabetes, heart disease etc], very old, and, a fair number of them would have died in the near future either from their health conditions, their advanced age or, whatever infectious disease they got exposed to.

And your evidence is.........................................................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Fair point; on reflection that is not accurate. I'd say the majority were extremely ill (diabetes, heart disease etc], very old, and, a fair number of them would have died in the near future either from their health conditions, their advanced age or, whatever infectious disease they got exposed to.

That’s what you’d say.

 

What do the medical profession say?

 

Or the stats, for that matter.

 

I’ll give you a while to peruse this and check out your “would have died anyway” hypothesis.

 

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-week-ending-04-Sep-2020.html

Edited by Pettytom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think we should just dismiss COVID as something that just affects old people with health conditions. 
The effects of ‘long COVID’ affecting younger people are very debilitating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.