I don't think it would have moved unchecked for 9 months.
I’m sure like me you’ve done everything asked of you? But that shouldn’t stop us, trusting our instincts that something ain’t right?
Dunno where he gets 1.5M from. Most estimate the true mortality rate at between 0.5% and 0.75% and that would put total UK deaths at between 300k and 450k.
There are some startling graphs of each country that mandated the use of masks and so there was the big initial spike and then in every case as it went down and flat lined, in every case it went back up from the mask mandates?
Tory Bliar was Labour? I thought he was just part of the "big plan" to ensure 40 years and counting of neo-liberal rule in the UK. It took half a century to sort out the true left which was briefly popular post war and is now safely confined to Scotland, but we now seem to be back on track after that minor aberration in UK politics with decades of centre right / right governments ahead of us.Fixed it for ya.
Wouldn't it disproportionately affect old people and skew those figures? Maths isn't my strong point.... There are 12m over 65s in the UK, if mortality rate in that population is between 3.1% and 11.6%, then somewhere between 372,000 and 1.3m deaths can be expected in that age group. Is my maths right?
To your last point, the only way you can form an impression on me is via my inputs, so no. I'm therefore entirely as clever/stupid as you think I am. One thing I wouldn't do, though, is suggest that I am more intelligent than, or know more about modelling scenarios in a pandemic, than the scientists doing it. Believing what scientists say has served me well thus far and kept me alive for 4 decades, and I know that they will change their minds and turn on a hairpin if better science comes along. I can therefore trust them to make the best decisions they can without becoming so determined to prove their own dogma and desire to be right. I know full well I can be dogmatic in my opinions, but when it comes to the facts underpinning them, I trust the science."Scientific Consensus", eh?
Is this the report you keep referring to, whilst failing to take into account legitimate criticism of Sage by proper scientists?
This is your smoking gun? :
Well, anyone familiar with modelling outputs will realise that "smoking" is most definitely involved...
As in, "I would love an ounce of what they're smoking"*...
As you know for a fact, even the editors of the British Medical Journal caution against conflicted views, and note that Sage is actually conflicted!
Besides, have you actually read it?
If so, do you not see that it's all based on gobbldygook modelling, and the caveats are huge.
Perhaps you will have overlooked this crucial bit which confirms, if need be, that they have absolutely no clue:
"The range of estimates for total excess deaths range from an additional 78,000 (Scenario 1) to 28,000 fewer excess deaths (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario.
• The range of estimates for total QALY impact range from an additional 586,000 (Scenario 1) to 190,000 fewer QALY impact (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 is 135,000 excess deaths and 776,000 QALYs."
I get the impression that you are much cleverer than inputs to this thread portray you.
*Note to the SFF fascistii, please don't do a Stormtrooper and report on me: it's meant to be just a joke, and last time I checked there was supposed to be"free speach"!
Even Covid aside we’ve never had a year with so much global news, where whatever happens in America or Australia happens here? As I keep saying I think it’s awful how the media are hell bent on division when the majority of folk just wanna get on with each other."Scientific Consensus", eh?
Is this the report you keep referring to, whilst failing to take into account legitimate criticism of Sage by proper scientists?
This is your smoking gun? :
Well, anyone familiar with modelling outputs will realise that "smoking" is most definitely involved. As in, "I wold love an ounce of what they're smoking"*...
As you know for a fact, even the editors of the British Medical Journal caution against conflicted views, and note that Sage is actually conflicted!
Besides, have you actually read it?
If so, do you not see that it's all based on gobbldygook modelling, and the caveats are huge.
Perhaps you will have overlooked this crucial bit which confirms, if need be, that they have absolutely no clue:
"The range of estimates for total excess deaths range from an additional 78,000 (Scenario 1) to 28,000 fewer excess deaths (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario.
• The range of estimates for total QALY impact range from an additional 586,000 (Scenario 1) to 190,000 fewer QALY impact (Scenario 3) as compared to the COVID-19 Static Scenario. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 is 135,000 excess deaths and 776,000 QALYs."
I get the impression that you are much cleverer than inputs to this thread portray you.
*Note to the SFF fascistii, please don't do a Stormtrooper and report on me: it's meant to be just a joke, and last time I checked there was supposed to be"free speach"!
Saffy, these are only sort of scientists.
Is that true though? Maria Zambon is on SAGE and she specialises in RNA viruses and vaccines. There's another female academic whose name escapes me that's an epidemiologist.
many doctors who signed the same oaths to protect lives have been censored and shut down.
)No, its the whole population. Its the equivalent to the 0.1% commonly used for flu.
Agree there is a lot of scientists.Is that true though? Maria Zambon is on SAGE and she specialises in RNA viruses and vaccines. There's another female academic whose name escapes me that's an epidemiologist.
Anyway, just looking at the list, I see lots and LOTS of scientists...
Of the first 7 - before I got bored - there's a virologist/head of infectious diseases, professor of emergency medicine, chair in immunology, a professor in education, an epidemiologist, a statistician and a clinical pharmacologist. 5 medical scientists.
You see, this is the bit that has me thinking a lot. I don't want to live in a society where we basically decide whether it is worth spending money or suffering incovenience just to keep people alive based on age. It massively devalues the elderly and the infirm, many of whom are the most valuable in our society.
Oh no... I hope that whatever she has, she recovers quickly and that you and your wife stay safe. Take care and keep us posted.
Lives being saved is an unknown unknown, you're right - but couldn't we also argue that the people with cancer and heart disease dying as a consequence were also nearing the end of their natural life anyway? I don't know how you decide who is more important. I know who is more economically valuable, but that's setting us all up for being treated as entirely disposable once we hit 65.Sorry Saf, I obviously edited out that last bit a bit late
Because you do not have first-hand experience of models, GIGO and scientific bias I would urge you to read the BMJ editorial in preference to Sage reports.
Don't get me wrong. I know the disease kills. But I know the cure kills. I sincerely believe on the basis of available evidence now that it should be clear that the deaths and future deaths from the cure outweighs the disease, by a long chalk IMO.
The problem is which scientists do you trust? Science is equivocal. Always has been, always will (more so nowadays).
As the BMJ makes clear, science can be biassed. Everyone working in the subject knows that. Unlike Engineering, there is more equivocality in science than you can shake a stick at.
Did you read the BMJ Editorial?
So-called "Health Fascists" have form.
Lets take, oh I dunno, something simple:
Cot Death. For decades, the scientific consensus (put the baby face down/recovery position because that's how wounded WWII squaddies survived better) killed more babies than mothers common sense (on their back). But the Quacks were wrong and it took decades of mass killing children for them to admit to it. "Do No Harm" MRIA
The so-called "Lives being saved" is an unknown unknown and totally unquantifiable (except by B/S GIGO models) compared to the definite harms being done by over-reaction and lockdown.
It is grist to the mill of "Health Fascists" who recommend locking folk up in their houses plugged into the TV/internet so they can shop, to "save granny". Labour and Alternative Sage have screwed up royally here. Shower!
I believe you are wrong is all. FWIW I feel you are well intentioned.
I think your support of restriction and Lockdown on the basis of an unknown unknown when we now understand the vast majority don't die of, or even suffer from, CV19, and that those that do die of/with it are, on average, older than the average life expectancy is fundamentally flawed.
Granny would no doubt want her offspring to flourish. She would whip out her slide rule and do a cost-benefit analysis.
In time, maybe that will dawn on folk.
Deaths are where it's at. Not worth the hype. EndEx. Cheque's in the post.
Memento mori
(ps well done at stoking up the interest here
Regarding cancer, no. During lockdown and even right through the summer people were either not getting treated or getting through the process far too slowly. They might as well have had covid on their death certificates.
