- This topic has 114 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Those who go on about overall mortality rates miss a very important point. The age related mortality rates are
Age – Mortality Rate (%)
- 80+ year old – 14.8
- 70-79 years old – 8.0
- 60-69 years old – 3.6
- 50-59 years old – 1.3
- 40-49 years old – 0.4
- 10-39 years old – 0.2
- 0-9 years old – no fatalities*
So the mortality rate is above 1% even for those who are 50-59 year old.
Hmmm… From ET’s link:
– “Forty different lateral flow devices were put forward, of which nine met the criteria to continue to full evaluation. Six made it to the third phase, and the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the test being used in the Liverpool pilot, is nearing completion of the four-stage process.”
Maybe the care home is using a system that didn’t even make it to evaluation. The following article was written since the above clinical evaluation was completed:
– Covid-19: government must urgently rethink lateral flow test roll out
– Plans to widen roll out risk serious harm
– BMJ Opinion – January 12, 2021– “In the Liverpool pilot study, 60% (95% CI 48% to 71%) of infected symptomless people went undetected, including 33% (19% to 50%) of those with high viral loads who are at highest risk of infecting others. [1] Among students in Birmingham, only 3% (1% to 16%) of those who would have tested positive on PCR were detected. [2]”
There seems to be plenty of wiggle-room for employers desperate to keep a business afloat, and care homes are highly threatened at present. People have a tendency to latch onto reassuring results, and then there’s the “not my fault” urge; “we used the tests in good faith”.
The problem underlying all of this is the current economic system that sets everyone and every business into mortal competition with their peers – and I do mean mortal; if you run out of money you lose access to food, fuel and shelter.
But in any sensible assessment, the people are the economy, and we all share our primary common interests against the virus. In many cases covid-19 is making the system’s inherent combat more desperate, more intense. Just like the climate and ecological crisis, people and organisations in competition can become each other’s own worst enemies, making problems many times worse than needs be.
@ SA
“So the mortality rate is above 1% even for those who are 50-59 year old”.
At last: Correct and a big jump thereafter.
And so a proportionate health policy would respond accordingly, action to protect those at risk. The failure to do so is because the government is using virus terrorism to pursuing different political objectives, to remove democracy (the populist revolt), to wreck the health and economy of Britain to entrench the powers and privilege of the ruling 1%. It looks like they will cancel the May 2021 elections too.
Those who believe the current policy is to protect the vulnerable elderly, ignore the years of underfunding for adult social care, ignore the initial elderly deaths due to the lockdown, to provide the numbers to fuel a panic, and must think nothing odd about how billions have miraculously been found to fund PPE contracts for government family and friends and suppress therapeutics.
Clark
According to ONS ( see link below) there has not been the large number of deaths in care homes in the second wave as in the first.Dave
You may well like to look at the overall figures of excess deaths for 2020 in this report and see that about 80,000 extra deaths have occurred which is about 14% increase in deaths over the average of the last 5 years.I think you would agree that if for example you were told that there was a 14% increase in the deaths due to say road traffic accidents, that there will be a huge outcry wouldn’t you? But of course you don’t seem to think that those above a certain age need to be saved.
Sheltering a part of the community is a temporary measure and would rely on a very hypothetical situation where socially we form self contained silos with no interconnections. In real life, those above 70 will have families and grandchildren who go to schools and so on. So you want to condemn those above a certain age to a life of solitude.
You also, like a lot of posters who use false low figures for mortality, seem to ignore that illness due to the virus is also considerable and loads the health system. You keep on repeating that this is because there is not enough funding for the NHS but as I pointed earlier, training of doctors and nurses just doesn’t happen overnight and you can’t build a health service to cope with all emergencies, you need to have a better way of managing and dealing quickly with pandemics. But since you start with the firm knowledge based on nothing, that this is not a dangerous pandemic, then I am afraid all the rest of your deductions are worthless.
You share a remarkable lack of self awareness or dishonesty as those who say their support for the inhumane and counter-productive lockdowns is to save lives, when they clearly haven’t stopped people dying, and have made things far worse, “but of course you don’t seem to think this matters”. Do you deny effective therapeutics are available to treat this illness?
For years the NHS policy has been to reduce bed numbers and operate at capacity, and anticipate for extra capacity during the winter months. The problems this year are not due to a lack of capacity, but a mismanagement of resources and virus for political reasons and Labour Party support for this shows they have forsaken the many for the few.
“Do you deny effective therapeutics are available to treat this illness?”
Yes, categorically so. There are no specifc treatments. (apart perhaps from immunoglobulin treatments which remain experimental)“You share a remarkable lack of self awareness or dishonesty as those who say their support for the inhumane and counter-productive lockdowns is to save lives, when they clearly haven’t stopped people dying, and have made things far worse,”
That is your opinon Dave. My opinion is that there would have been far more deaths and morbidity if nothing had been done. Also, I thnk people would have self imposed lockdown type measures, they’d have behaved in a manner likely to reduce their risk.
“For years the NHS policy has been to reduce bed numbers and operate at capacity, and anticipate for extra capacity during the winter months.”
Agreed.
“think nothing odd about how billions have miraculously been found to fund PPE contracts for government family and friends”
That this happened is corrupt. Not so much that the money was found (presumably by borrowing) and PPE was required, but how and to whom the contracts were awarded.
A virus is a virus Dave. Regardless of politics.
Dave
I have tried hard to refrain from name calling but since you accuse me of dishonesty I would like to politely return the compliment and say that it is you who is deceitful.
Best wishes.Dave
Do you know what happens when people are admitted to ITU? Do you know what it is like to be gasping for breath? Do you think these are trivial matters? Are you implying that people are dying because of lockdown causing these symptoms, or do you think that those writing death certificates are so dishonest that they write cause of death according to government instructions?If there were no lock downs and other measures, the number of deaths would be much higher.
Estimates are that only 10% of population have had Covid and we have 100.000 dead.BTW according to monitoring site euromomo.eu England had Extraordinary high excess deaths in week 1 and 2.
Is that again coincidence?@ ET
“if nothing had been done”.
A straw man as encouraging voluntary common sense, focussed health care and therapeutics is doing something proportionate and combined with theraputics, effective. Whereas closing the NHS and economy is disproportionate and causes its own harms.
Dave
“A straw man as encouraging voluntary common sense, focussed health care and therapeutics is doing something.”
That is not only a strawman, but a very wishy washy one at that. What exactly do you mean by focused health care and voluntary common sense? Also you seem to ignore my questions above, any guess why?
“Also you seem to ignore my questions above, any guess why”?
Because you’re shroud waving.
@ ET
“Do you deny effective therapeutics are available to treat this illness?
Yes, categorically so. There are no specific treatments. (apart perhaps from immunoglobulin treatments which remain experimental)”
Try this:
Y.O. Tech Lab – Is this True? “Dr Simone Gold – The truth about the CV 19 vaccine” (YouTube, 56m 08s)
Dave
I am not shroud waving. You have no answer. Be honest.“Dr Irwin Redlener, the director of Columbia University’s Pandemic Resource and Response Initiative, added:
“Simone Gold is a toxic purveyor of misinformation, now actively contributing to rightwing extremist rhetoric that continues to rile up people determined to hang on to the most egregious Donald Trump lies.”
That [Dr Simone Gold] is the Dr in Dave’s link
“ A key conservative doctors’ group pushing misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines faces growing fire from medical experts about its woeful scientific grounding, while its leader, Dr Simone Gold, was charged early this week for taking part in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.”
This is Simone Gold who features in Dave’s YouTube video in the last page. Tea party, sponsored by the rich Trump supporter and Capitol hooligan A key conservative doctors’ group pushing misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines faces growing fire from medical experts about its woeful scientific grounding, while its leader, Dr Simone Gold, was charged early this week for taking part in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.
That’s the sort of camp that Dave wants us to believe in.Koplan offered a blunt verdict on Gold’s work: “The results of this dismissal of science takes a heavy toll on lives and health.”
The Guardian – ‘Wilful ignorance’: doctor who joined Capitol attack condemned for Covid falsehoods – Experts denounce Simone Gold, charged for participating in riot, who leads conservative group America’s Frontline Doctors
She mentions in the beginning that the first real decpetion was that it wasn’t named the wuhan virus. Seriously? I despair. Who cares what it’s called. Thereafter all the usual guff about hydroxychloroquine, zinc etc.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya – the only reference Dave has is a complete crank? What, he doesn’t have an entire group of Nobel prize winning medical experts providing his opinion?
In fairness, I have to admit that Dave has done us a solid here, by providing numerous examples of how these hucksters, grifters, frauds, snake-oil salesmen – call them what you will – all work the same cheesy lines.
Dave – how about some credible references to your, erm, interesting assertions? Cranks and grifters don’t count, I’m afraid.
“Proof by repeated assertion” is not generally accepted as a logical validation of a point either, sorry.
Dave, rather than a YouTube link where anyone can post anything regardless of its accuracy, please link to these claims by Dr Simone Gold in the scientific literature.
If there is none, please explain to me why this is.
If these claims do not withstand scientific scrutiny, how do you justify them being presented directly to the public on YouTube?
SA, 12:06 – “According to ONS ( see link below) there has not been the large number of deaths in care homes in the second wave as in the first.”
I’ve no idea how widespread the practice my friend experienced is. However, it is interesting that Dave used lateral flow tests to bolster his conspiracy theory, thus:
– “I assume your not familiar with the PCR test which records many false positives compared to the lateral flow test, which shows otherwise healthy people to be positive, triggering the numbers needed for more lockdowns and restrictions. They know about the false positives, but keep them in the official figures, to manipulate/scaremonger public opinion.”
“Them”, the perpetually undefined but ever expandable conspiracy.
In fact the “conspiracy” is the other way around, and informal; a convergence of incorrectly perceived interests of many on the right, to deceive the public that there is no danger. Eventually, when our economy is at death’s door, they may actually look at the figures for economic performance and realise that the people are the economy:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy
– “Have the countries experiencing the largest economic decline performed better in protecting the nation’s health, as we would expect if there was a trade-off?
– Contrary to the idea of a trade-off, we see that countries which suffered the most severe economic downturns – like Peru, Spain and the UK – are generally among the countries with the highest COVID-19 death rate.
– And the reverse is also true: countries where the economic impact has been modest – like Taiwan, South Korea, and Lithuania – have also managed to keep the death rate low.”
It was a very interesting speech by Dr Simone Gold, but immediately illegally deleted by Corporate U-tube. Illegal because they are meant to be a platform/notice board not a publisher. But there was nothing in the speech that merited deletion, but revealing they have the power to do it, whoever they are, but revealing links attacking her, rather than rebutting her comments, remain up.
Dave the Denier: “[…] but revealing they have the power to do it, whoever they are, […]”
Go on, Dave, who are “they” – do tell! You must have some idea? Some shadowy organisation that manipulates everything in the background, no doubt. Would “they” be a particular race, perchance? You must have given quite some thought to it.
Clark is probably right, the “they” in this case are Jews, right Dave? Hadn’t occurred to me before Clark’s post, but given your sympathy for the BNP, far-right groups, the Trump criminal and associated conspiracy theories of every kind, it’s not a stretch to suppose you have leanings toward white supremacists too.
The Jews are behind it all, right Dave?
The scientific literature, Dave; I asked for your take on where Gold’s proposals are there, not “anyone can post anything” YouTube. I want to know why this is being presented directly to the public, rather than to Gold’s professional peers who will know the right questions to ask, and which studies are relevant.
Here is a pretty good summary of the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine trials and also a good discussion related to its safety and experience of use in other conditions.
You might be interested to know Dave that there is an ongoing randomised, placebo-controlled pre-exposure prophylaxis study to determine whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine prevents coronavirus disease (COVID-19) called CAPCOV.
