Coronavirus

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Nope I seem to recall posting numerous articles and stats to back up my arguments and we went around in circles for several days - go back and check.  The argument grew tedious and repetitive, not only was this mentioned several times in the thread but 2 very surprising people emailed me with messages of support.

You claimed that you had stats that 'backed your arguments', but these were all discussed in detail. In general, virtually all sources from academia that you've posted have not supported your position, such as the most recent one you posted. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Whilst I am happy to debate in this thread with others - although not tonight as this is already one more post than I wanted to make, I cba to reply to you any further as it rapidly becomes mind numbing war of attrition.

The last word is inevitably yours  ?

You're only calling it a 'war of attrition' as you have no other tactics. I would hope others see through the drop and run tactics you've employed for so long on here. 

[Eddie]

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Its good to see that the Terry Waite of the forum hasnt lost his sense of humour!

Someone has to cut to the quick now and again.

[Archied]

52 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Next time you want to retain the attention of certain individuals on here, try using a balloon on a stick.

Or a beer bottle ?

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, Archied said:

Or a beer bottle ?

That's the spirit.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

The use of singular they when people are unsure of someone's gender is fairly standard in English, and has been part of the language for around 600 years. 

Albert ,Albert for gods NO ,,, I haven’t been involved in an accident that wasn’t my fault ,I haven’t even been in an accident 

[jimmyp]

11 minutes ago, Archied said:

Albert ,Albert for gods NO ,,, I haven’t been involved in an accident that wasn’t my fault ,I haven’t even been in an accident 

“I have not the slightest interest in trolling ( never heard of it until I came on here) I’m here to read and talk Derby content which has also turned into other subjects as they are here and I like everybody else am affected and have a view “

[uttoxram75]

We all have different opinions, what we have to do on this forum is not be abusive to each other.

Is it really that difficult?

 

[Archied]

7 hours ago, jimmyp said:

“I have not the slightest interest in trolling ( never heard of it until I came on here) I’m here to read and talk Derby content which has also turned into other subjects as they are here and I like everybody else am affected and have a view “

Is Eddie trolling in your view? 

Next time you want to retain the attention of certain individuals on here, try using a balloon on a stick.

Edited 8 hours ago by Eddie

 

[maxjam]

9 hours ago, Albert said:

You're only calling it a 'war of attrition' as you have no other tactics. I would hope others see through the drop and run tactics you've employed for so long on here. 

It is absolutely a war of attrition - as numerous people have attested on this forum.  You steadfastly ignore (qualified) people or points of view that you don't agree with and subtly change the parameters of your arguments when cornered.

Case in question...

9 hours ago, maxjam said:

I haven't had chance to dissect it properly yet but I found it to be thought provoking - as an example, the bit about several countries having mild flu seasons last year with below average deaths which meant there were even more vulnerable people around this year and therefore higher than average deaths, especially in the older age bracket which is what we are seeing. ?

 

9 hours ago, Albert said:

The rate of people dying is far above even the worst flu seasons. Many countries also had harsh flu seasons last year, that includes the UK. Globally speaking, the 2017-18 and 2019-20 flu seasons have been some of the worst flu seasons in recent memory, and rates of the flu have only really dropped since the introduction of restrictions. This is why there was so much discussion of them before the pandemic kicked off, including here in Australia, where it was our worst on record.

Not sure what Australia or America stats have to do with the UK?  The point that Dr Mike Yeadon made was that some countries including the UK have had relatively mild flu seasons recently leading to an increased number of vulnerable people susceptible to dying this year - and the stats back that up.  Not only is the average age of those dying from covid above the national life expectancy, but ONS stats confirm significantly lower excess winter deaths last year

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2018to2019provisionaland2017to2018final#main-points

 

9 hours ago, Albert said:

You claimed that you had stats that 'backed your arguments', but these were all discussed in detail. In general, virtually all sources from academia that you've posted have not supported your position, such as the most recent one you posted.

Feel free to go back through the discussion I'm talking about from last month or whenever it was, I posted multiple links, stats and arguments, from credible sources.  They were discussed in detail and rejected by you - random guy on t'internet, because you seemingly refuse to accept mitigating circumstances or any other narrative than the official one.

The Great Barrington Declaration is a classic example of this - ridiculed by the media as it had a few fake signatories and went against the preferred lockdown narrative. 

At its heart all it does is suggest that the vast majority of people continue on with their lives - protecting jobs, the economy, etc and allowing the virus to pass through society naturally (remember all those thousands of students at universities that caught it all at the same time, pity they are all dead now... oh wait, they're not) whilst properly shielding the elderly/vulnerable.

The huge numbers of people contracting the virus daily, most of whom are asymptomatic compared to the demographic of those that actually die to covid tend to add weight to the Declaration. 

 

 

We have ruined the economy, trust in our Government and institutions and stored up thousands of future preventable deaths for the sake of 339 deaths of under 60s with no pre-existing health concerns. 

If a sensible debate had been allowed to take place about our response to covid rather than everything other than the official narrative being blocked or ridiculed, maybe we would have decided to better protect the elderly and vulnerable whilst allowing the vast majority to continue keeping the economy moving and providing essential care and services for others that will now inevitably die as a direct result of lockdowns.

[GboroRam]

How about an appeal to authority? NHS physician writing. 

https://m-huffingtonpost-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories_uk_5f91b13bc5b686eaaa0f37f5/?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

"Conspiracy theories seem to have replaced the clapping, and NHS staff like me are left wondering of the social media keyboard warriors, libertarian commentators writers and radio shock jocks: why? Why are you doing this?"

[Albert]

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It is absolutely a war of attrition - as numerous people have attested on this forum.  You steadfastly ignore (qualified) people or points of view that you don't agree with and subtly change the parameters of your arguments when cornered.

Again, this person is not a qualified epidemiologist, and more importantly, made a number of errors which were identified and ignored by you. Those errors were material to the argument, rendering it meaningless. You tactically ignored that post, of course. I wonder why...

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Case in question...

Not sure what Australia or America stats have to do with the UK?  The point that Dr Mike Yeadon made was that some countries including the UK have had relatively mild flu seasons recently leading to an increased number of vulnerable people susceptible to dying this year - and the stats back that up.  Not only is the average age of those dying from covid above the national life expectancy, but ONS stats confirm significantly lower excess winter deaths last year

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2018to2019provisionaland2017to2018final#main-points

The claim was 'several countries', so I noted the global trends, with some specifics of countries I'm familiar with the statistics of. 

As to linking to excess winter mortality, rather than their actual reports on the flu is misleading. See the 2019-20 season here, and the 2018-19 season here. So, it was milder than 2017-18, which was quite severe, but not abnormally so. The claim that a decrease in overall flu mortality, which is different to the excess winter mortality, which includes far more than respiratory diseases, covers the deaths seen in the UK is simply not backed by the numbers. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Feel free to go back through the discussion I'm talking about from last month or whenever it was, I posted multiple links, stats and arguments, from credible sources.  They were discussed in detail and rejected by you - random guy on t'internet, because you seemingly refuse to accept mitigating circumstances or any other narrative than the official one.

I find it funny that you push that I'm just repeating the 'official narrative' given about 90% of what I'm posting is criticising the official response. 

If you feel you posted credible information, that was backed, which I simply rejected, post examples. I'll wait. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The Great Barrington Declaration is a classic example of this - ridiculed by the media as it had a few fake signatories and went against the preferred lockdown narrative. 

It was ridiculed in the media as it was rejected in it's own field, and was very much fringe science bordering on pseudoscience. It was it's proponents that held up the number and stature of the people who signed it, only for that to backfire on them spectacularly. The issue wasn't just the joke signatures, it was that a sizeable fraction of the 'medical professions' scarcely deserved such a label. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

At its heart all it does is suggest that the vast majority of people continue on with their lives - protecting jobs, the economy, etc and allowing the virus to pass through society naturally (remember all those thousands of students at universities that caught it all at the same time, pity they are all dead now... oh wait, they're not) whilst properly shielding the elderly/vulnerable.

This is what you previously referred to as the Swedish strategy, but there are two key issues with it:

1. Sweden's version had far more restrictions than this suggests. 

2. Sweden's strategy has failed, and they're backing away from it. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The huge numbers of people contracting the virus daily, most of whom are asymptomatic compared to the demographic of those that actually die to covid tend to add weight to the Declaration. 

Huge numbers of people are now dying in the UK. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Pre-existing conditions is a broad term, and I'd highly recommend you go into what it actually means. The idea that 'well, they had asthma' making deaths acceptable is absurd on many levels. Dismissing deaths just because they are largely from the vulnerable in our society is also, to be blunt, simply abhorrent. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

We have ruined the economy, trust in our Government and institutions and stored up thousands of future preventable deaths for the sake of 339 deaths of under 60s with no pre-existing health concerns. 

Ah yes, the vulnerable simply don't count as deaths. This is a completely acceptable, completely non-psychotic way to frame your argument. 

The economy was ruined by an abysmal response, failure to respond to medical advice in a timely fashion, and a myriad of weak choices at government level. Countries that responded better saved lives and the economy. As discussed, just letting this burn through doesn't save the economy, your golden example, Sweden, demonstrates this quite clearly. The health burden catches up with countries, and they are forced closed regardless of their ideological slant on it to save their healthcare systems. Those needing those systems for other reasons are ignored, and problems compound, all while dragging the economy through the mud anyhow, just with less planning and control. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

If a sensible debate had been allowed to take place about our response to covid rather than everything other than the official narrative being blocked or ridiculed, maybe we would have decided to better protect the elderly and vulnerable whilst allowing the vast majority to continue keeping the economy moving and providing essential care and services for others that will now inevitably die as a direct result of lockdowns.

The reason the position you've taken has been 'mocked and ridiculed' as you put it is that people who promoted are justifying it with data that is just flat out wrong, and in some cases seemingly made up. The authors of the great Barrington declaration originally pushed the concept that there would be no second wave, because herd immunity was close anyhow. The video you posted earlier pushed the notion that we're already at herd immunity, as discussed a few pages back. They claim all kinds of weird things about 'deaths with' against 'deaths due to' Covid, despite those arguments just being a fantasy. 

What's worse, when pushed, these arguments tend to devolve into 'well, the vulnerable simply don't count anyhow' in one form or another. This varies depending on the audience they're trying to sway, from 'well, they were going to die soon anyhow' to up to simply ignoring their statistics wholesale. What we do know is that actual systematic studies of life expectancy for the groups in question suggests that on average, when a person dies of Covid, they have lost 11.7 years of expected life. It's not massive, but far more than 'they were all about to die anyhow', and quite frankly, I don't think 'they were going to die anyhow' is a good reason to condemn someone to such a death. 

This all said, to me the above is entirely moot anyhow, as we know that it could have been done better. Countries that are performing best economically are the ones with the least deaths, as they are the least disrupted by the disease. That ship, sadly, seems to have sailed for the UK though, and now the consequences of those choices are the nation's to contend with. 

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again, this person is not a qualified epidemiologist, and more importantly, made a number of errors which were identified and ignored by you. Those errors were material to the argument, rendering it meaningless. You tactically ignored that post, of course. I wonder why...

Haha, The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by numerous epidemiologists and Dr Mike Yeadon has honors degrees, phds and a lifetime of experience in related fields.  But these were dismissed by bloke on football forum as not being good enough...

 

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

The claim was 'several countries', so I noted the global trends, with some specifics of countries I'm familiar with the statistics of. 

As to linking to excess winter mortality, rather than their actual reports on the flu is misleading. See the 2019-20 season here, and the 2018-19 season here. So, it was milder than 2017-18, which was quite severe, but not abnormally so. The claim that a decrease in overall flu mortality, which is different to the excess winter mortality, which includes far more than respiratory diseases, covers the deaths seen in the UK is simply not backed by the numbers.

However you spin it, according to the ONS there were 'significantly' less excess winter deaths last year and the average age of covid deaths this year is above the national life expectancy.

 

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

Pre-existing conditions is a broad term, and I'd highly recommend you go into what it actually means. The idea that 'well, they had asthma' making deaths acceptable is absurd on many levels. Dismissing deaths just because they are largely from the vulnerable in our society is also, to be blunt, simply abhorrent.

I can't be bothered to spend the rest of the day, or days, arguing about everything else as we clearly fundamentally disagree with one another, but will reply to this...

Every one of the 339 deaths is a tragedy - as is every one of the other 35k+ deaths.  I am not dismissing any deaths simply arguing that we should be allowed to debate the best ways of shielding vulnerable people.  To suggest anything else is disgusting.

Furthermore, pre existing conditions is a broad term - the top 5 are as follows;

5. Cancer - 1.47 times more likely to die from COVID

4. Diabetes - 1.48 times more likely to die from COVID

3. Hypertension - 1.82 times more likely to die from COVID

2. Congestive Heart Failure - 2.03 times more likely to die from COVID

1. Chronic Kidney Disease - 3.25 times more likely to die from COVID

[Archied]

16 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again, this person is not a qualified epidemiologist, and more importantly, made a number of errors which were identified and ignored by you. Those errors were material to the argument, rendering it meaningless. You tactically ignored that post, of course. I wonder why...

The claim was 'several countries', so I noted the global trends, with some specifics of countries I'm familiar with the statistics of. 

As to linking to excess winter mortality, rather than their actual reports on the flu is misleading. See the 2019-20 season here, and the 2018-19 season here. So, it was milder than 2017-18, which was quite severe, but not abnormally so. The claim that a decrease in overall flu mortality, which is different to the excess winter mortality, which includes far more than respiratory diseases, covers the deaths seen in the UK is simply not backed by the numbers. 

I find it funny that you push that I'm just repeating the 'official narrative' given about 90% of what I'm posting is criticising the official response. 

If you feel you posted credible information, that was backed, which I simply rejected, post examples. I'll wait. 

It was ridiculed in the media as it was rejected in it's own field, and was very much fringe science bordering on pseudoscience. It was it's proponents that held up the number and stature of the people who signed it, only for that to backfire on them spectacularly. The issue wasn't just the joke signatures, it was that a sizeable fraction of the 'medical professions' scarcely deserved such a label. 

This is what you previously referred to as the Swedish strategy, but there are two key issues with it:

1. Sweden's version had far more restrictions than this suggests. 

2. Sweden's strategy has failed, and they're backing away from it. 

Huge numbers of people are now dying in the UK. 

Pre-existing conditions is a broad term, and I'd highly recommend you go into what it actually means. The idea that 'well, they had asthma' making deaths acceptable is absurd on many levels. Dismissing deaths just because they are largely from the vulnerable in our society is also, to be blunt, simply abhorrent. 

Ah yes, the vulnerable simply don't count as deaths. This is a completely acceptable, completely non-psychotic way to frame your argument. 

The economy was ruined by an abysmal response, failure to respond to medical advice in a timely fashion, and a myriad of weak choices at government level. Countries that responded better saved lives and the economy. As discussed, just letting this burn through doesn't save the economy, your golden example, Sweden, demonstrates this quite clearly. The health burden catches up with countries, and they are forced closed regardless of their ideological slant on it to save their healthcare systems. Those needing those systems for other reasons are ignored, and problems compound, all while dragging the economy through the mud anyhow, just with less planning and control. 

The reason the position you've taken has been 'mocked and ridiculed' as you put it is that people who promoted are justifying it with data that is just flat out wrong, and in some cases seemingly made up. The authors of the great Barrington declaration originally pushed the concept that there would be no second wave, because herd immunity was close anyhow. The video you posted earlier pushed the notion that we're already at herd immunity, as discussed a few pages back. They claim all kinds of weird things about 'deaths with' against 'deaths due to' Covid, despite those arguments just being a fantasy. 

What's worse, when pushed, these arguments tend to devolve into 'well, the vulnerable simply don't count anyhow' in one form or another. This varies depending on the audience they're trying to sway, from 'well, they were going to die soon anyhow' to up to simply ignoring their statistics wholesale. What we do know is that actual systematic studies of life expectancy for the groups in question suggests that on average, when a person dies of Covid, they have lost 11.7 years of expected life. It's not massive, but far more than 'they were all about to die anyhow', and quite frankly, I don't think 'they were going to die anyhow' is a good reason to condemn someone to such a death. 

This all said, to me the above is entirely moot anyhow, as we know that it could have been done better. Countries that are performing best economically are the ones with the least deaths, as they are the least disrupted by the disease. That ship, sadly, seems to have sailed for the UK though, and now the consequences of those choices are the nation's to contend with. 

More long winded guff from someone with no qualifications in the field choosing who s reading of stats to put their trust in then aggressively pushing it on everybody 

[G STAR RAM]

35 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again, this person is not a qualified epidemiologist, and more importantly, made a number of errors which were identified and ignored by you. Those errors were material to the argument, rendering it meaningless. You tactically ignored that post, of course. I wonder why...

Surely even you can see how ridiculous it comes across, telling us all to ignore these people because they are not experts but rely on what you say, despite the fact that you also have no expertise in this area?

Do you not think that if these people were handed your analysis that they would take it to pieces and say that you are flat out wrong?

If you are so certain that everything that you post is 100% factually correct then surely you would be an expert in this area?

As it is, all you are doing is posting stats and evidence that agree with your narrative. 

I think over the past couple of pages its become obvious that you think the situation in Australia is representative of the global situation, and twice (tax and flu deaths) it has shown not to be the case.

[Gone]

[maxjam]

 

[G STAR RAM]

29 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

At least they can get a free school dinner for their kids!

[Archied]

23 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

At least they can get a free school dinner for their kids!

or maybe an ageing relative can leave them a house and a big bump of money

[Archied]

 

Are epidemiologists considered medical doctors? No. While epidemiologists study and investigate the causes and sources of diseases in much the same way as medical doctors, they're not considered actual physicians.

with all the talk of how unqualified this mike yeadon was to talk on coronavirus in general and issues around it was interested to see the definition of epidemiologist 
 

 

[Archied]

Whitty is a practising National Health Service (NHS) consultant physician at University College London Hospitals (UCLH) and the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, and Gresham Professor of Physic at Gresham College, a post dating back to 1597.[9] Until becoming CMO he was Professor of Public and International Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).[10] He worked as a physician and researcher into infectious diseases in the UK, Africa and Asia. In 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the LSHTM £31 million for malaria research in Africa. At the time, Whitty was the principal investigator for the ACT Consortium, which conducted the research programme.[8][11],