FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Head of Immunisation for Public Health England
Head of Immunisation for Public Health England
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Well if someone one this forum said this they would have been shot down immediately. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Think it’s how it’s going to go | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If the virus mutates quicker than anticipated then the vaccine might be as useful as an ash tray on a motorbike" Equally, if it doesn't - It won't be | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Eventually we will have to go back to almost the way things were. That is a long time away yet and will take a lot vaccinations around the world before we even get close to it. The population as a whole is going to have to put up with restrictions for a good while yet although a gradual relaxation over time will happen. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " It's one pov, may and if etc do not mean it's going to pan out that way.. The new variant is being reported to be hitting younger people too and we can't say yet it's not causing much harm given long covid is still being learned about.. So whilst it will as it has on here cause great excitement amongst those opposed to the current policy for whatever reasons and the deniers it's just an opinion based upon may and if.. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " All she's saying there is speculative based upon uncertainty that they didn't want to raise before the launch of the vaccine about a legitimate question I and a few others raised many many months ago on here from sources from questions asked of microbiologists when people thought the vaccine was the cure as in once you get it you're ok to do whatever you want. Many used the arguement about other vaccines that gave life protection, or 20 years and then a booster etc etc , all ignoring the key factor of HOW it's contracted and transmitted, mostly by airways. She's covering herself as there will be more scientists coming out and allowed to say this is the case. It doesn't negate the fact that the vaccine is needed in as much of the population as possible though in order to save the excessive workload placed upon the health care services, much of which has deflected funding and the availability of much needed operations and increased waiting lists. I feel for those who have been waiting for a year or more for an essential operation or proceedures, for those who have had cancer treatments deferred and their conditions have deteriorated further than necessary as a result. Then there are those who haven't even been able to get onto the waiting list as they are waiting even to be seen to be diagnosed. Before the time they are seen, diagnosed and put onto the waiting lists their conditions could drastically change as a result. These are things people who think they know better than to abide by restrictions need to consider, then again I think it would make no difference to what selfish people think tbh. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. " Its not borderline, it's obvious | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018." according to ONS.. there have been more excess deaths in 2020 then since second World war.. they reported through Reuters that people had been twisting ONS figures.. for their own ends... but i agree at some point herd immunity in the under 50s must take place | |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. " Covid is already here. | |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. " Have they stopped people coming in from Brazil? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. " No one has said lock down indefinitely | |||
 | |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. Have they stopped people coming in from Brazil?" Yes, 15 South American countries and Portugal, so Mr Schapps has just said..Portugal, because many travellers coming from Brazil travel to Portugal first. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Absolutely, we need to learn to live with this the alternative is to permanently live as we are currently doing. | |||
"Is this not a similar proposal to the Barrington Declaration?" The Barrington Declaration gets hardly any airtime despite being penned by the world's top specialist from Oxford, Harvard, Stan Ford etc. This alone screams that this whole thing is not about the virus. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Thoughts are that unless they can definitely say without a shadow of doubt That children and younger people won't still die or suffer long term side effects such as long covid, then they should carry on as they are, trying to protect everyone. There's already cases of children suffering from long covid. So no I don't think this is a wise decision. However I would like to read the whole interview and the context as probably been taken out of contex to suit certain points of view. Ie. Let the old die whilst the everyone else parties. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Finally. Common sense may prevail at last! I always agreed with The Great Barrington Declaration from the outset. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. " Yes I have allways agreed with this even though I am one of the vulnerable given my age and having asthma and diabetes think lockdown is ludicrous! X | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. according to ONS.. there have been more excess deaths in 2020 then since second World war.. they reported through Reuters that people had been twisting ONS figures.. for their own ends... but i agree at some point herd immunity in the under 50s must take place " I suspect herd immunity is taking place already, a lot of people I know had it December last year not knowing what it was and put it down as bad flu. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Thoughts are that unless they can definitely say without a shadow of doubt That children and younger people won't still die or suffer long term side effects such as long covid, then they should carry on as they are, trying to protect everyone. There's already cases of children suffering from long covid. So no I don't think this is a wise decision. However I would like to read the whole interview and the context as probably been taken out of contex to suit certain points of view. Ie. Let the old die whilst the everyone else parties." If you’re expecting that restrictions will remain until nobody dies with Covid I think you’re going to be disappointed. | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Thoughts are that unless they can definitely say without a shadow of doubt That children and younger people won't still die or suffer long term side effects such as long covid, then they should carry on as they are, trying to protect everyone. There's already cases of children suffering from long covid. So no I don't think this is a wise decision. However I would like to read the whole interview and the context as probably been taken out of contex to suit certain points of view. Ie. Let the old die whilst the everyone else parties. If you’re expecting that restrictions will remain until nobody dies with Covid I think you’re going to be disappointed. " That's not what I mean and you know it. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Thoughts are that unless they can definitely say without a shadow of doubt That children and younger people won't still die or suffer long term side effects such as long covid, then they should carry on as they are, trying to protect everyone. There's already cases of children suffering from long covid. So no I don't think this is a wise decision. However I would like to read the whole interview and the context as probably been taken out of contex to suit certain points of view. Ie. Let the old die whilst the everyone else parties. If you’re expecting that restrictions will remain until nobody dies with Covid I think you’re going to be disappointed. That's not what I mean and you know it. " Actually I didn’t so it appears neither of us knew what the other thought. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. " There is a total difference between people being protected by a vaccine and people being "protected" By being shut away from society. | |||
"I would have said yes with the old strain we have, I'm saying no with this uk strain, in England people aged 45-64 admitted to intensive care in jan is higher than ages 75-84, ages 65-75 is at the top of the list now, this is going to burn through us and more efficiently when it mutates again and the fuller hospitals are of covid-19 patients the more people are going to die of non covid-19 illnesses "  | |||
"It does feel like lockdowns are not the answer and do not work. Yes, they temporarily drop the figures, but its a delay. Personally believe they chose the wrong approach, should have always been a case of protect the high risk groups and those with existing health issues. Sweden / New Zealand have seeming approached it differently and faired better than us. So is the feeling from everyone that we will be in this until late March when a larger percentage of the population are not so much at risk and we drop the lockdowns and accept it needs to be part of life going forward and rely on herd immunity and deal with like another Flu or Malaria Risk ?? Interesting to see how it develops but the Government has changed they approach so often I think most people have lost faith in them and the lockdown approach." Could you explain why lockdowns do not work? | |||
| |||
"I also don't understand why people say lockdowns don't work. Lnockdowns limit The potential for spread they were never intended to eradicate the virus. " One issue is the long term effects of lockdowns. They do take their toll on people's physical and mental health (including weakening of immune system which could lead to more people being susceptible to illnesses). Whilst lockdowns may suppress a spread of one disease they can cause other illnesses or premature fatalities in the longer term. | |||
"I also don't understand why people say lockdowns don't work. Lnockdowns limit The potential for spread they were never intended to eradicate the virus. One issue is the long term effects of lockdowns. They do take their toll on people's physical and mental health (including weakening of immune system which could lead to more people being susceptible to illnesses). Whilst lockdowns may suppress a spread of one disease they can cause other illnesses or premature fatalities in the longer term." That is very possible but lockdowns absolutely do work in limiting spread and up until the vaccine that is all that we had. | |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. Have they stopped people coming in from Brazil?" Yes and Portugal too | |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. Have they stopped people coming in from Brazil? Yes and Portugal too" And most of South America... | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018." Where's that figure of 1/2 million deaths in the UK every year? | |||
"Theyve eliminated 100000 people by being slow in restrictions. Bravo. Said nobody. " Where have 100,000 been eliminated? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely " I've read it a few times on older threads. | |||
"Is this not a similar proposal to the Barrington Declaration? The Barrington Declaration gets hardly any airtime despite being penned by the world's top specialist from Oxford, Harvard, Stan Ford etc. This alone screams that this whole thing is not about the virus. " I think one of the problems was some of the signatures on the Barrington thing that got loads of negative press  | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely " This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. | |||
| |||
" However I would like to read the whole interview and the context as probably been taken out of contex to suit certain points of view. Ie. Let the old die whilst the everyone else parties." The context is exactly as read. Its not exactky a two line sound bite that can easily been taken out of context. If you wish to hear the whole conversation its readily available online. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.." It has definitely been implied and you know it has. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. It has definitely been implied and you know it has. " Implied perhaps but that's not the same as people saying it seriously, and certainly not in the time the poster to whom I responded has been on here.. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. It has definitely been implied and you know it has. " Who has ever in their right mind 'implied' indefinite lockdown? "But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely" And who here has said that? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. It has definitely been implied and you know it has. Who has ever in their right mind 'implied' indefinite lockdown? "But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely" And who here has said that?" Not indefinite lockdown but that people who are vulnerable should shield indefinitely. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. It has definitely been implied and you know it has. Who has ever in their right mind 'implied' indefinite lockdown? "But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely" And who here has said that? Not indefinite lockdown but that people who are vulnerable should shield indefinitely." You need to make your mind up Lorna.. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. It has definitely been implied and you know it has. Who has ever in their right mind 'implied' indefinite lockdown? "But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely" And who here has said that? Not indefinite lockdown but that people who are vulnerable should shield indefinitely. You need to make your mind up Lorna.. " No I don't. People have made it very clear they think that locked down should we apply to the vulnerable indefinitely. I have not made that up but has been on many threads. | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Makes perfect sense to me | |||
"Ultimately it will be, take responsibility for your own health and wellfare. Normal life will have to return if only because we cannot go on borrowing money and subsidising jobs forever. I understand that at least 50% of members on here will scream and shout and want to hide forever but it will have to be their own choice. " Yes this is very true! Said this from start x | |||
"Ultimately it will be, take responsibility for your own health and wellfare. Normal life will have to return if only because we cannot go on borrowing money and subsidising jobs forever. I understand that at least 50% of members on here will scream and shout and want to hide forever but it will have to be their own choice. " But to take care of your own welfare during a pandemic of a virus that spreads from person to person you also need others to take care of you by following the rules as well. | |||
"Ultimately it will be, take responsibility for your own health and wellfare. Normal life will have to return if only because we cannot go on borrowing money and subsidising jobs forever. I understand that at least 50% of members on here will scream and shout and want to hide forever but it will have to be their own choice. But to take care of your own welfare during a pandemic of a virus that spreads from person to person you also need others to take care of you by following the rules as well." . When the rules are relaxed !!!! If people need or want to isololate it will be their own problem | |||
"Ultimately it will be, take responsibility for your own health and wellfare. Normal life will have to return if only because we cannot go on borrowing money and subsidising jobs forever. I understand that at least 50% of members on here will scream and shout and want to hide forever but it will have to be their own choice. But to take care of your own welfare during a pandemic of a virus that spreads from person to person you also need others to take care of you by following the rules as well.. When the rules are relaxed !!!! If people need or want to isololate it will be their own problem" That is different as long as people are sticking to the rules at the time and somebody chooses to isolate that is up to them. However is it is totally different to say people to just look after themselves and if they are scared they should stay in. That was kind of what I was meaning. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Quite a few on here have been saying this that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society try and continue as normal as possible. But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely because it isn't fair to ask the vulnerable to keep as safe as possible while the rest of society get on with life "even though they'd be taking the risk of infection. No one has said lock down indefinitely This.. Complete twaddle to say anyone has said that.. It has definitely been implied and you know it has. Who has ever in their right mind 'implied' indefinite lockdown? "But quite a few on here have been very vocal saying this is wrong and we must keep locking down the country indefinitely" And who here has said that? Not indefinite lockdown but that people who are vulnerable should shield indefinitely." And that would be a lock up not a lock down | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Hasn't that already happened with students and the rest of little morons who don't give a fook...that's a contributory factor to why we're in this position as we speak.  | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? It's one pov, may and if etc do not mean it's going to pan out that way.. The new variant is being reported to be hitting younger people too and we can't say yet it's not causing much harm given long covid is still being learned about.. So whilst it will as it has on here cause great excitement amongst those opposed to the current policy for whatever reasons and the deniers it's just an opinion based upon may and if.." Doesn't the flu now have a long time effect on some people. | |||
" Hasn't that already happened with students and the rest of little morons who don't give a fook...that's a contributory factor to why we're in this position as we speak. "You do realise the data puts super markets at the top of the list of most likely places to catch coronavirus. If by students you mean college age and above, they are further down the list than secondary schools and primary schools, hospitals and care home. Maybe your venom should be directed at all those selfish shoppers. How dare they do essential shopping and go around spreading their the rona. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018." Agreed. | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Agreed. " Utter rubbish. The death rates for 2020 are over 80K higher than 2019 | |||
"Ultimately it will be, take responsibility for your own health and wellfare. Normal life will have to return if only because we cannot go on borrowing money and subsidising jobs forever. I understand that at least 50% of members on here will scream and shout and want to hide forever but it will have to be their own choice. " We will return to some semblance of normality but it won't be as you say by people taking responsibility for their own health and welfare. People can't even act responsibly towards others in simple ways as respect. It's only the inerrantly selfish that think all we have to do is look after ourselves. I wonder if you and those who think like that still rely and use the NHS or do you all only use private health care? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " "May" and "if". She's describing potential logical future scenarios. Nothing more, nothing less. E | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Agreed. Utter rubbish. The death rates for 2020 are over 80K higher than 2019" Be even higher in 2021 with all the missed cancer appointments and screening | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Agreed. Utter rubbish. The death rates for 2020 are over 80K higher than 2019 Be even higher in 2021 with all the missed cancer appointments and screening " So you keep saying. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Agreed. Utter rubbish. The death rates for 2020 are over 80K higher than 2019 Be even higher in 2021 with all the missed cancer appointments and screening " And what puts people with cancer at higher risk of death? A raging pandemic  | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018." Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . " Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime " If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this " How would we have coped without Imported goods? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this How would we have coped without Imported goods?" Ok. I misspoke. One exception: import and export. Treated as a biosecurity threat, because for the moment it is. | |||
"I also don't understand why people say lockdowns don't work. Lnockdowns limit The potential for spread they were never intended to eradicate the virus. One issue is the long term effects of lockdowns. They do take their toll on people's physical and mental health (including weakening of immune system which could lead to more people being susceptible to illnesses). Whilst lockdowns may suppress a spread of one disease they can cause other illnesses or premature fatalities in the longer term." this is like saying abstinence puts you at higher risk of an std in the future | |||
| |||
| |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now" No, we'd need to leave them closed. | |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now No, we'd need to leave them closed." It worked for NZ, they banned all flights in and out of NZ in Feb, they had no cases at that point, in March they had 2 reported cases,she then closed her boarders completely with just 2 cases,like I said we should of closed our boarders ages ago | |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now No, we'd need to leave them closed. It worked for NZ, they banned all flights in and out of NZ in Feb, they had no cases at that point, in March they had 2 reported cases,she then closed her boarders completely with just 2 cases,like I said we should of closed our boarders ages ago" Indeed. | |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now No, we'd need to leave them closed. It worked for NZ, they banned all flights in and out of NZ in Feb, they had no cases at that point, in March they had 2 reported cases,she then closed her boarders completely with just 2 cases,like I said we should of closed our boarders ages ago" they didn’t reopen them , there is no close the doors for 6 weeks and this is over scenario | |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now No, we'd need to leave them closed. It worked for NZ, they banned all flights in and out of NZ in Feb, they had no cases at that point, in March they had 2 reported cases,she then closed her boarders completely with just 2 cases,like I said we should of closed our boarders ages ago they didn’t reopen them , there is no close the doors for 6 weeks and this is over scenario " We'll never know now,hindsight is wonderful | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " Totally agree with this and I was saying this from day one. It's such an obvious straight thinking solution, but for anyone to even suggest it on this forum they would instantly accused of murdering grannies. | |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now No, we'd need to leave them closed. It worked for NZ, they banned all flights in and out of NZ in Feb, they had no cases at that point, in March they had 2 reported cases,she then closed her boarders completely with just 2 cases,like I said we should of closed our boarders ages ago they didn’t reopen them , there is no close the doors for 6 weeks and this is over scenario We'll never know now,hindsight is wonderful" no we do know, you don’t have to experiment to know that closing your border completely with a strict lockdown could have eradicated the virus from the country but unless the entire world did it at the exact same time as soon as you re-open your border it just comes back | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Totally agree with this and I was saying this from day one. It's such an obvious straight thinking solution, but for anyone to even suggest it on this forum they would instantly accused of murdering grannies. " So you are not bothered about the doctors and nurses working their butts off trying to keep people alive or the tens of thousands of nhs staff off work because of it, that most other everyday stuff cant function because of it?.I suppose you would be happy with people dying in their homes with no one to help them because that is what will happen with no ristrictions. | |||
"If we closed our boarders in the beginning for one month maybe 6 weeks, we would be in a far better position now No, we'd need to leave them closed. It worked for NZ, they banned all flights in and out of NZ in Feb, they had no cases at that point, in March they had 2 reported cases,she then closed her boarders completely with just 2 cases,like I said we should of closed our boarders ages ago they didn’t reopen them , there is no close the doors for 6 weeks and this is over scenario We'll never know now,hindsight is wonderful no we do know, you don’t have to experiment to know that closing your border completely with a strict lockdown could have eradicated the virus from the country but unless the entire world did it at the exact same time as soon as you re-open your border it just comes back " We do know. Australia and New Zealand did it. It worked. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. " It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . " Compete lockdown? How would that work? Give every one £75 to spend where.. Complete lockdown would mean no staff in shops, warehouse, drivers delivering, essential maintenance locked down. Complete lockdown is impossible | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet)." for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. | |||
"Well at the last briering, it was being said that the plan was to offer the vaccine to everyone over 18 by Autumn?" Confusion. The creation of. All part of the Govt psychological programming. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created."  | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created." I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018." I agree this should of been done from the start, at the end of every lockdown numbers will rise, no matter what, triggering the next lockdown | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug." so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. " I think the whole of new zealand would disagree with you,and me | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way" If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant." ok what is the actual percentage drop? you say it is significant, i suggest error margin. neither of us can claim to be right as we have no evidence, and as i can never trust a Tory i cant take anything they say as gospel. | |||
| |||
"Predictions for future announcements from bojo stooges, oops sorry spelt that wrong, government vaccination agency: - mid February: government study of vaccine efficiency (ie. made up data) says second jab not necessary. - end of March: further government study of vaccine efficiency (ie. even more fabrication) says half dose of first jab gives better than 80% protection compared with full single dose. - April/May: further government etc says only quarter dose is really needed. - July: further bollocks etc says that non-vaccinated death rate is no worse than single jab quarter dose, hence proof that herd immunity has been reached and vaccine program can be discontinued. - August: JRM's sister awarded £200M contract to manage safe disposal of unused vaccine stocks (ie. resale to private clinics)." Is that a crystal ball you hold, or you are simply just used to the way these Tory scum work? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant." also i think you are fudging the nimbers somewhat. it doesnt claim 1% of the population will die. t claims if you catch covid you have 1% chance of death. really this so called vaccine will benefit very very few people. except Pfizer and those invested, getting kick backs etc, of course | |||
| |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. ok what is the actual percentage drop? you say it is significant, i suggest error margin. neither of us can claim to be right as we have no evidence, and as i can never trust a Tory i cant take anything they say as gospel. " The scientists I listen to are saying that the death toll is about 3%. Pfizer offers 94% protection against disease or serious disease. Serious disease is more than just death. I'm not a scientist, the data are out there. I'm not listening to the Tories either. I do a quick scan of news sites to see if laws have changed I need to know about, and turn to experts and science communicators. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. also i think you are fudging the nimbers somewhat. it doesnt claim 1% of the population will die. t claims if you catch covid you have 1% chance of death. really this so called vaccine will benefit very very few people. except Pfizer and those invested, getting kick backs etc, of course" What do you do about the hospitals. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. also i think you are fudging the nimbers somewhat. it doesnt claim 1% of the population will die. t claims if you catch covid you have 1% chance of death. really this so called vaccine will benefit very very few people. except Pfizer and those invested, getting kick backs etc, of course" Death rate in the US and the UK, with fully functioning hospitals, is about 3%. I was doing you a favour by using your lower number | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm.... " How on earth does she expect that allowing potentially infected young people to mix and roam unhindered ISN'T going to assist the spread of the virus to families where older people might easily die from it? Recently I saw a huge crocodile of very young children coming out of a day nursery. None of them nor some of their minders were masked and all the kids were jostling each other constantly. Just imagine how many homes could have got an unwelcome present that evening if even only one of the children had taken the virus to the nursery in the morning and nudged and jostled playfully all day? | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. also i think you are fudging the nimbers somewhat. it doesnt claim 1% of the population will die. t claims if you catch covid you have 1% chance of death. really this so called vaccine will benefit very very few people. except Pfizer and those invested, getting kick backs etc, of course" Without vaccination or some other miracle method of reducing transmission, there is no difference between 1% of population and 1% of those catching covid. Also there is additional deaths of 100% of serious accident victims, cancer sufferers, heart attack cases - basically any person needing intensive care unit - for the duration of period where hospitals are overwhelmed by extensive care needed for covid victims who don't have the decency to die quickly. | |||
| |||
 No bother | |||
"Don't worry, I fixed it
Death toll without intervention is 2.01 million.
80% of that, assuming that vaccines cause a 20% reduction in death as you claim, is 1.608 million
Thirty three thousand people. Meh. No worries. Rounding error is all "Yeah, but it's only 33 thousand. Nothing compared with the number killed by paper cuts, splinters in the finger and stubbed toes. And where's the immunisation program against splinters? Why isn't paper being made illegal to stop arterial bleeding? Where's the lockdown to stop people walking outdoors and getting stubbed toes? | |||
"Don't worry, I fixed it
Death toll without intervention is 2.01 million.
80% of that, assuming that vaccines cause a 20% reduction in death as you claim, is 1.608 million
Thirty three thousand people. Meh. No worries. Rounding error is all
Yeah, but it's only 33 thousand. Nothing compared with the number killed by paper cuts, splinters in the finger and stubbed toes. And where's the immunisation program against splinters? Why isn't paper being made illegal to stop arterial bleeding? Where's the lockdown to stop people walking outdoors and getting stubbed toes?"It's only that number if you screw the maths like I did
Four hundred thousand people are only pocket change, easy sacrifice. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. also i think you are fudging the nimbers somewhat. it doesnt claim 1% of the population will die. t claims if you catch covid you have 1% chance of death. really this so called vaccine will benefit very very few people. except Pfizer and those invested, getting kick backs etc, of course What do you do about the hospitals." I think that in order to prevent the hospitals getting overwhelmed we should just close them down. After all, they are just full of sick people who might die anyway. Closing the hospitals will give a massive boost to the overall health of the population. In fact if we got rid of all doctors I'm certain that the sickness statistics would go right down, there would be no need for sick pay at work. There might be a little bit of a bedding in period for the new regulations, paperwork not quite in order, rotting bodies being dumped in landfill that sort of thing, but eventually we will have sovereignty over our covid and can look forward to a happier, healthier future! | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. ok what is the actual percentage drop? you say it is significant, i suggest error margin. neither of us can claim to be right as we have no evidence, and as i can never trust a Tory i cant take anything they say as gospel. The scientists I listen to are saying that the death toll is about 3%. Pfizer offers 94% protection against disease or serious disease. Serious disease is more than just death. I'm not a scientist, the data are out there. I'm not listening to the Tories either. I do a quick scan of news sites to see if laws have changed I need to know about, and turn to experts and science communicators." which scientists? from a quick online check. 95.1m infected 2.03m dead. bare in mind thats people who died, with covid, not of. a high percetage already ill or very old, often past the aberage age of death in their country. | |||
| |||
"London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine This Week in Virology (including numerous virologists, immunologists, and others besides) Michael Osterholm Among others When I realised this would be serious I sought out relevant experts. I didn't go looking for an agenda. I wanted to know." Much appreciated. | |||
| |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. " Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque "The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats. Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on. | |||
"London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine This Week in Virology (including numerous virologists, immunologists, and others besides) Michael Osterholm Among others When I realised this would be serious I sought out relevant experts. I didn't go looking for an agenda. I wanted to know." 'the Osterholm Update' a weekly cast on the virus my the man himself, he doesn't sugar coat it, and he has received threats for talking straight, it's also on YouTube, usually comes out Thurs nights | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on."Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse. 1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1% PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5% See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought! God I love the grab bag of nonsense | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. ok what is the actual percentage drop? you say it is significant, i suggest error margin. neither of us can claim to be right as we have no evidence, and as i can never trust a Tory i cant take anything they say as gospel. The scientists I listen to are saying that the death toll is about 3%. Pfizer offers 94% protection against disease or serious disease. Serious disease is more than just death. I'm not a scientist, the data are out there. I'm not listening to the Tories either. I do a quick scan of news sites to see if laws have changed I need to know about, and turn to experts and science communicators. which scientists? from a quick online check. 95.1m infected 2.03m dead. bare in mind thats people who died, with covid, not of. a high percetage already ill or very old, often past the aberage age of death in their country." average age of death doesn’t work the same as an expiry label on your bread ... you got lucky but should already be in the bin if you happened to have made it past it 
if we are happy for people above the average age to die sooner , expect that average to just keep getting lower | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? if it doesnt prevent transmission it is virtually useless. reducting the likelyhood of death from 1% to 0.8 % doesnt seem like worthy reason to call anything a vaccine, nor to spend millions on it. It's extremely effective at preventing serious illness and *may* prevent transmission (but this hasn't been tested yet). for us. this doesnt seem like a true vaccine, we can wait on a proper one being created. I'll stick to the science, which says that they are. Shrug. so you believe a drop from 1% chance of death, to 0.8% chance of death. is any kind of progress? a tiny bit of error would account for that easily. even placebos are more effective. Seems like a waste of money, or should i say, tactically relocating public funds into private hands, the Tory way If that's what's being achieved, then maybe. But serious illness isn't just death. And let's assume your figures are right (spoiler: they're not). UK population approx 67 million. 1% is 670 000 deaths. 0.8% is 536 000 deaths That's pretty significant. ok what is the actual percentage drop? you say it is significant, i suggest error margin. neither of us can claim to be right as we have no evidence, and as i can never trust a Tory i cant take anything they say as gospel. The scientists I listen to are saying that the death toll is about 3%. Pfizer offers 94% protection against disease or serious disease. Serious disease is more than just death. I'm not a scientist, the data are out there. I'm not listening to the Tories either. I do a quick scan of news sites to see if laws have changed I need to know about, and turn to experts and science communicators. which scientists? from a quick online check. 95.1m infected 2.03m dead. bare in mind thats people who died, with covid, not of. a high percetage already ill or very old, often past the aberage age of death in their country. average age of death doesn’t work the same as an expiry label on your bread ... you got lucky but should already be in the bin if you happened to have made it past it
if we are happy for people above the average age to die sooner , expect that average to just keep getting lower "The life expectancy in the States has dropped over the pandemic. And their death toll per head of population is better than ours. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense "I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that."i dont think so, not everyone gets a post mortem | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that."Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease. But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse. I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination. The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing. | |||
 | |||
"As usual people seem to be using some inaccurate numbers: UK Population 66.65m Uk ‘normal’ death rate 2018 616,000 UK ‘normal death rate 2017 607,000 So the average ‘death rate’ is approx 0.92% In 2020, since March, their have been over 100,000 excess deaths. Excess means more than would normally be the case. Now because of Covid and lockdowns a whole variety of deaths have been prevented - car accidents, work accidents etc, but some have been accelerated - cancer, heart disease. The point is that Covid has led to 100,000 plus additional deaths compared to a ‘normal’ year. Now referring to the OP, this approach could potentially make sense once enough people have had the vaccine to reduce the risk to the ‘at risk’ groups. One of the challenges is in defining the ‘at risk’ groups. You could argue 50 plus. So once everyone in the 50 plus group, plus everyone who is in a high risk area - Emergency Services, Teachers, Supermarket Staff (and others) is also vacc8nated, then the overall risk will be reduced. But it requires people to be vaccinated. Without the vaccine, we have no means of slowing the death rate other than draconian lock downs. It is a simple choice - get vacc8nated or be locked down and live with more deaths than their should have been. "I'm using a) the death rate of Covid given by another user above, and b) the death rate of Covid I've heard from scientists and relevant doctors of 3% (this assumes that hospitals are functioning, when they fail it will rise). The UK population was 100% susceptible to this virus by definition, it's new, so we have to include all people in determining a potential death toll. (Some of my figures are approximate for the sake of simplicity - maths isn't my strongest suit - but I've included my working/rationale in all cases) | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing."I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April. People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die or have serious , but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? " This appears to be the Government plan for a route out anyway. 1 person led to a world pandemic. The genie is out of the bottle. If we vaccinate all risk categories (April/May) the risk of overwhelming the NHS drops. The rest of us need to catch it and get on. Isn't this what was happening by having the kids at school? Capping it like Aus and NZ is merely delaying the inevitable. They either follow suit or run scared forever. I just wish someone had tge b*ls to admit the plan. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus."... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought. I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects. I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time. I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric."You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown. The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down."OK
You believe what you like. I'll keep protecting people and treating my elders with the same care as I hope to be treated. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
OK
You believe what you like. I'll keep protecting people and treating my elders with the same care as I hope to be treated."As will I... And will I also respect all the people that are negatively impacted by these lockdowns. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense "Swing, you obviously fail to understand how the statistics work. You have to take into account that the PCR test gives a Schrödinger result: there are simultaneously too many positive results and too many negative results. All those false positives mean that this lockdown nonsense is totally unnecessary, there are in fact zero people catching covid. Any deaths happening at present are just government lies and people being hit by buses while doing parachute jumps. At the same time, the false negatives mean that covid has been spreading a hundred times faster than was thought, in fact everybody in the world has already had it before the first case was even reported in china, so herd immunity was reached 2018. Of course the virus did come from china, in spite of 98% of people in England having had some vague cough and feeling rough symptoms prior to any report from China. Hope that this helps you understand what is really going on, remember wake up sheeple but don't be "woke" which is just another word for communist. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
Swing, you obviously fail to understand how the statistics work. You have to take into account that the PCR test gives a Schrödinger result: there are simultaneously too many positive results and too many negative results. All those false positives mean that this lockdown nonsense is totally unnecessary, there are in fact zero people catching covid. Any deaths happening at present are just government lies and people being hit by buses while doing parachute jumps. At the same time, the false negatives mean that covid has been spreading a hundred times faster than was thought, in fact everybody in the world has already had it before the first case was even reported in china, so herd immunity was reached 2018. Of course the virus did come from china, in spite of 98% of people in England having had some vague cough and feeling rough symptoms prior to any report from China.
Hope that this helps you understand what is really going on, remember wake up sheeple but don't be "woke" which is just another word for communist."Oooh. Wakey wakey. None of the cases are real but the huge number of cases mean the death toll is tiny. The science we rely on for every area of our lives has been overtaken, just in Covid. That bit is being run by thirteen year old boys who think this is funny, while other bits we trust to run our lives. The whole world is fucking itself because of no reason really, and most of the experts are in agreement that this is an issue - but the epidemiology is so flawed that it can be undone by someone with a GCSE in science. All the people looking to meet are deep state false flag antifa actors. The truth is out there. I wake. I am woke  | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down."Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid."And what about the falling flu and pneumonia numbers. A simple check of the ONS statistics which show you there was not 100,000 excess deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. I think you might be getting your ‘facts’ a little bit mixed up. | |||
| |||
| |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid."No, all those deaths will be due to people suffocating because of being forced to wear a piece of paper over their face. After all, there was nothing other different about the last twelve months was there? | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid.
And what about the falling flu and pneumonia numbers. A simple check of the ONS statistics which show you there was not 100,000 excess deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. I think you might be getting your ‘facts’ a little bit mixed up.
"I was using ONS, to help let me explain: This can sound like a heartless description, but in any given time of year there will be a “usual” or expected number of deaths – “excess deaths” means numbers above this level. In simple terms, if 200 deaths were expected for a given week and there were 300 recorded, for this week there would have been 100 excess deaths. During the Covid-19 pandemic, data analysts have been closely comparing the number of deaths each week with the expected number of deaths for the same week, estimated using an average of the number of deaths for the same week across the previous five years. For all the weeks since March 2020 (and every year before), the ONS tracks UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) deaths and compares them to what would be ‘normally’ expected. So far since March 2020, we have seen 100,000 plus EXCESS deaths. This is clear and unambiguous. Something (almost certainly Covid) is causing an increase in the amount of deaths in this country by about 15%. These are people who would in other circumstances be alive. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid.
And what about the falling flu and pneumonia numbers. A simple check of the ONS statistics which show you there was not 100,000 excess deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. I think you might be getting your ‘facts’ a little bit mixed up.
I was using ONS, to help let me explain:
This can sound like a heartless description, but in any given time of year there will be a “usual” or expected number of deaths – “excess deaths” means numbers above this level.
In simple terms, if 200 deaths were expected for a given week and there were 300 recorded, for this week there would have been 100 excess deaths.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, data analysts have been closely comparing the number of deaths each week with the expected number of deaths for the same week, estimated using an average of the number of deaths for the same week across the previous five years.
For all the weeks since March 2020 (and every year before), the ONS tracks UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) deaths and compares them to what would be ‘normally’ expected.
So far since March 2020, we have seen 100,000 plus EXCESS deaths. This is clear and unambiguous. Something (almost certainly Covid) is causing an increase in the amount of deaths in this country by about 15%. These are people who would in other circumstances be alive."I’m afraid this doesn’t quite add up, it implies that these 100,000 people wouldn’t have died anyway? If flu and pneumonia have now been cured then this might be true but I’m afraid the majority of these (on average 82.4 year olds) would have died regardless, is their death just being reclassified as a Covid death? | |||
"New South Wales Health reported a near non existent flu season for 2020. It must have been covered up by the massive number of Covid cases and deaths they've had. Oh... wait "Are you trying to pretend that it's possible to cut down the cases of influenza merely by having a much higher than normal take up rate of flu jabs, making people avoid coughing in each others faces, closing borders and not letting sick people into the country, having a massive campaign for washing hands and avoiding mixing in large groups, closing down workplaces and public buildings where there are outbreaks of sickness, and generally encouraging hygiene? Nah. Next you'll be saying that diseases are spread by tiny invisible animals that float in the air and reproduce inside people! | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid.
And what about the falling flu and pneumonia numbers. A simple check of the ONS statistics which show you there was not 100,000 excess deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. I think you might be getting your ‘facts’ a little bit mixed up.
I was using ONS, to help let me explain:
This can sound like a heartless description, but in any given time of year there will be a “usual” or expected number of deaths – “excess deaths” means numbers above this level.
In simple terms, if 200 deaths were expected for a given week and there were 300 recorded, for this week there would have been 100 excess deaths.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, data analysts have been closely comparing the number of deaths each week with the expected number of deaths for the same week, estimated using an average of the number of deaths for the same week across the previous five years.
For all the weeks since March 2020 (and every year before), the ONS tracks UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) deaths and compares them to what would be ‘normally’ expected.
So far since March 2020, we have seen 100,000 plus EXCESS deaths. This is clear and unambiguous. Something (almost certainly Covid) is causing an increase in the amount of deaths in this country by about 15%. These are people who would in other circumstances be alive.
I’m afraid this doesn’t quite add up, it implies that these 100,000 people wouldn’t have died anyway? If flu and pneumonia have now been cured then this might be true but I’m afraid the majority of these (on average 82.4 year olds) would have died regardless, is their death just being reclassified as a Covid death? "People who died above what was expected, who would otherwise still be alive, would have died anyway? Methinks you're not reading what's being written. "Elephants have tusks" PCR is unreliable! "Australia has six states" Lockdown doesn't work! "Mars is the Roman god of war" it's a plandemic! | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this " You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021. | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid.
And what about the falling flu and pneumonia numbers. A simple check of the ONS statistics which show you there was not 100,000 excess deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. I think you might be getting your ‘facts’ a little bit mixed up.
I was using ONS, to help let me explain:
This can sound like a heartless description, but in any given time of year there will be a “usual” or expected number of deaths – “excess deaths” means numbers above this level.
In simple terms, if 200 deaths were expected for a given week and there were 300 recorded, for this week there would have been 100 excess deaths.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, data analysts have been closely comparing the number of deaths each week with the expected number of deaths for the same week, estimated using an average of the number of deaths for the same week across the previous five years.
For all the weeks since March 2020 (and every year before), the ONS tracks UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) deaths and compares them to what would be ‘normally’ expected.
So far since March 2020, we have seen 100,000 plus EXCESS deaths. This is clear and unambiguous. Something (almost certainly Covid) is causing an increase in the amount of deaths in this country by about 15%. These are people who would in other circumstances be alive.
I’m afraid this doesn’t quite add up, it implies that these 100,000 people wouldn’t have died anyway? If flu and pneumonia have now been cured then this might be true but I’m afraid the majority of these (on average 82.4 year olds) would have died regardless, is their death just being reclassified as a Covid death?
People who died above what was expected, who would otherwise still be alive, would have died anyway?
Methinks you're not reading what's being written.
"Elephants have tusks" PCR is unreliable!
"Australia has six states" Lockdown doesn't work!
"Mars is the Roman god of war" it's a plandemic!"Lockdowns do work as it's been shown in Australia as they have been able to contain it quite well. Where lockdowns haven't worked is where people have ignored them. It's not that lockdowns don't work, it's the selfish people who don't think they apply to them, often because they don't think lockdowns work. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021." My family are in Australia, and although they can't go overseas (nor I to them), they have mostly normal lives. They have enormous freedoms compared to us. Also, some of the state borders are stupid politicians politicking | |||
"For a virus with 99.8% survival rate I’d say this is the only way to go. Quarantining the healthy is totally absurd and has never been done before, the fact we are still in this situation proves it doesn’t work. Nobody is saying let the virus rip, we just need to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else live there lives. The human body has been fighting viruses for 1000s of years, we need to let the human body do its job and stop thinking that locking down the healthy will do any good, it just kicks the problem down the road and does a lot more harm than good in the long run. Death rate from Covid in the UK is more than that. We're over one in 700 Brits dying. Not "Brits who've had Covid." Brits And I assume long term disability is meaningless and you're willing to pick up that cheque
The death rate is exactly the same for a virus, it doesn't depend which country it is in, the survival rate is the same. It’s measured against the virus not the country. Plus I doubt it is much different in the UK, if you are comparing positive tests vs death then this isn’t accurate, large numbers of people have the virus and don’t know. These would be counted as ‘survivors’ but they aren’t included in the stats.
Picking up the cheque for Lockdown will be a lot worse. the economy crashing, the effect on people’s mebtal health, the missed cancer screenings, missed schooling for children.... I could go on and on... and on.
Umm... If you're arguing there are lots of false positives/asymptomatic then that means the death rate is worse.
1000 people are infected. One dies. Death rate 0.1%
PCR is a scam world: 1000 people test positive. Only 200 are true positives. 1 dies. Death rate 0.5%
See see it's not a problem all these false positives mean a... higher death rate. Stop the lockdown it's more serious than we thought!
God I love the grab bag of nonsense
I’m sure when people die they are tested for Covid 19? I’d imagine irs part of the post mortem? Cause of death and all that.
Not everyone is given a post mortem. In fact early on post mortems were limited because of fear of spread of the disease.
But if you're going to argue that the case numbers are inflated, by definition it makes the death and disability toll worse.
I'm not in favour of lockdown for the record. I'm in favour of disease suppression until vaccination.
The fact that we keep going into lockdown is a sign that other policies are failing.
I’m not arguing that the case numbers are inflated, as you say the PCR tests are so unreliable we can’t look at the cases... excess mortality is a good indicator and that suggests this pandemic ended in April.
People aren’t a stupid as the government will have you believe... the case numbers were actually falling before we went into lockdown in March. I just disagree that lockdown is the answer to everything, it’s not, it doesn’t work and we should just let people manage the risk themselves.. as I said we aren’t stupid and I think the majority of people would be sensible and take right precautions (was hands, discuss distance etc) themselves to suppress the virus.
... I'm not arguing PCR is unreliable. I'm arguing that if it is, it punctures the argument that we should let it rip. *If* PCR is unreliable, the the disease is much more serious than we thought.
I think 2020 has shown us that people don't understand risk. "I'm young, I'll be fine" runs rampant (looked at the updates section recently? Lots of people meeting). You're young, you might be fine... but the people you infect might not be. And not dying doesn't mean healthy: there are at least medium term health effects.
I'd end lockdown if suppression could be achieved. That'd require changed restrictions and a much harder lockdown for a short period of time.
I think "trusting people" and ending lockdown is somewhere between moronic and barbaric.
You clearly have less faith in people than I do. I’m not sure how we could possibly do a ‘harder’ lockdown? I don’t think anybody would fancy living in a regime like China but other than that we are pretty much in a hard lockdown.
The average age of people this virus kills is 82.4, lets not pretend this is something it’s not. As sad as death is People that age tend to die. They are being counted as Covid deaths but the deaths for flu and pneumonia are on the floor. Is it just a redistribution of deaths if there is no major excess mortality? Who knows. I certainly don’t have the answer but do feel we are doing a lot more harm than good by keep locking down.
Fact Check - excess deaths means more than normal deaths. So an ADDITIONAL 100,000 plus deaths due to Covid.
And what about the falling flu and pneumonia numbers. A simple check of the ONS statistics which show you there was not 100,000 excess deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. I think you might be getting your ‘facts’ a little bit mixed up.
I was using ONS, to help let me explain:
This can sound like a heartless description, but in any given time of year there will be a “usual” or expected number of deaths – “excess deaths” means numbers above this level.
In simple terms, if 200 deaths were expected for a given week and there were 300 recorded, for this week there would have been 100 excess deaths.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, data analysts have been closely comparing the number of deaths each week with the expected number of deaths for the same week, estimated using an average of the number of deaths for the same week across the previous five years.
For all the weeks since March 2020 (and every year before), the ONS tracks UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) deaths and compares them to what would be ‘normally’ expected.
So far since March 2020, we have seen 100,000 plus EXCESS deaths. This is clear and unambiguous. Something (almost certainly Covid) is causing an increase in the amount of deaths in this country by about 15%. These are people who would in other circumstances be alive.
I’m afraid this doesn’t quite add up, it implies that these 100,000 people wouldn’t have died anyway? If flu and pneumonia have now been cured then this might be true but I’m afraid the majority of these (on average 82.4 year olds) would have died regardless, is their death just being reclassified as a Covid death? "No, 100 thousand EXCESS deaths means that everyone that was going to die anyway did die. Then an extra 100,000 people also died. Yes this does mean that at some point there will be 100,000 less deaths, because those people are already dead. Which will be a great comfort to those dead people. "Oh I am so glad that I didn't show in the death statistics for 2035, because I was already dead in 2020. No great loss, missing out on 15 years of living with a minor heart condition that I didn't even know I had, and it will have been a great improvement to my childrens mental health for me to die before my time." | |||
" People who died above what was expected, who would otherwise still be alive, would have died anyway? Methinks you're not reading what's being written. "Elephants have tusks" PCR is unreliable! "Australia has six states" Lockdown doesn't work! "Mars is the Roman god of war" it's a plandemic! Lockdowns do work as it's been shown in Australia as they have been able to contain it quite well. Where lockdowns haven't worked is where people have ignored them. It's not that lockdowns don't work, it's the selfish people who don't think they apply to them, often because they don't think lockdowns work." I was being sarcastic  | |||
| |||
"do youbrealise how mnay people are, essential.workers ,when they arent realky essential at all, building sites for example,.many workers on these sites have complained that they are being put in danger only for profit of the companies they work for. Mr driver to work each morning the road is almost as busy as it was pre covid. " So... Write to your MP and ask them why the policy is incoherent. | |||
"Maybe... One thing is for sure... We need to get a much better handle on who is coming into our country, where and where they are going along with testing or quarantine. The fucking lackadaisical approach to date even in the midst of a pandemic is borderline negligent. Have they stopped people coming in from Brazil?" In a word....YES | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021. My family are in Australia, and although they can't go overseas (nor I to them), they have mostly normal lives. They have enormous freedoms compared to us. Also, some of the state borders are stupid politicians politicking "I have daughter there and there are still some restrictions. They have been lifting them slowly. The difference is they have been adhering in general to the restrictions. We however go ape when lifted like in the summer, or took any excuse to demonstrate for whatever reason that took our fancy. It's the behaviour that's caused the main issues, nothing to do with whether lockdown works or not as some would want us to believe. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021. My family are in Australia, and although they can't go overseas (nor I to them), they have mostly normal lives. They have enormous freedoms compared to us. Also, some of the state borders are stupid politicians politicking
I have daughter there and there are still some restrictions. They have been lifting them slowly. The difference is they have been adhering in general to the restrictions. We however go ape when lifted like in the summer, or took any excuse to demonstrate for whatever reason that took our fancy.
It's the behaviour that's caused the main issues, nothing to do with whether lockdown works or not as some would want us to believe."It’s got nothing to do with people not behaving, that’s just ludicrous. It’s a virus, it spreads and that’s what they do. Lockdown and Itll be there when you open up again. Stop blaming other people and take it as a fact of life. It’s nobody’s fault, it’s here to stay and we have to learn to live with it. | |||
"do youbrealise how mnay people are, essential.workers ,when they arent realky essential at all, building sites for example,.many workers on these sites have complained that they are being put in danger only for profit of the companies they work for. Mr driver to work each morning the road is almost as busy as it was pre covid. So... Write to your MP and ask them why the policy is incoherent." It wouldnt be a case for one Mp, probably about 4. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021. My family are in Australia, and although they can't go overseas (nor I to them), they have mostly normal lives. They have enormous freedoms compared to us. Also, some of the state borders are stupid politicians politicking
I have daughter there and there are still some restrictions. They have been lifting them slowly. The difference is they have been adhering in general to the restrictions. We however go ape when lifted like in the summer, or took any excuse to demonstrate for whatever reason that took our fancy.
It's the behaviour that's caused the main issues, nothing to do with whether lockdown works or not as some would want us to believe.
It’s got nothing to do with people not behaving, that’s just ludicrous. It’s a virus, it spreads and that’s what they do. Lockdown and Itll be there when you open up again. Stop blaming other people and take it as a fact of life. It’s nobody’s fault, it’s here to stay and we have to learn to live with it."cause and blame are not the same thing and while your statement is fact, its also fact that without contact between infected and uninfected humans (even if thats via an inanimate object) the virus would die out ... so yes human behaviour is the CAUSE | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021. My family are in Australia, and although they can't go overseas (nor I to them), they have mostly normal lives. They have enormous freedoms compared to us. Also, some of the state borders are stupid politicians politicking
I have daughter there and there are still some restrictions. They have been lifting them slowly. The difference is they have been adhering in general to the restrictions. We however go ape when lifted like in the summer, or took any excuse to demonstrate for whatever reason that took our fancy.
It's the behaviour that's caused the main issues, nothing to do with whether lockdown works or not as some would want us to believe."Are you arguing that Brits are more stupid than Australians? I wouldn't dare. I think the restrictions were more logical. | |||
"do youbrealise how mnay people are, essential.workers ,when they arent realky essential at all, building sites for example,.many workers on these sites have complained that they are being put in danger only for profit of the companies they work for. Mr driver to work each morning the road is almost as busy as it was pre covid. So... Write to your MP and ask them why the policy is incoherent. It wouldnt be a case for one Mp, probably about 4." You only have one MP. | |||
"Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of immunisation for Public Health England, speaking at yesterday's Science and Technology Select Committee said. "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm. That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable." So what are peoples thoughts on this? Should have been the position from Day 1 and stop this insanity of lockdowns. I speak for myself but find it really mentally challenging now. 1/2 million death in the uk every year. death rate in 2020 were the same as 2019 which were lover than 2018. Yes speak for your self .. personally think there should of been a 2 mth total complete lock down from the first week . Close all the borders I c them that's coming in daily on there rubber dingys across the channel !! Gov has given so much money out its untrue . May be better if they had given every person innthe country £75 pp ..pw for shopping n made em Stsy in completely. If caught on street given a instant 12 mth jail sentence .. GB is completely fucked up as usual . Seems like you would have loved loved under a communist regime If we'd shut the borders with no exceptions and mandatory state run quarantine we could have eliminated the virus. We could have all been out swinging this weekend. Instead we let it rip and let people go on their jolly holidays. So instead of a few months of lockdowns we're approaching a year of this You would have thought that, however the evidence in front of us doesn't seem to support that as is shown by todays BBC report on Australia. They did that back in Feb last year and they are not out and about freely at all. They still are using cross boarder restrictions and have no plans to open international boarders except for certain restrictive international travel for 2021. My family are in Australia, and although they can't go overseas (nor I to them), they have mostly normal lives. They have enormous freedoms compared to us. Also, some of the state borders are stupid politicians politicking
I have daughter there and there are still some restrictions. They have been lifting them slowly. The difference is they have been adhering in general to the restrictions. We however go ape when lifted like in the summer, or took any excuse to demonstrate for whatever reason that took our fancy.
It's the behaviour that's caused the main issues, nothing to do with whether lockdown works or not as some would want us to believe.
Are you arguing that Brits are more stupid than Australians?
I wouldn't dare.
I think the restrictions were more logical."Just saying restrictions/lockdowns work but only if people collectively make them work. Some people are much more community aware and have a greater respect towards others, some only for themselves, some don't like authority but love to blame them. | |||
| |||
