Coronavirus

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1,046
Location
edzell
I can buy a lot of what you say. But it doesn’t help with the reality of what we are seeing in hospital admissions. I’ve stopped being much interested in positive tests and the death rate/potential deadliness of the disease is immaterial in the face of our ICU capacity relative to demand. And the problem may well be as much about our capacity as it is about demand. And the virus may be ten times less deadly that forecast, or a million times less. But if it’s making people ill enough to need treatment then it doesn’t matter, does it? Because the consequential deaths from lockdown will just become consequential deaths from our healthcare system collapsing.

I feel like whatever we do, people will die in large number, because of our capacity problems. So I don’t see much point in watching a 20-minute video explaining a point about false positives or whatever that I could have read in 30 seconds (this is why I hate videos). Between 1,000 and 2,000 people a day are entering hospitals with covid symptoms. Or flu symptoms. Or Lily the Pink symptoms. Call it what you want. That many people are going in, they aren’t leaving at the same rate, and 500+ are currently dying of whatever it is you think they’re dying of. Don’t we have to do something to stop that happening? Regardless of Diamond Princess and the like?

That’s what I don’t understand. If you stop intellectualising it, you’re left with numbers going into hospital and numbers coming out and the beds required to support that. All of those numbers are fixed - as in, not forecasts. You can watch them daily. And you can see how measures affect them.

I’m very excited to hear about ways to deal with those numbers and slow the flow into hospital or expand ICU capacity inc doctors. Less interested in arguing over percentage mortality rates, if I’m honest. You could prove to me that Covid wasn’t deadly, unequivocally, but if it still led to people needing lengthy stays in hospital - your point is somewhat moot.

My friend’s husband is finally out of hospital. His white blood count is still very low. They’ve tested him for everything they know that could cause this and can only conclude that it’s Covid-related somehow. He’s only 43 and now he’s immunocompromised. He didn’t come even close to dying but he was in hospital for almost 3 weeks and now he is looking at a very different way of life, at least in the short term and maybe forever. They have no idea what will happen next. But his family, initially worried by the HIV tests and leukaemia tests, are now worried that there are no more tests and he’s still very unwell and all the doctors can say is, we need to monitor him and we need more data. He’s a solid unit of economic production. Or he was. He had Covid, btw. Was admitted because of high temperature and becoming less responsive. Has minor lung damage but they are relatively unscathed and he only needed light oxygen support. It’s his blood.
If hospital occupancy is key, why is it the only part of the crisis we have chose not to address.
And why is it a closely kept secret?
We had extra capacity created in spring.
Where has it gone.
Covid to some extent is simply a symptom showing just now run down our health service is.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
I’ll READ anything... Toby Young isn’t a credible source though. Didn’t he make a very basic maths error this week and declare the death rate to be the same as flu?
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
If hospital occupancy is key, why is it the only part of the crisis we have chose not to address.
And why is it a closely kept secret?
We had extra capacity created in spring.
Where has it gone.
Covid to some extent is simply a symptom showing just now run down our health service is.
No idea. I don’t think the extra capacity has gone. I’d rather people with enquiring minds turned their minds to hospitals and not the scientists though.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
436
Reaction score
266
The problem with all this is that there seems to be no space left for balanced sceptical enquiry, it all has to be this rabid stuff about the end of freedom and democracy. That's just bollox, and it's quite hard to consider what might be reasonable arguments when it's surrounded by hyperbole and paranoia from people who simply refuse to consider counter argument and cherry pick without further questioning.

Trying to find anything that isn't pure mania about the German arrest is almost impossible.

”Stop this evil now. Or one day they will come for you and your children. They already have, actually. These NAZIS are the ones who have taken your living, locked you in your home, terrorized your children and now plan to force you to consume their corrupt, toxic products at gunpoint. Those who died in the 1940’s fought to ensure this never happened again. Fight like they did. Fight for your life. Fight to live freely.”
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
There is nothing about the German arrest from official sources and so much from rabid Nazi-spotters that I’m not sure it was even real. It seems more believable that it’s fake tbh. There’s no balanced commentary anywhere.
Of course, the Nazis would want us to think that. Sigh.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
I read a really long 4chan thread on it that concluded he was a Muslim terrorist, they were Muslim terrorists, he’s a Jew, they’re Jewish raiders, Nazis, it’s the NWO, he’s a paedophile, he’s been poisoning people with heavy metals... Every fringe conspiracy theory group is claiming it as vindication of their own agenda.
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
286
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
Whilst very late in the day, it would appear that finally, a penny has dropped:

"Liberty seeks legal clarity over protest threat
Posted on 17 Nov 2020

1 minute read


  • Liberty says banning protest would be “unlawful interference of fundamental rights”
  • Letter to Ministers calls for urgent clarity over lockdown laws
  • Restrictions follow long-term threats to protest rights, says Liberty
Liberty has called on the Government to urgently amend lockdown rules and clarify their purpose to ensure they do not effectively ban protests.
In a letter sent on Monday 16 November to Secretaries of State Matt Hancock and Priti Patel, Liberty’s legal team have said the Government must make clear that they have not tried to make protests illegal under current lockdown laws.

The Government brought new regulations into effect on 5 November to enforce England’s second coronavirus lockdown. Unlike previous regulations, these did not include an explicit protest exception in the ban on public gatherings.

Liberty has warned this is effectively a ban on protest and that the lockdown rules must be amended to include this exception.
In the letter, Liberty says that unless coronavirus rules are amended they risk being an “unlawful interference of fundamental rights.”

Liberty specifically calls for “the Regulations to be amended without delay to make provision … to allow for protests to take place during the Coronavirus pandemic.”

Liberty’s Interim Director Gracie Bradley said: “We should all be able to stand up for what we believe in – but current coronavirus rules pose a chilling threat to our right to protest.

“Liberty has always supported proportionate measures to protect lives, but people must not be criminalised for voicing opposition to the Government.

“While restrictions on sport, filming, schools and work are reduced, limits to protest have been increased. This appears opportunistic and dangerous.

“The Government must not use the cover of a pandemic to rob us of our rights, and when it takes sweeping steps to restrict our freedoms and side-line parliament, it is even more important that we are able to stand up to power.”

In the first few days of these laws coming into effect, over 200 people were arrested at protests in London and Manchester, and more arrests were made at protests in Bristol the following week.

On 2 November, a Home Office spokesperson said that protests are included in the ban on gatherings of more than two people, and on 4 November Home Secretary Priti Patel called on police to “strengthen” enforcement of the rules.

During the Black Lives Matter demonstrations this year, the Home Secretary said that these protests were illegal, and many demonstrators were subject to aggressive police tactics such as kettling. Police monitoring group Netpol found “racism affected the manner in which police enforced lockdown regulations and responded to Black Lives Matter protests.”

Along with other organisations, Liberty is concerned about a long-term trend of threats to the right to protest. In 2019, the Metropolitan Police unlawfully used an injunction to ban protest during the Extinction Rebellion demonstrations, at which thousands of people were arrested.
Liberty distributed 24,000 legal advice cards to protestors during the first lockdown and Summer 2020."



 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
1,046
Location
edzell
I’ll READ anything... Toby Young isn’t a credible source though. Didn’t he make a very basic maths error this week and declare the death rate to be the same as flu?
To be fair, as nobody is seriously trying work out what percentage are asymptomatic, nobody knows the death rate.
However as far I can see the best measuring so far is 28 deaths out of 58000 cases. Not that different from flu.
Even if the gent is wrong, and he probably is, he will still probably be closer in his number than most of the original and even some current accepted figures.
As mentioned before death rates seem to have a strong correlation to number of available hospital beds, quality of a countries health care system and how they treat their elderly.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
436
Reaction score
266
"Liberty seeks legal clarity over protest threat

That's Liberty doing its job, good, I'll keep up my subscription.

Something worth saying is that this is emergency legislation and as such it contains a sunset clause - these laws evaporate in 2 years. They're laws that are necessary to protect the public during an emergency; they're not long-term restrictions on our freedoms. Like seatbelts and education, for example.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
To be fair, as nobody is seriously trying work out what percentage are asymptomatic, nobody knows the death rate.
However as far I can see the best measuring so far is 28 deaths out of 58000 cases. Not that different from flu.
Even if the gent is wrong, and he probably is, he will still probably be closer in his number than most of the original and even some current accepted figures.
As mentioned before death rates seem to have a strong correlation to number of available hospital beds, quality of a countries health care system and how they treat their elderly.
It was a maths maths fail.
C98C3BE5-B981-4FBB-B2D2-409D4A9A3985.jpeg
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
48
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
It was a maths maths fail.
View attachment 52877

You might start by acknowledging the simple fact that it's a bog standard flu-type virus suddenly given world-wide prominence. Clues - it happens already periodically via four or more similar types (get the key nomklature). To be kinda smart - tho not much beyond school - get a grip between mRNA and rRNA - you know just like real science demonstrares time and again.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
You might start by acknowledging the simple fact that it's a bog standard flu-type virus suddenly given world-wide prominence. Clues - it happens already periodically via four or more similar types (get the key nomklature). To be kinda smart - tho not much beyond school - get a grip between mRNA and rRNA - you know just like real science demonstrares time and again.
Real science and simple facts? Like covid-19 is a coronavirus and flu is an influenza virus, so actually nothing at all like each other? Or that the nomenclature of coronavirus describes its structure - spiky crowns - not its deadliness or otherwise, which can’t be assessed simply by looking at viruses it shares a name with. But let’s look at them anyway. SARS and MERS are both coronaviruses. They are really not bog standard - SARS IFR is 9%. The common cold is a coronavirus. We see it as bog standard but it can wipe out remote communities that have never been exposed to it. Novel coronaviruses are actually fairly tricksy. If you look at the science.

Covid-19 is between 6 and 9 times more deadly than the flu in the UK, at current death rates. Its unchecked R0 rate is twice that of flu. You are contagious for longer with covid than flu, including critically before you show symptoms. For all of these facts, it is nothing like ‘flu-like’. You can of course disagree with what we should do in response to these facts. Nevertheless, that response needs to be based on facts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: T7

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
286
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
RISK

Of UK life expectancy, here is what is written:

“Life expectancy[edit]

In 2013 Life expectancy at birth for women was 83 years and for men 79 years.[3] Life expectancy in the UK is rising more slowly than in other comparable nations. Austerity may be a cause.[4] Underfunding of the NHS and Social care are blamed.[5]


In 2018 life expectancy in the UK stopped increasing for the first time since 1982 when recording started.[6] There were 50,100 excess deaths during winter 2017/2018 mostly among older people. This is the highest since 1976.

Cold weather and problems with flu vaccine are blamed. Also the NHS was underresourced, doctors and groups representing older people claim not enough was done to keep older people warm and safe.[7]
Source Here

And here below is a demographic pyramid graph from that source, showing how the age structure of the UK population is made up. I’ve modified it by adding in a couple of CV19-relevant annotations blocks with explanation:

1280px-Uk_population_pyramid_2018-7-1 RISK.png



We now know that the vast, vast majority of all folk do not even get ill from (let alone die of) CV19. The over 70s are at much the highest risk, and the average age of a CV19 death (>82 years) is above the average life expectancy (<82 years).

Tip of the iceberg stuff.


By contrast, the continual prolonged overreaction to CV19 (aka Lockdown) affects every one of the age sectors in that graph, not just the dwindling few at the top. More than that, every single sector of age ranges in that graph (excluding ironically the ones at the top) will be affected from the ongoing and future problems created directly and indirectly by the overreaction to CV19.


This is what the term “disproportionate overreaction” means when conducting a risk-assessment.

That’s not to say "oldies are expendable" as the reactionaries will paint the above. Far from it. But it’s definitely not to say that oldies should be wrapped in cotton wool and protected at all costs, at the expense of the lives and livelyhoods of the under 70s who have the most to loose.

For the vast majority of the populace, there appears to be no logical reason for them not to go about their usual business, carefully, as they did before the end of March 2020.

Unfortunately, many of the Talking Heads on the subject in medicine and Sage are either over or rapidly approaching 70, and hence could be seen to have even more Conflicts of Interest than the previously well documented ones affecting Sage members!!!

Great article here on how many journos have been acting as “fake news” propagandists and whipping up the scaremongering around CV19:

https://www.aier.org/article/the-blizzard-of-bogus-journalism-on-covid/

I'd recommend taking a bit of time out to get more background.

It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.





Finally, and again I recognise some folk will “send it straight to DVD” or more likely consider it beneath them to actually watch, but I think this is worth a listen, despite the source. After all FACTS are what we need (and I note Saffie, that what you propose as an IFR for CV19 is piffle, especially given the ongoing casedemic. Do you not see there’s a good chance, when all the data is in, that the actual death rates will be right down there with flu, and not an order of magnitude greater as you say ONS allege - based on modelled guesstimates, hence likely inherrently untrustworthy.)

But either way, CV19 is definitely, as Douglas Adams would have said, “Mostly Harmless”.


😉 Unlike the “cure”…



Anyroad, here’s an interesting use of the time it takes to make and drink a brew:


Amazing - he's talking freely and unmuzzled, to a free and unmuzzled audience sitting right next to each other. Any yet, if the Texan stats are to be believed this was not a "superspreader" event! How pray tell? Well, as he demonstrates in the talk, and as the above linked AIER paper shows, the truth is not what is being widely reported.

Back to his talk: Sweden gets a good mention about 4:50, the impact of unnecessary ineffectual Lockdowns and over-reaction to CV19 on the developing world (something I have been able to see for months) is also noted around 7:30 (ironically being spouted by someone who may probably think the UN should be de-funded!), some good bits about 9:30. Finally for those “enforced muzzlers” amongst our membership, may the bits around 13:40 finally open your eyes.

Reminds me of the once prolific poster Carrowmore, who claimed above on these pages that the Mask Mandate had been a rip-roaring success in Czech Republic. Well, what a difference a few weeks make in science. Here is the like for like comparison between Sweden (never any Lockdown, never any requirement to think about, let alone actually wear a muzzle) compared to Chechia:

CV19 cases Sweden vs Czech Rep.png


For empiricists, surely that's a smoking gun!

I’m not cherry picking, honest, there are many more in the ppt he shows, I’m just using Czechia as IIRC Carrowmore raised it (these pages above) as a “Shining Example” of how muzzles work [oh, don’t you also miss a good C&R Stooshie?), and in the same way, it’s more like a “Busted Flush”.

NB - edits made as consequence of Saffie's post #8,940 in red.
 
Last edited:

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,562
I noted current death rates, seeking. The IFR I gave is what the ONS currently state, based on current death rates. I trust them.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
436
Reaction score
266
This is what the term “disproportionate overreaction” means when conducting a risk-assessment.
As often seems to be the case, I struggle to see the point of what you're saying amidst the chaff, but I'm hoping that the above is probably it.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask, I just wish you'd do it in a less hyperbolic and less one-sided way than you're doing. I also wish you could do it using less loonie-tunes sources but that's secondary to the issue.

The problem we're dealing with now is only just becoming properly understood. Had we had the information we have now back in March I think we might have taken a different, less damaging to our economy approach. It's beyond doubt that the economic consequences will be enormous and might very well exceed the mortality of the virus itself.

But when the lockdown decisions that have had the most extreme effect on us were made we thought we were facing a much more across-the-board fatal disease. We saw our hospitals filling up with dying patients that we had no drugs to help. And we saw it happening across the globe, we all thought we were going to die. There were a few voices that said 'uh, this is just flu, we'll ride it out'. But not many and they soon changed their mind when reality hit.

What we're not seeing is the base case; the control. The UK is a densely populated country and an international hub for business and tourism. We have a diverse ethnic population living in large family groups in dense areas were cultural family interchanges are high. Plus we have a rebellious, individualist, selfish culture that sticks two finger up at law and regulation aimed at protecting the many from the few. A high infection rate was entirely expected. The hospitals were filling up, had we done nothing it would have been a catastrophe.

It's not reasonable to say that a non-response was possible here, it never was and it still isn't. In hindsight we could definitely design better strategies but you can't make decisions in hindsight. The only countries to attempt even relatively non-interventionist strategies are now deeply in the sh1t for it and those that got hard on it quickly are more likely to be in better shape.
 
Last edited:

DrPatrickT

Well-known member
Messages
2,134
Reaction score
1,269
Location
Cheshire
As often seems to be the case, I struggle to see the point of what you're saying amidst the chaff, but I'm hoping that the above is probably it.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask, I just wish you'd do it in a less hyperbolic and less one-sided way than you're doing. I also wish you could do it using less loonie-tunes sources but that's secondary to the issue.

The problem we're dealing with now is only just becoming properly understood. Had we had the information we have now back in March I think we might have taken a different, less damaging to our economy approach. It's beyond doubt that the economic consequences will be enormous and might very well exceed the mortality of the virus itself.

But when the lockdown decisions that have had the most extreme effect on us were made we thought we were facing a much more across-the-board fatal disease. We saw our hospitals filling up with dying patients that we had no drugs to help. And we saw it happening across the globe, we all thought we were going to die. There were a few voices that said 'uh, this is just flu, we'll ride it out'. But not many and they soon changed their mind when reality hit.

What we're not seeing is the base case; the control. The UK is a densely populated country and an international hub for business and tourism. We have a diverse ethnic population living in large family groups in dense areas were cultural family interchanges are high. Plus we have a rebellious, individualist, selfish culture that sticks two finger up at law and regulation aimed at protecting the many from the few. A high infection rate was entirely expected. The hospitals were filling up, had we done nothing it would have been a catastrophe.

It's not reasonable to say that a non-response was possible here, it never was and it still isn't. In hindsight we could definitely design better strategies but you can't make decisions in hindsight. The only countries to attempt even relatively non-interventionist strategies are now deeply in the sh1t for it and those that got hard on it quickly are more likely to be in better shape.
Which is a measured argument, but what perhaps disappoints most is how rubbish the state machinery is ( except the Military - wonder why, simple chain of command and someone takes leadership). I know in March it was an unknown - headless chicken time for anyone in power. But how crap have all departments been - NHS/PHE, home office, education - every one of them useless. 7 -8 months they’ve had, we know who to protect. I just hope this forces the hand for proper social care - and a streamlining of the civil service, quangos, advisory bodies etc etc.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
436
Reaction score
266
Which is a measured argument, but what perhaps disappoints most is how rubbish the state machinery is ( except the Military - wonder why, simple chain of command and someone takes leadership). I know in March it was an unknown - headless chicken time for anyone in power. But how crap have all departments been - NHS/PHE, home office, education - every one of them useless. 7 -8 months they’ve had, we know who to protect. I just hope this forces the hand for proper social care - and a streamlining of the civil service, quangos, advisory bodies etc etc.

I think we expect too much from our political systems, they're notoriously fragile and chaotic organisations. A less suited structure for handling an emergency couldn't be designed. And in this case we had a brand new government still in internal conflict focusing on what they thought was the biggest problem in their administration - Brexit, remember that?

Not excuse, just reasons.
 

paddymc

Well-known member
Messages
3,763
Reaction score
198
I think we expect too much from our political systems, they're notoriously fragile and chaotic organisations. A less suited structure for handling an emergency couldn't be designed. And in this case we had a brand new government still in internal conflict focusing on what they thought was the biggest problem in their administration - Brexit, remember that?

Not excuse, just reasons.
How would you fancy having a 5 party coalition ruling ?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Messages
436
Reaction score
266
How would you fancy having a 5 party coalition ruling ?
Probably worse.

The only good thing about that sort of situation is that they can't do much damage because they can't get anything done.
(Unless, like now, something had to be done, and quickly).
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
718
Location
Cheshire
I think we expect too much from our political systems, they're notoriously fragile and chaotic organisations. A less suited structure for handling an emergency couldn't be designed. And in this case we had a brand new government still in internal conflict focusing on what they thought was the biggest problem in their administration - Brexit, remember that?

Not excuse, just reasons.
I dont think it is too much to expect the leaders of the country to lead.
Trouble starts when they try and get too involved in the detail and politicise everything.
Take a step back and lead.
The issue is, our politicians aren't leaders, which is why they try and bury themselves in the detail.
 

paddymc

Well-known member
Messages
3,763
Reaction score
198
Probably worse.

The only good thing about that sort of situation is that they can't do much damage because they can't get anything done.
(Unless, like now, something had to be done, and quickly).
Yes, exactly.
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
48
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
RISK

Of UK life expectancy, here is what is written:

“Life expectancy[edit]

In 2013 Life expectancy at birth for women was 83 years and for men 79 years.[3] Life expectancy in the UK is rising more slowly than in other comparable nations. Austerity may be a cause.[4] Underfunding of the NHS and Social care are blamed.[5]


In 2018 life expectancy in the UK stopped increasing for the first time since 1982 when recording started.[6] There were 50,100 excess deaths during winter 2017/2018 mostly among older people. This is the highest since 1976.

Cold weather and problems with flu vaccine are blamed. Also the NHS was underresourced, doctors and groups representing older people claim not enough was done to keep older people warm and safe.[7]
Source Here

And here below is a demographic pyramid graph from that source, showing how the age structure of the UK population is made up. I’ve modified it by adding in a couple of CV19-relevant annotations blocks with explanation:

View attachment 52894


We now know that the vast, vast majority of all folk do not even get ill from (let alone die of) CV19. The over 70s are at much the highest risk, and the average age of a CV19 death (>82 years) is above the average life expectancy (<82 years).

Tip of the iceberg stuff.


By contrast, the continual prolonged overreaction to CV19 (aka Lockdown) affects every one of the age sectors in that graph, not just the dwindling few at the top. More than that, every single sector of age ranges in that graph (excluding ironically the ones at the top) will be affected from the ongoing and future problems created directly and indirectly by the overreaction to CV19.


This is what the term “disproportionate overreaction” means when conducting a risk-assessment.

That’s not to say "oldies are expendable" as the reactionaries will paint the above. Far from it. But it’s definitely not to say that oldies should be wrapped in cotton wool and protected at all costs, at the expense of the lives and livelyhoods of the under 70s who have the most to loose.

For the vast majority of the populace, there appears to be no logical reason for them not to go about their usual business, carefully, as they did before the end of March 2020.

Unfortunately, many of the Talking Heads on the subject in medicine and Sage are either over or rapidly approaching 70, and hence could be seen to have even more Conflicts of Interest than the previously well documented ones affecting Sage members!!!

Great article here on how many journos have been acting as “fake news” propagandists and whipping up the scaremongering around CV19:

https://www.aier.org/article/the-blizzard-of-bogus-journalism-on-covid/

I'd recommend taking a bit of time out to get more background.

It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.





Finally, and again I recognise some folk will “send it straight to DVD” or more likely consider it beneath them to actually watch, but I think this is worth a listen, despite the source. After all FACTS are what we need (and I note Saffie, that what you propose as an IFR for CV19 is piffle, especially given the ongoing casedemic. Do you not see there’s a good chance, when all the data is in, that the actual death rates will be right down there with flu, and not an order of magnitude greater as you say ONS allege - based on modelled guesstimates, hence likely inherrently untrustworthy.)

But either way, CV19 is definitely, as Douglas Adams would have said, “Mostly Harmless”.


😉 Unlike the “cure”…



Anyroad, here’s an interesting use of the time it takes to make and drink a brew:


Amazing - he's talking freely and unmuzzled, to a free and unmuzzled audience sitting right next to each other. Any yet, if the Texan stats are to be believed this was not a "superspreader" event! How pray tell? Well, as he demonstrates in the talk, and as the above linked AIER paper shows, the truth is not what is being widely reported.

Back to his talk: Sweden gets a good mention about 4:50, the impact of unnecessary ineffectual Lockdowns and over-reaction to CV19 on the developing world (something I have been able to see for months) is also noted around 7:30 (ironically being spouted by someone who may probably think the UN should be de-funded!), some good bits about 9:30. Finally for those “enforced muzzlers” amongst our membership, may the bits around 13:40 finally open your eyes.

Reminds me of the once prolific poster Carrowmore, who claimed above on these pages that the Mask Mandate had been a rip-roaring success in Czech Republic. Well, what a difference a few weeks make in science. Here is the like for like comparison between Sweden (never any Lockdown, never any requirement to think about, let alone actually wear a muzzle) compared to Chechia:

View attachment 52896

For empiricists, surely that's a smoking gun!

I’m not cherry picking, honest, there are many more in the ppt he shows, I’m just using Czechia as IIRC Carrowmore raised it (these pages above) as a “Shining Example” of how muzzles work [oh, don’t you also miss a good C&R Stooshie?), and in the same way, it’s more like a “Busted Flush”.

NB - edits made as consequence of Saffie's post #8,940 in red.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
1,250
I see "project fear" is getting ramped up even more. Where does BJ get his speech writers from? I heard the below and it must have struck fear into millions of unsuspecting viewers settling down for the weekly Covid update........

"We all know 'tis the season to be jolly, but 'tis also the season to be jolly careful."

Where do they get off deliberately and maliciously striking fear into the general population like that??🤣
 
Top