Coronavirus

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

How did Spain and Italy get on with their hard lockdowns? Or Peru for that matter (2nd on the deaths/million 'league table';

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/alexcorey/2020/08/13/peru-proves-that-lockdowns-arent-an-effective-way-at-stopping-covid-19-n2574315

Selective use of figures to skew the argument.

personally my view on Spain is that it is a very diverse country.  Madrid is certainly not Andalucia.  I flew via Madrid to NZ right at the start  in mid Feb.  Indeed there are some reports that link Italians from the ski resort hotspot being on the plane that arrived in NZ with .  Here in Andalucia we have very little problem.  People tend to be more compliant  than in Madrid.  I have been away for the last 3 weekends and 99% follow the rules carefully for the whole of every day.  It is very odd to see someone not with a mask and they are immediately challenged by those that they encounter.  This is not what is happening and has happened in Madrid, there have even been demonstrations against restrictions.   There is just a different approach and it is probably wrong to say that the whole of Spain has failed. 

NZ had a strong lock down culture and they have weathered the storm very well.  They are due an election shortly and there is a chance that the opposition will get in and relax the rules.  if that is the case it may provide the answer as to whether lock down works or not.  I fear if they ease it CV19 will run through the country like a wild fire, I have no proof and I sincerely hope I am wrong

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

You don't understand do you. Let's leave it ?

as usual you never want to back it up.  At some stage you need to start thinking 'maybe I'm wrong'.  I will not hold my breath

[Gone]

11 hours ago, Eddie said:

5, 500 or 50,000, I aim to be not one of them, but unfortunately it's not just down to me. Swine flu (remember that?) nearly killed me, and left me with scarred lungs. Statistically, I'm just one of those old fogey pensioner parasites who is going to peg out soon anyway, so what's a few years off my life in comparison to others being able to exercise their right to scream "I don't wanna" when asked to keep their pustulence to themselves.

 

You obviously don’t read anything in detail, well anything I’ve posted. Not once have I screamed “I don’t wanna” in fact I have adhered to the rules implicitly from day one, begrudgingly but I have. 
 

So here goes, it won’t be popular and you certainly won’t like it, but I believe everyone is reacting to their personal challenges or those of their families/loved ones. You believe (reading your posts) that we should be as strict as possible in every way to protect you and those vulnerable to this Virus not matter is the small proportion of the population. That’s because you could be seriously and detrimentally effected by the virus. I on the other hand do not see me and my family being effected detrimentally by catching COVID. What I see is to protect the vulnerable we are going to kill or at very best significantly damage the future of my family’s, friends and loved ones, educationally, financially and socially. So yes I put that and them before you, as you put you and yours before me and mine. 

My belief and yes this is unpopular  with a selection of people posting on this thread is, the fit and healthy should go about life as usual. We should develop a strategy to protect  the care homes and the seriously vulnerable who need help. For those who are in the vulnerable category but can look after themselves then do so.  I do not see the need for multiple lockdowns/ restrictions outside of wearing a mask and keeping a distance of whatever length, of a entire population who do not need to be protected. 
 

Where as you will see me as selfish for this view, I see you as selfish for you view.  We will continue to disagree on this topic because of our personal circumstances.  I don’t want that as I think after seeing other views/posts on other threads we may probably actually have similar views and actually get on. So that’s it, that’s where I stand on this topic. Thanks for reading (if you did) 

[Stive Pesley]

47 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Anyone who doesn't think they will be revised down hasn't got a single clue because they are so encapsulated by doom and gloom. 

It's a good job we have brave "glass half-full" people like you who are only to happy to grasp the positives of a global pandemic. In some ways Covid is the best thing that's ever happened to us eh? I just don't understand why people are so worried about not wanting to die

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Uptherams said:

The ONS reports what percentage and number of deaths are  reported as Covid. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending21august2020

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 21 August 2020

 

"1.Main points

The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 21 August 2020 (Week 34) was 9,631; this was 239 deaths higher than in Week 33.

In Week 34, the number of deaths registered was 5.2% above the five-year average (474 deaths higher); this is the second consecutive week that weekly deaths have been above the five-year average, however, the rise was not driven by the coronavirus (COVID-19).

The numbers of deaths in hospitals, care homes and other locations were below the five-year average in Week 34, while the number of deaths in private homes continued to be higher than the five-year average (825 more deaths).

Of the deaths registered in Week 34, 138 mentioned "novel coronavirus (COVID-19)"

 

So 474 more deaths that week than the five year average. But only 138 deaths out of 9,631 total deaths were counted as Covid.

So 336 excess deaths compared with the five year average, excluding Covid. 

The statistics were showing this half a year ago. What could be a cause of excess deaths that aren't Covid? Hmmm? I wonder if all the measures taken that changed society so dramatically caused those excess deaths. 2 million missed cancer appointments, 200% increase in suicide rates. 

We have evidence that Covid is indirectly killing more than it is directly.

You expect some wobble week to week in terms of excess deaths. The week quoted is 5% above the 5 year average. We can actually look at the last 5 or so, and see the following:

38. +2.8%

37. +5.4%

36. -15.7%

35. +9.6%

34. +5.2%

33. +3.4%

32. -1.7%

31. -1.0%

30. -1.8%

29. -3.0%

28. -6.1%

27. -0.5%

etc. 

So, did the restrictions just start killing people recently, or were they previously saving lives? You've just tried to cherry pick some bad weeks, but we know that there will be some scatter in the data, that's why they compare 5 year averages, not just the previous year. 

To put that another way, over the last week it's +2.8%, but over the last 4 weeks it's +0.31%. Over the last 8 it's +0.89%, and over the last 12 it's -0.36%. 

[Uptherams]

14 minutes ago, Spanish said:

as usual you never want to back it up.  At some stage you need to start thinking 'maybe I'm wrong'.  I will not hold my breath

It's like playing a game of higher or lower. We have 4 Ace's on the board. Someone says well obviously lower. You scream lower, lower. How do you know it is lower. Well all four Ace's are on the board and Ace is the highest card in the deck.

What is it then, what card will be next, a 6 a 10? I don't know, all I know is it will be lower based on the information we have. Oh so you don't know then, you don't know if it is lower. 

Your logic ?

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

You obviously don’t read anything in detail, well anything I’ve posted. Not once have I screamed “I don’t wanna” in fact I have adhered to the rules implicitly from day one, begrudgingly but I have. 
 

So here goes, it won’t be popular and you certainly won’t like it, but I believe everyone is reacting to their personal challenges or those of their families/loved ones. You believe (reading your posts) that we should be as strict as possible in every way to protect you and those vulnerable to this Virus not matter is the small proportion of the population. That’s because you could be seriously and detrimentally effected by the virus. I on the other hand do not see me and my family being effected detrimentally by catching COVID. What I see is to protect the vulnerable we are going to kill or at very best significantly damage the future of my family’s, friends and loved ones, educationally, financially and socially. So yes I put that and them before you, as you put you and yours before me and mine. 

My belief and yes this is unpopular  with a selection of people posting on this thread is, the fit and healthy should go about life as usual. We should develop a strategy to protect  the care homes and the seriously vulnerable who need help. For those who are in the vulnerable category but can look after themselves then do so.  I do not see the need for multiple lockdowns/ restrictions outside of wearing a mask and keeping a distance of whatever length, of a entire population who do not need to be protected. 
 

Where as you will see me as selfish for this view, I see you as selfish for you view.  We will continue to disagree on this topic because of our personal circumstances.  I don’t want that as I think after seeing other views/posts on other threads we may probably actually have similar views and actually get on. So that’s it, that’s where I stand on this topic. Thanks for reading (if you did) 

Thank you for putting your motivations so clear. 

Again though, I'd stress caution. There are plenty of young people who, if not killed, have been permanently injured by the disease. I would hope you're not one of them. It is very much a myth that the young and the healthy are immune. 

There also still exists concerns about whether those without serious damage may still have other damage too. Small issues, long term, add up. Given the vascular damage the disease can do, there exists a risk of other issues long term.  

As to the points about education, etc. As noted, the countries that successfully contained the disease are the ones where this is possible. If your motivations truly are these, you should want a hard, but short, lockdown to achieve this end. 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Uptherams said:

The ONS reports what percentage and number of deaths are  reported as Covid. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending21august2020

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 21 August 2020

 

"1.Main points

The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 21 August 2020 (Week 34) was 9,631; this was 239 deaths higher than in Week 33.

In Week 34, the number of deaths registered was 5.2% above the five-year average (474 deaths higher); this is the second consecutive week that weekly deaths have been above the five-year average, however, the rise was not driven by the coronavirus (COVID-19).

The numbers of deaths in hospitals, care homes and other locations were below the five-year average in Week 34, while the number of deaths in private homes continued to be higher than the five-year average (825 more deaths).

Of the deaths registered in Week 34, 138 mentioned "novel coronavirus (COVID-19)"

 

So 474 more deaths that week than the five year average. But only 138 deaths out of 9,631 total deaths were counted as Covid.

So 336 excess deaths compared with the five year average, excluding Covid. 

I've already summarised the key points of these reports above. As shown, excess deaths are within expected ranges at this time, and there exists no evidence of excess deaths being caused by lockdowns. This is also noted in the link I gave you earlier, but you ignored. 

The point with the excess deaths is that there were about 60,000 unaccounted for which matched the overall trend in deaths, and suggested that the official figures are missing ~15k-20k.

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

It's like playing a game of higher or lower. We have 4 Ace's on the board. Someone says well obviously lower. You scream lower, lower. How do you know it is lower. Well all four Ace's are on the board and Ace is the highest card in the deck.

What is it then, what card will be next, a 6 a 10? I don't know, all I know is it will be lower based on the information we have. Oh so you don't know then, you don't know if it is lower. 

Your logic ?

No idea what you are saying, no nada.  Now you previously said that and you still fail to back it up.  Perhaps it was a red herring?

There are people who actually do have Covid and die but Covid will have played no role in their death

[Albert]

Just now, Spanish said:

No idea what you are saying, no nada.  Now you previously said that and you still fail to back it up.  Perhaps it was a red herring?

There are people who actually do have Covid and die but Covid will have played no role in their death

They're avoiding that as they know they don't have a point. As noted, going off expected death figures, people 'dying with, not of covid' would, by the logic they themselves presented, account for less than 100 deaths. The total unexplained excess in deaths suggests the actual count is off by 15-20 thousand though. 

As to their analogy, I think they're trying to say there's no way the figures could possibly be higher. They've done nothing to show this is the case of course, which appears to be their style. 

[Uptherams]

In Week 37, the number of deaths registered was 5.4% above the five-year average (505 deaths higher).

The number of death registrations may have been affected by the August Bank holiday (31 August). This can cause delays in deaths being registered in Week 36, resulting in an increase in deaths being registered in Week 37.

Of the deaths registered in Week 37, 99 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, 

406 death's in excess of the 5 year average that weren't Covid.

[ariotofmyown]

17 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

You obviously don’t read anything in detail, well anything I’ve posted. Not once have I screamed “I don’t wanna” in fact I have adhered to the rules implicitly from day one, begrudgingly but I have. 
 

So here goes, it won’t be popular and you certainly won’t like it, but I believe everyone is reacting to their personal challenges or those of their families/loved ones. You believe (reading your posts) that we should be as strict as possible in every way to protect you and those vulnerable to this Virus not matter is the small proportion of the population. That’s because you could be seriously and detrimentally effected by the virus. I on the other hand do not see me and my family being effected detrimentally by catching COVID. What I see is to protect the vulnerable we are going to kill or at very best significantly damage the future of my family’s, friends and loved ones, educationally, financially and socially. So yes I put that and them before you, as you put you and yours before me and mine. 

My belief and yes this is unpopular  with a selection of people posting on this thread is, the fit and healthy should go about life as usual. We should develop a strategy to protect  the care homes and the seriously vulnerable who need help. For those who are in the vulnerable category but can look after themselves then do so.  I do not see the need for multiple lockdowns/ restrictions outside of wearing a mask and keeping a distance of whatever length, of a entire population who do not need to be protected. 
 

Where as you will see me as selfish for this view, I see you as selfish for you view.  We will continue to disagree on this topic because of our personal circumstances.  I don’t want that as I think after seeing other views/posts on other threads we may probably actually have similar views and actually get on. So that’s it, that’s where I stand on this topic. Thanks for reading (if you did) 

If this debate was purely @Eddie vs @TexasRam, then that post would make some sort of sense, at least is we assume that people are unable to to form opinions based on factors outside of their immediate sphere.

However, most scientific opinion is on @Eddie's side, where you have a few dissenting voices who keep getting repeated in the usual places.

The majority view of scientists seems a better bet than choosing between two people on a football forum. Or even the views of people who drive revenue from being controversial. 

The real doom and gloom is are we already at a point where the UK (and other similar countries) have become stupefied to the point where it becomes impossible to be an effective country? 

[Uptherams]

How many people are dying everyday in the UK who aren't being tested for Covid? 

If everyone who dies is being tested then it's obviously the upper limit. Jeeeez. 

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

How many people are dying everyday in the UK who aren't being tested for Covid? 

If everyone who dies is being tested then it's obviously the upper limit. Jeeeez. 

It is not true that everyone who has died has been tested. 

[Gone]

11 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

However, most scientific opinion is on @Eddie's side

Recent data says defo not, but you don’t believe that so it’s pointless keep going over it (won’t stop me posting the data however)

[Albert]

14 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

In Week 37, the number of deaths registered was 5.4% above the five-year average (505 deaths higher).

The number of death registrations may have been affected by the August Bank holiday (31 August). This can cause delays in deaths being registered in Week 36, resulting in an increase in deaths being registered in Week 37.

Of the deaths registered in Week 37, 99 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, 

406 death's in excess of the 5 year average that weren't Covid.

It's unclear why you keep posting these. Your point about them has already been shown to be false. What you're reporting is scatter around the mean. As shown above, the overall average in the mid-term is the same as previous years. It's telling you've just continued to do this, but ignored that post. 

[Gone]

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again though, I'd stress caution. There are plenty of young people who, if not killed, have been permanently injured by the disease

What % or number of young people not killed by the virus are permanently injured ? It’s a tiny tiny proportion. People get aftereffects from  all sorts of illness, we don’t shot down a completely society for it.

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Recent data says defo not, but you don’t believe that so it’s pointless keep going over it (won’t stop me posting the data however)

Expected deviations from a model, as a result of controls, isn't exactly compelling data though, is it? 

Equally, given we're dealing with exponential systems, small changes as a result of controls will lead to massive changes compared to the model. It's kind of the whole thing about all the recommendations around pandemics. 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

What % or number of young people not killed by the virus are permanently injured ? It’s a tiny tiny proportion. People get aftereffects from  all sorts of illness, we don’t shot down a completely society for it.

Define 'tiny'. Even 1 in 100 across who country is a lot of people. Equally, we're not talking about minor after effects here. We know of the big ones from the major cases, but there are growing concerns of even milder cases having such. We won't know that full picture for years potentially, and personally, I'd prefer not to be gambling on that. 

[Uptherams]

7 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Recent data says defo not, but you don’t believe that so it’s pointless keep going over it (won’t stop me posting the data however)

For so called fanboys of science and data and facts, they all post precious few of them. Hardly surprising though because so often they can't interpret it themselves. Some far left organisation has to tell them what the talking points are and should be ?