FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Lies, Damned lies and statistics.
Lies, Damned lies and statistics.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ait OP Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
The lunatic politicians have had the following numbers published about the lethality of the virus:
1. If nothing was done: 510,000
2. Isolating the vulnerable and those with symptoms: 250,000
3. Isolation and inter-person contact reduction: 20,000
The total economic and social cost of option 3 will be truly enormous.
And we have no idea of the benefits of this insane plan.
Virtually all of the virus victims so far have had existing medical conditions.
We do not know how many of them would have survived if they hadn’t been infected.
We do not know how many people the virus has, by itself, killed.
The numbers are estimated totals for people who die and have the virus. They are NOT estimates of the number of people who the virus would actually kill by itself. An unknown number would have died from their existing medical conditions.
They are not the numbers of extra deaths that the virus would cause.
In the U.K. about 600,000 people die every year from all causes, including about 8,000 from flu.
We have no idea what that number would be including only ADDITIONAL deaths from the virus, not the terminally ill who contracted the virus on their deathbeds.
We can be absolutely certain that the total estimated deaths would be a lot less than:
1. All causes 600,000 plus 510,000 from the virus
2. All causes 600,000 plus 250,000 from the virus
3. All causes 600,000 plus 20,000 from the virus
How about guessing that if we had done nothing at all, the virus would kill an extra 8,000? Just like flu, which we allow to run its course.
The worst-hit European country, Italy, currently has suffered just over 4,000 deaths of already sick people who subsequently contracted the virus, and may well still have died if they hadn’t.
The problems caused by electing leaders who are incompetent liars, cheats and thieves should now be very clear to everyone.
(Stats. from the BBC News Website, 21-3-20: “Coronavirus: Have UK experts over-egged deaths?”)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Dude they are just trying to stop people from dying is that such a bad thing.
Honestly I don't understand what people think governments are going to gain from this situation by lying on such a huge scale.
Other than covering up something far more serious I don't get why they would over egg the pudding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whilst I have sympathy with the OP's views I think the main reason for the governments actions are to slow the spread of the virus so hospitals can cope.
If sick people cannot get treatment more of them will die.
If the hospitals are overwhelmed those who die will do so in a horrible way. It is very difficult to put a price on alleviating's the suffering of hundreds of thousands in their last hours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The OP makes good points, as does the BBC article which I read yesterday. Especially re: the distinction between expected vs unexpected deaths and deaths in which SARS-CoV2 is the cause vs where it is secondary cause. Most people are dying with COVID-19 rather than of eg - specific cause of death might be a heart attack, but COVID-19 is a sec, causative agent which contributed to the strain on the heart at the end. Whilst it sounds nit picking, these are important distinctions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Those people who have died will have presented with respiratory distress syndrome and required intensive care, regardless of what the final cause of death is... so there is still the problem of a sudden influx of critically ill persons that overwhelms the health system.
Unless your suggestion is that healthcare workers stand back and declare “this one was going to die anyway” then I’m not sure how making these distinctions is helpful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm not sure that every SARS-CoV2 associated death would feature respiratory distress though. There will be people who pass away with a different primary cause, who, due to the current situation, are tested and found to be positive. They may have been mildly symptomatic for COVID-19. A comparison would be my Granny. Her CoD was pulmonary embolism, but at PM was found to have adrenal TB as a secondary cause. She'd had TB back in the 70s but was not actually symptomatic at all of this. I'm not trying to dismiss or minimise the situation but I'm a scientist and I'm genuinely interested in the science and learning how this thing is operating. Unless we understand it in depth, we won't be able to contain or minimise its effect and we won't understand future outbreaks of disease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They have been transparent in taking their models from the experts in epidemiology and the logistics of the NHS. Infections and deaths are following predicted S curves. It's largely down to all of us acting responsibly as to how long we spend on the steep section of the curves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The lunatic politicians have had the following numbers published about the lethality of the virus:
1. If nothing was done: 510,000
2. Isolating the vulnerable and those with symptoms: 250,000
3. Isolation and inter-person contact reduction: 20,000
The total economic and social cost of option 3 will be truly enormous.
And we have no idea of the benefits of this insane plan.
Virtually all of the virus victims so far have had existing medical conditions.
We do not know how many of them would have survived if they hadn’t been infected.
We do not know how many people the virus has, by itself, killed.
The numbers are estimated totals for people who die and have the virus. They are NOT estimates of the number of people who the virus would actually kill by itself. An unknown number would have died from their existing medical conditions.
They are not the numbers of extra deaths that the virus would cause.
In the U.K. about 600,000 people die every year from all causes, including about 8,000 from flu.
We have no idea what that number would be including only ADDITIONAL deaths from the virus, not the terminally ill who contracted the virus on their deathbeds.
We can be absolutely certain that the total estimated deaths would be a lot less than:
1. All causes 600,000 plus 510,000 from the virus
2. All causes 600,000 plus 250,000 from the virus
3. All causes 600,000 plus 20,000 from the virus
How about guessing that if we had done nothing at all, the virus would kill an extra 8,000? Just like flu, which we allow to run its course.
The worst-hit European country, Italy, currently has suffered just over 4,000 deaths of already sick people who subsequently contracted the virus, and may well still have died if they hadn’t.
The problems caused by electing leaders who are incompetent liars, cheats and thieves should now be very clear to everyone.
(Stats. from the BBC News Website, 21-3-20: “Coronavirus: Have UK experts over-egged deaths?”)
"
Ahh so nothing to worry about
Sound! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The lunatic politicians have had the following numbers published about the lethality of the virus:
1. If nothing was done: 510,000
2. Isolating the vulnerable and those with symptoms: 250,000
3. Isolation and inter-person contact reduction: 20,000
The total economic and social cost of option 3 will be truly enormous.
And we have no idea of the benefits of this insane plan.
Virtually all of the virus victims so far have had existing medical conditions.
We do not know how many of them would have survived if they hadn’t been infected.
We do not know how many people the virus has, by itself, killed.
The numbers are estimated totals for people who die and have the virus. They are NOT estimates of the number of people who the virus would actually kill by itself. An unknown number would have died from their existing medical conditions.
They are not the numbers of extra deaths that the virus would cause.
In the U.K. about 600,000 people die every year from all causes, including about 8,000 from flu.
We have no idea what that number would be including only ADDITIONAL deaths from the virus, not the terminally ill who contracted the virus on their deathbeds.
We can be absolutely certain that the total estimated deaths would be a lot less than:
1. All causes 600,000 plus 510,000 from the virus
2. All causes 600,000 plus 250,000 from the virus
3. All causes 600,000 plus 20,000 from the virus
How about guessing that if we had done nothing at all, the virus would kill an extra 8,000? Just like flu, which we allow to run its course.
The worst-hit European country, Italy, currently has suffered just over 4,000 deaths of already sick people who subsequently contracted the virus, and may well still have died if they hadn’t.
The problems caused by electing leaders who are incompetent liars, cheats and thieves should now be very clear to everyone.
(Stats. from the BBC News Website, 21-3-20: “Coronavirus: Have UK experts over-egged deaths?”)
Ahh so nothing to worry about
Sound!"
So it would seem, so who’s going to tell Boris he’s got it all wrong and some expert on a swingers site has worked it all out better? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The lunatic politicians have had the following numbers published about the lethality of the virus:
1. If nothing was done: 510,000
2. Isolating the vulnerable and those with symptoms: 250,000
3. Isolation and inter-person contact reduction: 20,000
The total economic and social cost of option 3 will be truly enormous.
And we have no idea of the benefits of this insane plan.
Virtually all of the virus victims so far have had existing medical conditions.
We do not know how many of them would have survived if they hadn’t been infected.
We do not know how many people the virus has, by itself, killed.
The numbers are estimated totals for people who die and have the virus. They are NOT estimates of the number of people who the virus would actually kill by itself. An unknown number would have died from their existing medical conditions.
They are not the numbers of extra deaths that the virus would cause.
In the U.K. about 600,000 people die every year from all causes, including about 8,000 from flu.
We have no idea what that number would be including only ADDITIONAL deaths from the virus, not the terminally ill who contracted the virus on their deathbeds.
We can be absolutely certain that the total estimated deaths would be a lot less than:
1. All causes 600,000 plus 510,000 from the virus
2. All causes 600,000 plus 250,000 from the virus
3. All causes 600,000 plus 20,000 from the virus
How about guessing that if we had done nothing at all, the virus would kill an extra 8,000? Just like flu, which we allow to run its course.
The worst-hit European country, Italy, currently has suffered just over 4,000 deaths of already sick people who subsequently contracted the virus, and may well still have died if they hadn’t.
The problems caused by electing leaders who are incompetent liars, cheats and thieves should now be very clear to everyone.
(Stats. from the BBC News Website, 21-3-20: “Coronavirus: Have UK experts over-egged deaths?”)
Ahh so nothing to worry about
Sound!
So it would seem, so who’s going to tell Boris he’s got it all wrong and some expert on a swingers site has worked it all out better? "
He had got it all wrong tbf.
I'm just glad I dont have to worry now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The death rate is always the headline news but really how many are in hospital because of Corona is the most relevant... according to worldometer site we have just had 20 people critical for the last few days?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
