COVID THREAD

[melthebell 864]

10 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

I'm absolutely certain that he knows more than I about emergency medicine and training nurses and if I needed advice on those specialist subjects he would  be a go to.

About viruses, pandemics and vaccines I have access to people who have made those their specialist subjects.

 

I do not know why his opinions are so way out of line with real medical and scientific knowledge. I do not know what motivates his 15 years of YouTube shows, but I can see why he appeals to the Covid deniers/Anti-vaxxers/Suppressionists and Conspiracy Theorists who then deliberately misuse his title.

 

I really doubt he's used by anti vaxxers TBH he tells too much backed by scientific papers they wont want to hear.

Like the ones on here they don't like things that are 100 per cent their narrative, he isn't, hence why I use him

[Chekhov 488]

16 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

I was looking for the direct quote - you know, the thing that you put between the inverted commas. But it seems what you wrote wasn't a quote, but your own straw man to attempt to criticise that piece of work. 

 

Ferguson's report was clear that the estimate you refer to related to an unmitigated epidemic, and was provided alongside other estimates of what would happen if various control measures were used. One of those other estimates turned out to be pretty much spot on. The report said:

 

"In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months (Figure 1A)."

 

and,

 

"In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality. "

Which is BS in itself because even if "no mitigation measures were taken" many (most ? ) vulnerable people would have taken their own, as  I discovered for myself (but you seem to have missed, so I have repeated it for you) :

 

Funnily enough, and this is absolutely true, over the weekend 14/15 March 2020 we'd arranged to travel down to Gloucester and see two Aunts of mine, both mid 80s. One was in a care home and one still living in her own house. The one living in her own house said her daughters had advised he not to meet up with anyone under the circumstances and the care home had already stopped people going in. In the event we went all that way and only saw my cousin because his wife has health problems and didn't want to go to a pub for a meal. And this was all BEFORE the government told everyone we'd be locking everyone in

 

But he was wrong anyway, provably so because he fact is no where in the entire world has had a death rate of 1% of the population, even the outlier Peru (who took extreme anti Covid measures including the most ludicrously draconian mask edicts) "only" had 0.63%, and most had far less than that :

 

Covid deaths per million (though not all will actually have died of Covid, particularly since about spring 2021, and even more so since early 2022) - data to 5 Jul 22

 

Hungary = 4855 (0.48%)

Czech Republic = 3751
USA = 3117

Poland = 3083

Greece = 2940

Italy = 2798

Belgium = 2733

UK = 2630

Spain = 2314

France = 2285

Sweden = 1867

Germany = 1678

 

13 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Dr John Campbell was a nurse. 

Dr John Campbell was a nursing teacher at the Cumbria University.

Dr John Campbell is not a doctor of medicine or of science, having gained his PhD at Bolton University

He has had success in creating teaching materials and became a YouTuber in 2009

His observations on statistics and medicine are followed by Covid deniers/Anti-vaxx/Suppressionists and Conspiracy Theorists.

 

Unfortunately the Covid deniers/Anti-vaxx/Suppressionists and Conspiracy Theorists perpetuate the myth of a Doctor who is an expert on Pandemics.

There have not been any "experts" on pandemics. All of the "experts", certainly the ones the government were listening to, have been wrong far more than they have been right, and in the same over pessimistic direction pretty much every time. That is just a fact. I can put my list on again if you need proof ?

Edited July 6, 2022 by Chekhov

[Chekhov 488]

11 hours ago, top4718 said:

This OFSTED reports a good read for the “it’s just a mask”, lockdown loving brigade, then again we’ve seen their total lack of regard for anything that’s not under the banner of the great god convid.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-recovery-in-early-years-providers-spring-2022/education-recovery-in-early-years-providers-spring-2022

I predict the mask lovers will conveniently miss this, let's see if I am right......

[Tyke02 111]

14 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Which is BS in itself because even if "no mitigation measures were taken" many (most ? ) vulnerable people would have taken their own, as  I discovered for myself (but you seem to have missed, so I have repeated it for you) :

You seem to have missed the bit I quoted that said "In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour...".

 

As I said, you are making a straw man argument by claiming the report said something that it didn't, because that makes it easier for you to criticise, or perhaps more accurately demonise the authors.

 

21 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Covid deaths per million (though not all will actually have died of Covid, particularly since about spring 2021, and even more so since early 2022)

No, of course not, because  all countries (or their populations) did something to slow the spread, and then the vaccines arrived. You seem to have missed this part of the quotation: "In the (unlikely) absence of...".   You seem to be mistaking the 510,000 as a prediction. Perhaps you've been misled by someone quoting just that number out of context, rather like you have done.  Ferguson's report also modelled more likely scenarios, including the set of measures introduced in March 2020, and as I said their estimate of the likely outcome was pretty accurate.

 

[hackey lad 3,989]

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

I really doubt he's used by anti vaxxers TBH he tells too much backed by scientific papers they wont want to hear.

Like the ones on here they don't like things that are 100 per cent their narrative, he isn't, hence why I use him

What do you use him for?

[melthebell 864]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

What do you use him for?

For debate? to back something up? to answer a point?

 

As i said to Annie i find him balanced, he tells things which goes against what anti vaxxers say (thats why i dont believe hes used by anti vaxxers to back up their points, Dr Tops on here has said as much), but he does say things which are negative and so go against things i might want to hear ideally, but im a big boy i can handle it. (such as the negative aspects of vaccination, bloodclots etc)

[hackey lad 3,989]

5 minutes ago, melthebell said:

For debate? to back something up? to answer a point?

 

As i said to Annie i find him balanced, he tells things which goes against what anti vaxxers say (thats why i dont believe hes used by anti vaxxers to back up their points, Dr Tops on here has said as much), but he does say things which are negative and so go against things i might want to hear ideally, but im a big boy i can handle it. (such as the negative aspects of vaccination, bloodclots etc)

Thanks mate 

[Chekhov 488]

Just collateral damage..... :

 

Policeman killed son and then himself in Kidderminster, inquest finds

A police officer, who killed his son and then took his own life, struggled with his mental health during the first Covid lockdown, an inquest heard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-61999483

 

2 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

As I said, you are making a straw man argument by claiming the report said something that it didn't, because that makes it easier for you to criticise, or perhaps more accurately demonise the authors.

I don't have to make up any strawman argument, there are loads of factually provable ones I can use, and have done.

 

The facts

.

Nobody knows how many lives were saved by locking down society, but, on the balance of probabilities (nett of the lives lockdown has and will cause), it will not be as many as was thought when lockdown was proposed with alarmist guesstimates of "up to 500,000 deaths". I think this is generally accepted.

 

However, locking down society (for the only time in history....) did massive damage, which we are about to start paying for.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Chekhov

[Tyke02 111]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I don't have to make up any strawman argument, there are loads of factually provable ones I can use, and have done.

You say that, then repeat one of your strawmen.

 

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

The facts

.

Nobody knows how many lives were saved by locking down society

This is a fact.

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

on the balance of probabilities (nett of the lives lockdown has and will cause) it will not be as many as was thought when lockdown was proposed

This is an opinion mislabelled as a fact.

 

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

due to alarmist guesstimates of "up to 500,000 deaths". 

This is you repeating your straw man argument.

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I think this is generally accepted.

I think it is not generally accepted.  That's OK though, except that you are implying that your opinion is a fact.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Tyke02

[Chekhov 488]

2 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

You say that, then repeat one of your strawmen.

This is a fact.

This is an opinion mislabelled as a fact.

This is you repeating your straw man argument.

I think it is not generally accepted.  That's OK though, except that you are implying that your opinion is a fact.

You are incorrect, it is generally accepted that 500,000 people  were never going to die of Covid in the UK .

I think it is also generally accepted that lockdown did not work as well as intended, in fact it provably did not because it was originally intended to only be in for a matter of weeks "to flatten the curve".

 

I wonder how many of you lot still vainly arguing lockdown was a proportionate and effective response :

1 - Will still be doing in a  year or two (when the massive damage it causes will becomes even more obvious).

2 - Would have been trying to get SF posts (saying kids were at no significant risk from Covid) deleted back in April 2020.....

[butlers 261]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/covid-was-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-americans-aged-45-54-in-2021/

[Tyke02 111]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

You are incorrect

...in your opinion.

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

it is generally accepted that 500,000 people  were never going to die of Covid in the UK .

Now you are changing what you were saying. Your previous assertion was: "Nobody knows how many lives were saved by locking down society, but, on the balance of probabilities (nett of the lives lockdown has and will cause), it will not be as many as was thought when lockdown was proposed..."

 

These two assertions are not the same, and I think you are squirming.

 

However, to answer the new question, you are agreeing with what I wrote about the scenarios that were modelled. After people believed that a mixture of behaviour changes and control measures could reduce the spread from what it was in early March, and turn around growth so that hospital capacity wasn't overwhelmed, the outlook for the first wave was "only" around 50,000 deaths.  

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I think it is also generally accepted that lockdown did not work as well as intended, in fact it provably did not because it was originally intended to only be in for a matter of weeks "to flatten the curve".

If you read the SAGE documentation you will see that the intent of the first lockdown was to keep the number of those needing hospital care within capacity. There was no expectation that it would be the end of the pandemic, and it was expected that there would be further waves at some unknown point after restrictions were released. Pretending that the intent was otherwise is just another of your straw men.  In March 2020 the expectation was that the control measures available would delay rather than ultimately reduce the number of  deaths, unless and until therapies/antivirals/vaccines became available.

 

That's what happened. Only a few percent of the population were infected in that first wave (as determined by antibody testing). By the end of 2020 therapies had been developed to about halve the infection fatality rate, then vaccines and antivirals reduced it much further in 2021.  The benefits in terms of reducing the overall number of fatalities achieved with those therapies and vaccines were only available because of the time bought to develop them by those early control measures.

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Tyke02