Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

You are all arguing based on mythical figures created to forward whatever action each govt. wants to put to the population. All the figures are based on different calculation methods throughout the world and of course not all cases are known about and not all attributed deaths are actually covid related just as some non attributed actually are covid caused.

Soooooo, why are we all arguing about which govt. has done the, 'best', when our arguments are based on myths. All we really know is that there have been many more deaths in populations reportedly caused by a new disease.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Here’s a headline for all the Covid panickers like you spreading hysteria 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12722140/coronavirus-disaster-top-scientists-tv-message/

As I posted earlier here are the true figures as collated by PHE. Ignore at your peril!

You can see from the graph on England that deaths from Covid-19 have increased the UK annual death rate by some 20%. That's a big number and a lot of people.

Also, despite Bozo et al trying to massage the figures, they are responsible for 65,000 excess deaths.

The website is also very comprehensive and tries to make sense of the situation.

11 hours ago, P.K. said:

As I understand it for all the above reasons "excess deaths" measure the true cost.

For example some folks may not have been able to get the treatment they needed and succumbed to their condition as a result. But, even though they did not catch the virus, it was ultimately the pandemic that caused their demise.

The UK was very lucky in that despite having the (now) seventh largest economy due to years of cuts our NHS capability was second from last in the EU. But unlike Italy and Spain for example our ICU's were not completely overwhelmed.

But that came at a cost of dropping pretty much everything else.

If they had not done that then the fatalities from contracting Covid could have been higher with an NHS overwhelmed.

This site from PHE is trying to build a comprehensive picture. This graph gives a good idea of the situation.

From 20/3/20 to 4/9/20 there were approx 270k registered deaths in England. There were 53,318 excess deaths with 93.1% where Covid was mentioned. Thats a lot of folks dying from the virus.

image.thumb.png.a1cb7e996ad58bb6d20c0c988beed8a5.png

See:

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

As I posted earlier here are the true figures as collated by PHE. Ignore at your peril!

You can see from the graph on England that deaths from Covid-19 have increased the UK annual death rate by some 20%. That's a big number and a lot of people.

Also, despite Bozo et al trying to massage the figures, they are responsible for 65,000 excess deaths.

The website is also very comprehensive and tries to make sense of the situation.

 

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, and those with pre existing conditions. A society should protect the elderly and vulnerable in society, but it is foolish to inflict massive and long term damage on that society with blunt, all encompassing measures, that invariably lead to future issues for all, including those we were initially trying to protect. There has to be a better way to deal with this virus than lock down. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, and those with pre existing conditions. A society should protect the elderly and vulnerable in society, but it is foolish to inflict massive and long term damage on that society with blunt, all encompassing measures, that invariably lead to future issues for all, including those we were initially trying to protect. There has to be a better way to deal with this virus than lock down. 

Sure it hits the elderly hardest.

But they have a right to life just like everybody else.

It's also very obvious that the rise in excess deaths are lives cut short by Covid.

You would have to have a total lack of human empathy not to be concerned by that...

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, and those with pre existing conditions. A society should protect the elderly and vulnerable in society, but it is foolish to inflict massive and long term damage on that society with blunt, all encompassing measures, that invariably lead to future issues for all, including those we were initially trying to protect. There has to be a better way to deal with this virus than lock down. 

It is this with bells on & nobody can realistically argue against it.

We must get on now with the absolute focus on protecting the vulnerable.

It really is that simple.

We know who it hits & how to deal with it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, 

You've been tuning into fake news mate. Yes the figures are very much swayed to the over 75s but not "very apparent" and not "almost exclusively" at all. 

Here's an example graph from BBC, but there are 1000s more out there of course:

 

 

1986045883___Coviddeathsbyage0327000.png.5ce31683fbe67caa788af25d67b42a18.png

Edited by Barlow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Barlow said:

You've been tuning into fake news mate. Yes the figures are very much swayed to the over 75s but not "very apparent" and not "almost exclusively" at all. 

Here's an example graph from BBC, but there are 1000s more out there of course:

 

 

1986045883___Coviddeathsbyage0327000.png.5ce31683fbe67caa788af25d67b42a18.png

I was referring to Public Health England’s ‘fake news’. PK  - I agree, and if you reread my post I stated the the old and the vulnerable should be protected. I personally empathise with this demographic, but also empathise with the businesses, youth and all of the others effected by the non targeted restrictions. 

Edited by Out of the blue
typo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Out of the blue said:

I was referring to Public Health England’s ‘fake news’. PK  - I agree, and if you reread my post I stated the the old and the vulnerable should be protected. I personally empathise with this demographic, but also empathise with the businesses, youth and all of the others effected by the non targeted restrictions. 

Why call into question the PHE figures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weeks ago the UK government death stats showed well over 40,000 deaths from Covid-19. Today they show less than 30,000. So the figures have already been "massaged". One wonders what they really are.
In the past week 2 people under 60 have died of this disease - no comments as to their co-morbidities.
Apparently 2019 was a year of very few deaths from many of the "expected" causes and left a lot of "elderly" people on the planet who had not been expected to still be here...........they form a large part of those "excess deaths". Death rates have been falling steadily since 1980 and are still well below those between 1950-1970. See here

UK death rates

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I see the UK scientific advisers are using an IFR of 0.4% in their estimates of covid fatality

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54234084

50000 cases per day resulting in 200 deaths per day is the prediction.  Or is it going to be over 5000 PK?

Good to hear a balanced view rather than PK and Sids views which are at extreme end of hysteria 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, P.K. said:

Sure it hits the elderly hardest.

But they have a right to life just like everybody else.

It's also very obvious that the rise in excess deaths are lives cut short by Covid.

You would have to have a total lack of human empathy not to be concerned by that...

If people really gave a shit there'd be no drinking or smoking allowed, that would save more people than a covid vacine

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WTF said:

If people really gave a shit there'd be no drinking or smoking allowed, that would save more people than a covid vacine

Agree yes let’s protect anyone who might possibly die so that means:

No smoking

No drinking 

No cars to have road accidents in

No sugar

No trans fats in food

No drugs

No crossing the road

No walking in front of buses 

No flying as planes might crash

No trains they crash too

No swimming - you might drown 

No TT (that’s lethal) 

I read a great book called The Machine Stops where all risks have been removed from peoples lives and they just sit in their rooms interacting with people through the TV while machines do everything for them. That seems to be the life some people supporting all this aspire to. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...