No vaccine for me thanks...someone else can have my dosage as I'm kind like that and don't believe in all this bollox In the first place... When I see funeral pyres on the moors and people collapsing in the streets en masse then I might take it more seriously but so far all I've seen is panic by stupid people making stupid decisions and I would sooner rely on my own judgement and ability to assess a situation for myself than listen to some so called expert that knows f#ck all... As for the general public at large, most are f#cking idiots so let nature take its course...rant over..
Never in the history of mankind have so many been so stupid.. I think mankind as peaked and its all downhill from here..
I can see it now. At first, vaccine is voluntary, then mandatory with no penalty, then mandatory and you must prove you've had it to buy food and keep your job.
Well looky who re-tweeted the Cummins video..... Carl Heneghan https://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/find-an-expert/professor-carl-heneghan Meanwhile Dominic’s activism has been infected by Stuart Fillingham’s Mogadon manner! I don’t profess to know but the official narrative is fraying.
I could only get just over 4 minutes in, as it seems to me that this guy is attributing statements and conclusions to the original that are not being made This is data from the ONS... This apears to show that Covid-19 was only responsible for more deaths than influenza and pneumonia during a period of two months between 27th March and 29th May, it also shows that total number of deaths only rose above the 5 year average between that period also, and for most of the year the death rate has been below the 5 year average. In addition it shows that since June influenza and pneumonia has been killing more people than Covid-19. This data would seem to support much of the general message that is trying to be presented in the original video.
Another interesting article... not directly related to the above discussion, but a little bit sort of is for those disinclined to read the full text, I’ll leave the closing statement here... Our comprehensive systematic review provides the best available information on three simple and common interventions to combat the immediate threat of COVID-19, while new evidence on pharmacological treatments, vaccines, and other personal protective strategies is being generated. Physical distancing of at least 1 m is strongly associated with protection, but distances of up to 2 m might be more effective. Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
lockdown was enforced around the 16th to 22nd wasn’t it? I wonder how not having that enforced reduced social contact would have affected the peak/curve... would it have been higher/wider, the same or lower/narrower?
Funny. The medical staff at the hospital I go to for treatments says do not wear masks for medical professionals or N95 masks. They suggest cloth.
The Patriot Post® · Constitution Prevails Over PA Lockdown By Nate Jackson · Sep. 15, 2020 Statewide lockdown orders are “such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV in striking down Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Tom Wolf’s onerous order closing all “non-life sustaining businesses” to combat the coronavirus pandemic1. Back in May, a coalition of federal and state representatives, counties, and small businesses sued Wolf and Dr. “Rachel” Levine, Pennsylvania’s health secretary and [the nation’s only “transgendered” individual in such a position of (ahem) scientific expertise. “The science takes time,” Levine, born Richard but posing as a female, said earlier this year while defending the lockdowns. But, as Mark Alexander wrote at the time2, “If Levine can’t produce ‘the science’ to show he has transitioned genders, that tends to undermine his credibility when dictating what Pennsylvanians can and can’t do without likewise producing the science.” As for the court ruling, Stickman stuck to the Constitution. Even after some of Pennsylvania’s restrictions had been eased, his declaratory judgment says “(1) that the congregate gathering limits imposed by defendants’ mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” While Stickman, an appointee of Donald Trump, acknowledged that Wolf’s order was “undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” he concluded that “even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered.” Moreover, “Good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge. Indeed, the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable and the intent is good — especially in time of emergency.” “The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble,” Stickman elaborated. “There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.” “Rather,” he concluded, “the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the court to declare those actions unconstitutional.” This ruling does several things beyond the immediate implications: It reveals that Democrats will exceed their authority whenever the fit takes them. It shows that Trump’s remaking of the judiciary is critical and must continue. And it should remind all Americans that we live not under the whim of any elected official but under the Rule of Law enshrined in the Constitution.
Data from Sweden might suggest that it made little or no difference, as the data in the Cummings video also seems to suggest.
Have you read the words at the top of the graph? It’s a bit like Ivor’s video... interesting but to be taken with a touch of scepticism... I’d be really interested if Ivor’s work was properly peer reviewed (and that would mean by scientists/researchers at the same level and in the same areas of work on which he is commentating) in the mean time, excess deaths are worth looking at... https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
I don't see what point you are trying to make If Sweden is anything like the UK then the numbers regarding deaths attributed to Covid-19 are more likely to have been over estimated than under estimated. And the data in the link you provided seems to back up the point that after the inital mass infection and unfortunate deaths of those most at risk (very elderly or with pre-existing conditions), the death rate within two months returned to normal range in nearly every country, and did so in the UK where we had an enforced severe lockdown, and also in Sweden where there was not an enforced lockdown ...or am I missing something?
I think you maybe missing my point... because I’m not trying specifically to make one, I’m trying to add to the discussion or find interesting information... Ivor’s video is interesting but I wonder about some of the comparisons he was using and on my phone it was difficult to tell what graphs etc he was actually using etc... plus in the area he’s dabbling in, I’m a layman and would like to see that discussion taken up on both sides by people in that field. So like the chart I pointed out to you that isn’t often regarded the best (as it states itself) I posted the excess deaths web page which is regarded as a better measure as far as I’m aware. You’ve posted the excess deaths for the U.K. countries v Sweden... again, I don’t know if that’s a fair comparison... does population density get accounted for in this lot? Is there an optimum population density for SARS spreading etc? Sweden pd =25/sq km Scotland pd =70/sq km NI pd =136/sq km Wales pd =151/sq km England pd =430/sq km
Initially we were told the the government would act based on science and data, and seemed initially to favour the herd immunity science (as did Sweden), but the UK media went into hysteria and then IMO the government seemed throw science and data out of the window and just react to the baying screams of the media. I also would like to see honest and comprehensive debate about the Covid situation and our governments actions in response to it. However the debate so far has been very one-sided with anyone (including health and virology professionals) who did not agree with the government line being censored and shut down. YouTube and other platforms were even blocking non approved content that even mentioned the words Corona Virus or Covid-19. Regarding my selection of countries, I only selected UK and Sweden as those I regarded as most relevent to this discussion, I could have included many others including the Covid hot spots of Italy and Spain, the data in the source you provided shows the situation is the same for many countries, after the initial virus hit death rates returned to normal levels (in some cases below normal) after about a two month period. Regarding population density, the UK is one of the most densly populated countries in the world, so you might expect that virus transmission would be higher and faster than in a lot of other countries, which you could argue adds weight to the argument of reaching herd immunity as put forward in the Cummings video. I know sweet FA about virology, but looking at the current data it does look to me (just my opinion) like there was little the government could do to prevent the unfortunate deaths that have occured, and I am not trying to apportion blame to anyone (other than perhaps the media). However, I do fear that future decisions may still be made based on hysteria (or to cover/backup previous hysterical decisions) rather than current science and actual factual data.
One of the interesting things on the data you last showed is the huge peak in England compared to the less densely populated rest of the U.K. and Sweden looks more like them than it does England... The impression I got regarding Herd immunity was that the government advisors got the shakes as they realised that the virus would swamp the health service and changed their plans to try and “flatten the curve”... not to stop the inevitable but to slow it down and allow the nhs some coping room. Looking on my phone, it looks like there is a change in trajectory of the curve in that ONS data graph, a couple of weeks or so after lockdown... so maybe it did help?
