- This topic has 1,202 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
– “Everyone wins!”
Ego. Merely a game.
No. Those injured, killed and bereaved by increased infection caused by your deliberate misinformation and deception most definitely would lose.
“Duck, are you Node?”
I don’t even understand the question and accusing me of “increasing suffering and death by broadcasting conspiracy theory” because I questioned some questionable statistics is hysterical, literally. Looks like I’ll have to look elsewhere for rational debate.
Be honest “Duck”. You are promoting the hypothesis that covid-19 is a mild illness, but that a conspiracy of the powerful is causing other deaths to be misclassified, to artificially inflate the death toll, in order that populations may be enslaved. Do you deny any of this?
“Duck”, this is what I mean by conspiracy theory:
– “Yes, yet the media and politicians studiously ignore this glaring inconsistency. Why doesn’t Boris Johnston say “I have not made a mess of handling the virus, it’s just the way the statistics are compiled”? Instead we are led to believe that our supposedly high death rate is attributable to lax measures and we demand stricter ones, like Christmas turkeys demanding the abattoir lorry gets a move on.”
“Studiously”. “Supposedly high death rate”. “Like Christmas turkeys demanding the abattoir lorry gets a move on.”
Questioning statistics is merely a tactic, just a means to an end. Your objective is convince readers that the pandemic is a global hoax.
But that’s just my opinion; feel free to deny any of it.
So, have we agreed on anything related to death certification? If covid-19 is in either Box I, being part of the morbid sequence of events or conditions leading directly to death or in Box II as a significant contributor to death that it is reasonable to reference “covid related deaths” as those in which covid is mentioned in either box I or II on the death certificate? Or are we still disputing this?
ET, I think death certification must be about right, because (1) the covid death graph tracks the general mortality graph, (2) the covid death graph rises and falls with the infection test result graph but after a delay of about two weeks, which is about the average time for covid-19 to cause death, and (3) I reckon medical staff are pretty good at ascertaining cause of death.
But why are you even bothering, ET? “Duck” claims that covid mortality is being inflated by a factor of eight, and that the hump in the general mortality curve is being caused by “lockdown”, even though England hasn’t had one since summer. For this to be true, medical staff would have to be recording 88% of cancer deaths, domestic murders and manslaughters and, yes, being hit by a bus, as covid-19 deaths. Why they’d be doing this in the UK is left to the imagination; only intensive care funding issues in New York is offered as an explanation. And how this produces mortality graphs with curves shaped just like those of an epidemic is simply never mentioned.
This is unmistakeably conspiracy theory, and it is up to commenters such as Steph to recognise it as such.
And here is something for Clark to read.
SA, “Duck” has stopped talking to you, and everyone else on this thread. And that’s my fault 😀
See, after Steph had called me rude, condescending, arrogant, impossible to reason with and entirely uncaring about human rights, I suggested that Steph’s selective compliments and insults might be a ploy to manipulate other readers. That, of course, has made it impossible and pointless for “Duck” to present any evidence at all, unless I promise to stop commenting, because I’d “rather discuss […] the character failings of other posters”. Nothing whatsoever to do with me pointing out that shapes of the mortality graphs contradict Duck’s conspiracy theory, obviously.
ET – Yep, I have no problem referring to that statistic as ‘covid related deaths’. As I already confirmed above at some length…
‘You can use the figures as they are compiled to say ‘covid-19 was a contributory factor in 60,000 deaths since 1st of March’ or ’13% of deaths since 1st of March had covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate’ etc. etc. But you cannot accurately use the figure to say ‘covid-19 has been the cause of 60,000 deaths’, as you would be selectively citing only one of several conditions which contributed to death.’
@Clark, I know you accept the death certificate data. I was addressing the question to Steph and Duck mostly who both appear to contest that the death certificates can be used to establish reasonable data sets. I was hoping that after some fairly wordy discussion whether we have a basis of agreement so that we can move on. And if not hone in on why not.
Steph
“As far as I’ve noticed, the only person who has mentioned anything ‘natural’ was you SA, when you snootily poo-pooed sterile lawns and well behaved bushes.”
Guilty as charged but that was on your response to customers who wanted to encourage wildlife but were told to just lock their back doors.
Me, I have a natural lawn and as a result I now have 4 species of Dactylorhiza growing and self seeding in the lawn.
I was referring to natural medicine.Funny, init? Sixty thousand people more than usual died in just two or three months, and they all had covid-19, but we mustn’t say they died of covid-19, because most of them had various common health problems.
Now is there anything else to which we apply the same reasoning? Say it was a cloud of noxious gas from an exploded tanker in the North Sea; I suppose I could imagine the shipping company making such an argument.
I think I’m beginning to understand why Steph won’t talk about conspiracy theory.
‘your response to customers who wanted to encourage wildlife but were told to just lock their back doors.’
By whom? Certainly not by me and if you had read what I said you would have seen that. I have designed and planted many ‘wildlife gardens’ in my life. But they will never have a greater abundance of natural wildlife as a piece of totally wild and uncultivated ground.
‘Me, I have a natural lawn and as a result I now have 4 species of Dactylorhiza growing and self seeding in the lawn.’
Great! And your point is?
‘I was referring to natural medicine’
Well you are definitely on your own there then, as I have very little interest in it and certainly never mentioned it. As Mr Paisley almost fell over himself in his rush to point out I did, semi-seriously, say that maybe the virus was ‘natures’ way of correcting an imbalance, with which you appeared to agree. I apologise for overlooking that remark when I replied earlier. It was made before I realised he/she was utterly devoid of a sense of humour.
Yeah! Go for it Clark! Come on, more, more! I’m really starting to get the hang of this now. And to think I wasted all that effort before trying to have an open and honest dialogue.
Now, how do I reply to your latest? Think I’ll just go with Duck was right, bigot, suits you to a T.
Now its your turn. You could accuse me of being rude. Oh wait you already did that. Something else then. Just keep it coming, but make it snappy cos I’m going to bed shortly.Yes Steph, I do find it rude to be ignored, as well as to be repeatedly insulted. Of course, if you really want to have an open and honest dialogue, you could change both right away, but presumably some other objective is more important to you.
Come on boys and girls stop sniping at each other.
See Steph, what you claim to want is right there in front of you, the only obstacle is your own behaviour. You could stop insulting me and tell me whether you recognise conspiracy theory or not. You could list some other illnesses or events that trigger huge death tolls but which we mustn’t call the cause of death.
But all we get is “yada yada yada you’re a very nasty person Clark”. Cool. I’m sure that makes you much better than me. OK?
‘Come on boys and girls stop sniping at each other’
Damn. Just when I thought I had mastered the art.
Please Miss(Sir) Clark is still calling me names
SA, we’re not sniping at each other; Steph is sniping at me, and when Steph stops, I will stop pointing it out.
Interesting; look at the comment numbers. They’re all consecutive until Steph’s #63197, followed by my #63199, and no additional comment is showing on the sidebar. There was barely time for a comment to be posted and then deleted by the mods; perhaps the spam filter ate it. Anyone had a comment deleted?
@Clark: fyi, post=63198 was a typical spam entry entitled “Vape Reviewers wanted”, which was automatically caught by the spam filter.
@Clark, currently you are not helping, you are attacking the person not the argument. Stick to attacking the argument because you cannot know what people’s motivations are on the internet. If you feel slighted, man up and stick to the argument. Get over the slight and persevere.
@Steph If you say “you cannot accurately use the figure to say ‘covid-19 has been the cause of 60,000 deaths’, as you would be selectively citing only one of several conditions which contributed to death” then you have to say the same about the figures for all causes of death. Effectively what you are arguing is that the data derived for causes of death from death certificates for all causes of death is erroneous, not just for covid-19. That is a big accusation. What then can we use this data for?
Please allow me to pose a thought experiment. It will be a non covid related death.
Say, hypothetically, I have stage 4 lung cancer and I die from respiratory failure because of a pneumonia which I contracted because my lungs were full of cancerous non functioning necrotic tissue such being a perfect substrate for whatever bacteria caused the pneumonia. So my death cert will read something like this: Respiratory failure:Pneumonia(insert bacteria here):Stage 4 adenocarcinoma of lung. So the underlying cause of death is carcinoma of lung.
So far so good.
My Dad worked for a cigarette factory, my 5 older siblings all smoked and the shop next to my school sold single cigarettes even though that was illegal. It is well recognised that all of these would have increased my propensity to start smoking therefore actually the real cause of my death from smoking related lung cancer lies there. I think that is where Steph is coming from. This is data that moves beyond direct cause and attempts to identify societal causes.@Steph “But you cannot accurately use the figure to say ‘covid-19 has been the cause of 60,000 deaths”
What then can I accurately say about any of the data from death certification about cause of death. Is all the data that states that so many people died from car accidents or ovarian cancer or alcoholism or knife crime or whatever else wrong? Because that is what you are implying when applied to all the other causes of death.Mods-cm-org; thanks.
- The topic ‘SARS cov2 and Covid 19’ is closed to new replies.