The Lemon Fool

Ashfordian wrote: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.

Ashfordian wrote: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+

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.

Ashfordian wrote:
-----

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.

Gersemi wrote:

Ashfordian wrote:
-----

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.

vrdiver wrote:

Ashfordian wrote: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.

Tedx wrote: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.

bungeejumper wrote:

jackdaww wrote: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

Saintsslav wrote:

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

bungeejumper wrote:

servodude wrote: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

qwaszx wrote: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”

qwaszx wrote: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”

Bouleversee wrote:Did you get a reply, XFool ?

Ashfordian wrote: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 wrote:

Ashfordian wrote: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."

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