Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[CliffEdge]

The Covid inquiry has shown how the scientific process was perverted by advisers steeped in groupthink

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/1 ... indicated/


Whether it’s the negative developmental effect on young children, stunning levels of non-Covid excess deaths, a ticking cancer time bomb, waves of mental health issues, the economic ramifications that affect every single one of us, increases in teenage eating disorders, business closures, wasted years – I could go on and on. Millions and millions of lives were disrupted and ruined, including those of the youngest and poorest in our society.

-----

I have little doubt that if a reasoned and fair analysis is ever conducted, the number of life-years lost to lockdown and its consequences will be far greater than those tragically taken by the virus


Everyone who supported or did not question the Covid restrictions is complicit to the long term negative outcomes. If you were foolish (small 'f') enough to be duped by the needless fear spread by those in positions of responsibility, this includes you!

If you still foolishly believe the Covid restrictions were the right thing to have done you are morally bankrupt.

Who do you think you are to make such a judgment about my conduct. I'm proud to be a generally law abiding citizen. So you can sod off.

[vrdiver]

For those who have forgotten, until Heneghan called them out on it, you could have had Covid in April 2020, died from being hit by a bus in June 2020 and you would have been counted as a Covid death . This was the corruption of statistics driving the Governments response during the pandemic. It would be funny if it didn't cost up £400bn+

My understanding was that the stats were simplified. The point was not to get the specific number of covid deaths but to identify a trend. Unless there was a massive increase in hit-by-bus deaths (and remember, this was lockdown, so all sorts of accidental death stats would have been lower due to people not doing those accident inducing activities) then including them made no effective difference to the trend.

Anyhow, here's a government explanation for why the data was managed this way:

For several months, the COVID-19 Data Dashboard has been reporting, for England, all deaths in people who have a positive test. This a robust measure as it uses the fact of a positive test and the fact of death to derive the number reported. However, it is only an approximation of the number of people who die from COVID-19 because other causes of death are included and some people who die from COVID-19 never had a positive test. It was decided to adopt this measure in April in order to be sure not to underestimate the number of COVID-19 related deaths. It was always intended to review the approach as the pandemic progressed.

The countries of the UK have been using slightly different methods. Scotland, for example, has only been counting deaths within 28 days of a positive test so that deaths from COVID-19 beyond 28 days are not included.

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/

There will always be interpretation of statistics, but let's not dismiss them without attempting to understand their actual value.

[Gersemi]

-----

I have little doubt that if a reasoned and fair analysis is ever conducted, the number of life-years lost to lockdown and its consequences will be far greater than those tragically taken by the virus


Everyone who supported or did not question the Covid restrictions is complicit to the long term negative outcomes. If you were foolish (small 'f') enough to be duped by the needless fear spread by those in positions of responsibility, this includes you!

If you still foolishly believe the Covid restrictions were the right thing to have done you are morally bankrupt.

But surely the comparison we need to make is between the number of life-years lost to lockdown and its consequences and the additional number of life years that would have been lost due to the virus if there hadn't been a lockdown. Of course this is unknowable so every else is just speculation.

[servodude]

-----

I have little doubt that if a reasoned and fair analysis is ever conducted, the number of life-years lost to lockdown and its consequences will be far greater than those tragically taken by the virus


Everyone who supported or did not question the Covid restrictions is complicit to the long term negative outcomes. If you were foolish (small 'f') enough to be duped by the needless fear spread by those in positions of responsibility, this includes you!

If you still foolishly believe the Covid restrictions were the right thing to have done you are morally bankrupt.

But surely the comparison we need to make is between the number of life-years lost to lockdown and its consequences and the additional number of life years that would have been lost due to the virus if there hadn't been a lockdown. Of course this is unknowable so every else is just speculation.

Well you'd also need to consider having started your "lockdown" (what a shite term!) at the appropriate time and not "Ah well I suppose we've sh*g*d that pooch we should do something".. if you're actually trying to do anything more than have a big stinky whinge?

[Tedx]

Why were 'life years' lost to lockdown?

Why were they lost at all? There was some aspects of lockdown I actually enjoyed. Mostly folk being pleasant to each other and the lack of cars on the road and we actually kept in touch more with friends and family than we do now!

We all adapted to it, got on with things. That's life etc. Imagine if it had happened 30 years ago? No internet, no discussion boards to have a moan on, no Netflix, no working from home. Nightmare.

[Ashfordian]

For those who have forgotten, until Heneghan called them out on it, you could have had Covid in April 2020, died from being hit by a bus in June 2020 and you would have been counted as a Covid death . This was the corruption of statistics driving the Governments response during the pandemic. It would be funny if it didn't cost up £400bn+

My understanding was that the stats were simplified. The point was not to get the specific number of covid deaths but to identify a trend. Unless there was a massive increase in hit-by-bus deaths (and remember, this was lockdown, so all sorts of accidental death stats would have been lower due to people not doing those accident inducing activities) then including them made no effective difference to the trend.

Anyhow, here's a government explanation for why the data was managed this way:

For several months, the COVID-19 Data Dashboard has been reporting, for England, all deaths in people who have a positive test. This a robust measure as it uses the fact of a positive test and the fact of death to derive the number reported. However, it is only an approximation of the number of people who die from COVID-19 because other causes of death are included and some people who die from COVID-19 never had a positive test. It was decided to adopt this measure in April in order to be sure not to underestimate the number of COVID-19 related deaths. It was always intended to review the approach as the pandemic progressed.

The countries of the UK have been using slightly different methods. Scotland, for example, has only been counting deaths within 28 days of a positive test so that deaths from COVID-19 beyond 28 days are not included.

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/

There will always be interpretation of statistics, but let's not dismiss them without attempting to understand their actual value.

Your understanding is wrong. This is just one of the news articles from the time - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ot-by-much

It must have just been a coincidence that Matt Hancock ordered an urgent review into how PHE was counting Covid deaths just after Carl Heneghan raised the issue. And why was it just Public Health England counting deaths in this way, and not PH Scotland or Wales?

Fortunately, with the intervention of the internet the Government cannot rewrite history so easily. All your Government link demonstrates is that they have wasted time trying to cover their backsides, rather than accept they were incompetent (or intentionally manipulated the statistics).

[Ashfordian]

Why were 'life years' lost to lockdown?

Why were they lost at all? There was some aspects of lockdown I actually enjoyed. Mostly folk being pleasant to each other and the lack of cars on the road and we actually kept in touch more with friends and family than we do now!

We all adapted to it, got on with things. That's life etc. Imagine if it had happened 30 years ago? No internet, no discussion boards to have a moan on, no Netflix, no working from home. Nightmare.

The bit in bold simply demonstrates the blinkered view the gullible have of lockdown. They only want to believe they were doing good, rather than admit their acceptance and compliance will lead to more deaths and hardship than lockdown saved.

And without the interest, no working from home, etc, we would not have had a lockdown, not wasted hundreds of billions of pounds, and not have to live with the negative effects of our overreaction to Covid for at least the next couple of decades...

[Saintsslav]

it would then also probably be all over much sooner , and most of us ( the survivors ) will be immune .

dreadful scenario.

Not so fast. The emerging view is that you can catch coronavirus multiple times, because it mutates rapidly, and because there's no backup reservoir" of resistance to it.

The govt expert Whitty (I think it was him?) was saying on the BBC news the other might that mortalities among the over-eighties might possibly reach 15%. I have no idea whether that's right or wrong - but what seems likely is that once the virus has picked off the elderly, it'll turn its attention to younger and less vulnerable people.

That Chinese doctor who first flagged up the virus was barely out of his forties, by the look of him, but it didn't help him. I would hate to see anybody smugging about how it's only the OAPs who'll get hit. For more reasons than one.

BJ

Fact

[servodude]

Not so fast. The emerging view is that you can catch coronavirus multiple times, because it mutates rapidly, and because there's no backup reservoir" of resistance to it.

The govt expert Whitty (I think it was him?) was saying on the BBC news the other might that mortalities among the over-eighties might possibly reach 15%. I have no idea whether that's right or wrong - but what seems likely is that once the virus has picked off the elderly, it'll turn its attention to younger and less vulnerable people.

That Chinese doctor who first flagged up the virus was barely out of his forties, by the look of him, but it didn't help him. I would hate to see anybody smugging about how it's only the OAPs who'll get hit. For more reasons than one.

BJ

Fact

Which bit?
Cos the bit in bold is bollox and I think we covered why here within about half an hour of the pandemic being picked up...

EDIT: oops. I replied to a necropost!! Grrr....
Anyways the other reply stands https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=290135#p290135

[bungeejumper]

EDIT: oops. I replied to a necropost!! Grrr....
Anyways the other reply stands https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=290135#p290135

Yeah, well, fair dos, that was back in March 2020, when it was all just scary and nobody could say very much with any degree of certainty.

We're all older and wiser these days. Well, those who didn't die, anyway. (So not including my next door neighbour, who did.)

BJ

[servodude]

EDIT: oops. I replied to a necropost!! Grrr....
Anyways the other reply stands https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=290135#p290135

Yeah, well, fair dos, that was back in March 2020, when it was all just scary and nobody could say very much with any degree of certainty.

We're all older and wiser these days. Well, those who didn't die, anyway. (So not including my next door neighbour, who did.)

BJ

Well it's good to know we can start making jokes about it now
- must be officially over

[qwaszx]

https: slash-slash pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/ (I can’t post links yet)

“ Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants”

[CliffEdge]

https: slash-slash pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/ (I can’t post links yet)

“ Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants”

Cool, man.

[Mike4]

https: slash-slash pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/ (I can’t post links yet)

“ Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants”

I can though!

Bear in mind pubmed is not peer-reviewed research, AIUI.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/


"Abstract
As a complement to vaccines, small-molecule therapeutic agents are needed to treat or prevent infections by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, which cause COVID-19. Affinity selection-mass spectrometry was used for the discovery of botanical ligands to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Cannabinoid acids from hemp (Cannabis sativa) were found to be allosteric as well as orthosteric ligands with micromolar affinity for the spike protein. In follow-up virus neutralization assays, cannabigerolic acid and cannabidiolic acid prevented infection of human epithelial cells by a pseudovirus expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevented entry of live SARS-CoV-2 into cells. Importantly, cannabigerolic acid and cannabidiolic acid were equally effective against the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant B.1.1.7 and the beta variant B.1.351. Orally bioavailable and with a long history of safe human use, these cannabinoids, isolated or in hemp extracts, have the potential to prevent as well as treat infection by SARS-CoV-2."

[XFool]

I feared scientific advisers were being used by the government – the Covid inquiry shows they were

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/03/scientific-advisers-covid-inquiry-chris-whitty-scientists

I told Chris Whitty at the time that scientists were providing cover for weak leaders taking harmful decisions

Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

"I recall watching this at the time and growing increasingly frustrated by what seemed like tacit support for a government that was costing people their lives and livelihoods. On 28 May 2020, I wrote Whitty an email outlining my concerns (I share this now, given it is a public document and shared with the inquiry team). I wrote: “I have been quite taken aback by how science is being used as a shield for political decisions – and the use of the phrase ‘following the science’ when it is clear that scientists across the world would not reach that conclusion, nor the WHO Health Emergencies Team which I work closely with.”"

[Bouleversee]

Did you get a reply, XFool ?

[Julian]

Did you get a reply, XFool ?

XFool was quoting an academic from Edinburgh University - Prof Devi Sridhar. She was the person saying that she had written to Whitty with her concerns. Whether she ever got an answer is indeed an interesting question.

When XFool posted the name I recognised it and could instantly see Prof Sridhar's face in my mind. She was one of the experts who was interviewed quite often on one of the news programs during the pandemic. I forget which particular program had her on its list of good expert interviewees, maybe Newsnight. I seem to remember that at the time (i.e. during the height of the pandemic) she was often openly critical of government policy during many of those interviews that I saw.

- Julian

[Ashfordian]

Devi Sridhar. 'Expert' or Zero-Covid loon?

She wrote are article in The Guardian in December 2020 about how we should "eliminate the virus"

It was obvious in March 2020 that this virus could not be eliminated. How can some be an 'expert' and write that nonsense in December 2020?

She was a lead advisor to Nicola Sturgeon. Obvious in hindsight when you see the mistakes made by the Scottish Government. Although I suspect many of those decisions were made with an Independence vote in mind.

[XFool]

Devi Sridhar. 'Expert' or Zero-Covid loon?

She wrote are article in The Guardian in December 2020 about how we should "eliminate the virus"

It was obvious in March 2020 that this virus could not be eliminated. How can some be an 'expert' and write that nonsense in December 2020?

She was a lead advisor to Nicola Sturgeon. Obvious in hindsight when you see the mistakes made by the Scottish Government. Although I suspect many of those decisions were made with an Independence vote in mind.

The above is what you get when you confuse politics with science.

Some reality:

2020 Coronavirus policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Sridhar#2020_Coronavirus_policy
(Read the whole thing)
"Sridhar co-authored an open letter in The Lancet (15 October 2020) that has been referred to as the John Snow Memorandum. The letter, which calls for science-based public health policy and rejects "naturally acquired herd immunity" as a dangerous fallacy, received 2000 signatures from the science and healthcare community within 24 hours."

[Ashfordian]

Devi Sridhar. 'Expert' or Zero-Covid loon?

She wrote are article in The Guardian in December 2020 about how we should "eliminate the virus"

It was obvious in March 2020 that this virus could not be eliminated. How can some be an 'expert' and write that nonsense in December 2020?

She was a lead advisor to Nicola Sturgeon. Obvious in hindsight when you see the mistakes made by the Scottish Government. Although I suspect many of those decisions were made with an Independence vote in mind.

The above is what you get when you confuse politics with science.

Some reality:

2020 Coronavirus policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Sridhar#2020_Coronavirus_policy
(Read the whole thing)
"Sridhar co-authored an open letter in The Lancet (15 October 2020) that has been referred to as the John Snow Memorandum. The letter, which calls for science-based public health policy and rejects "naturally acquired herd immunity" as a dangerous fallacy, received 2000 signatures from the science and healthcare community within 24 hours."

It seems you want to deny that Devi Sridhar is a Zero Covid loon. (I do question why you are trying to deny what she has written?)

Here it is in her own words from December 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-variants

Now more than ever, it’s clear why we need a proactive strategy to eliminate Covid altogether.

Someone who thought we could eliminate Covid is clearly not an 'expert'