Except I don’t see it as a conspiracy per se. Incompetents, venality and a certain power crazing with multiple different motives. The pathologists aren’t seeing your second wave beyond the normal blip as a new virus slips from epidemic to endemic seasonal. Here’s your ambulance call outs
Wrong again. Lockdown drastically reduced seasonal infection spreading. Despite that more death.. Next. And please always source the curve you drop, otherwise we could think you get that from random twitter bull... stuff.
Not sure if Hubaxe is familiar with An old comedy played out in a cafe in occupied France where all nationalities are lampooned as stereotypes and Officer Crabtree is an undercover British agent who speaks execrable Franglais.
10M British ‘essential workers’ still outwith lockdown. You talk and deny but never add an iota of contradictory evidence. Nul points!
And the data is ALL official UK Emergency service sourced...... I don’t use some grenier keyboard warrior!!
Wrong again, yes workers are out of lockdown, they now use safety process they didn't past years, now have to wear mask, clean tools/computer/whatever you like with anti virus solution. That also contributed to reduce seasonal infections. So you don't get the point.
Interesting to see you mentioned having faith in Ferguson, do you see pigs flying or dancing unicorns as well?
Apparently the German tv people loved it but were unable to voice over and screen it due to national ‘sensibilities’.
Pigs? Nah. He had thousands needlessly slaughtered with plenty other livestock. My vet Dad ran a chunk of the ‘67 Foot & Mouth outbreak in Cheshire. He raged at their more recent epidemiological incompetence but the State Veterinary Service was taken as a peace dividend now we have experts like SAGE.
Interesting, I'll ask about, one of my 35 year friend is german. We often discuss the impact of blockbusters with nazi etc, even for comedy. The new generation is not responsible at all of the past, but they still have this "thing" over their head
A pig with a unicorn would be a great wrestling costume !! Tom you are brilliant! You explain jokes, etc etc.. let's be friend.
Did you read Ferguson's interviw with the Times. https://archive.vn/Kq3ih (The original is behind a paywall.) Some quotes... “Of course we knew it was possible that social distancing could control a respiratory virus, but there is an enormous cost associated with it.” Back in 2019, about the time someone was having bat soup, no European country’s pandemic plans seriously entertained the prospect of putting a country on pause. Then, that’s what China did. “I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March,” Professor Ferguson says. Professor Ferguson, 52, did not start as an epidemiologist. He studied for a PhD in physics at Oxford... “I didn’t even do biology O-level."... ...the question history could well ask of Britain, why did we not lock down sooner? In January, members of SAGE, the government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China enacted this innovative intervention in pandemic control that was also a medieval intervention. “They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.” Then, as infections seeded across the world... Sage debated whether, nevertheless, it would be effective here. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought, and then Italy did it, and we realised we could.”
Its always going to be political. political /pəˈlɪtɪk(ə)l/ adjective adjective: political 1. relating to the government or public affairs of a country.
The problem I and many others have with Ferguson is his catastrophic trail of completely inaccurate modelling fiascos.,starting in 2001 with foot and mouth then bird flue,mad cows,swine flue,etc until we reach Covid in 2020 when he advised that 400k could die. Now any fool can criticise,however with such a dire track record,it beggars belief that anyone could possibly take the results of his modelling seriously.
@figwold This getting long so I am not reply conventianly. https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...he-pandemic-is-fundamentally-over-in-the-u-k/ This seems to be a game of "Find the Lady" One moment its refuting Dr Yeadon, then its getting stuck in to Hartley-Brewer. At no point does it address the points of Positives with no symptoms being called cases, only by Government, or present Covid 19 (symptomless and dead) being counted as positive by the test itself. I took Yeadon to mean that a combination of test false positives, + data collection changes + counting in dead covid cases, combined can lead to a total that may be as high as 90% ( a scare figure designed partly to emulate government scare tactics I have no doubt) Aside.Why have the government take the step of using the most inaccurate test, of the 3 I have heard mentioned, in fact, the one that records the highest positive "cases" result. quote. “But if you turn up to a testing centre you’re already thinking: ‘I might have [COVID-19]’ and if you turn up with a cough and a fever then it’s probably quite a high probability that you have [COVID-19].” Or you have been sent or you thought you would check or someone you know shows signes ( of the flu) or you had a day off and felt concerned For the good of mankind, or it was a chance to get out the house(joke). quote Furthermore, if a majority or almost all tests are false positives, then we should expect to see this reflected in the positivity rate, which tells us the proportion of positive tests among all tests performed. The graph below by Our World in Data shows that the positivity rate in the U.K. has reached about 20% at its highest point (Figure 1). At no point in time has the positivity rate in the U.K. approached 90%. The overall false result of testing may be as high as 90%, ( scare figure tit for tat), not the test positive alone. The false positive, F.P. is the amount of test testing positive, wrongly, not the amount of test applied. quote The suggestion that COVID-19 PCR testing produces false positives as a result of “cross-reacting” and detecting common cold coronaviruses is unsupported. As this previous Health Feedback review explained, the PCR test for COVID-19 is highly specific for SARS-CoV-2 and does not detect coronaviruses that cause the common cold. ok. only no mention of dead virus or non symptom showing virus ( no not medically a "case" At this point I have dismissed this article cos I'm making a Banoffee pie.( Busy busy. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/covid-19-how-reliable-are-test-results/ This seems to be the article mention in the first link and used for validation. And although in and of its self honest, it does not discuss many of the points raised by Yeadon. quote Furthermore Chris Whitby said today that the latest ONS figures estimated that 1 in 50 people in the population had COVID. At that level then, even if those taking the PCR test are no more likely to be infected than the population as a whole, Dr Yeadon’s 90% false positive claim falls to less than 50%. Then factor in cases which are "non-cases and dead covid on top of your 50% and you get a figure which is inaccurate Then extrapalating these figure through the course of the illness and you find a much less violent virus. Disclaimer I am an ejit.
So where do you get the evidence of his “catastrophic trail of completely inaccurate modelling fiascos” from then Tom?
Also it must be asked. Why are we having so much trouble at this point dealing with fundamental Scientific principles? Calculating and testing results. I would have assumed that these are foundations of analysis and not, up for grabs, as they seem at the moment to be. `Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).
