-
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Typical propaganda from the pro-vaccine cabal to brainwash the sheeple.
I suggest you do your own research, maybe watch some youtube videos from discredited scientists, it's a real eye-opener.Smallpox Vaccine - 1796. Electric Telegraph -1795
Polio Vaccine - 1955 Integrated Circuits Developed - 1953
Measles Vaccine - 1963. Digital IC's developed - 1961
Covid-19 Vaccine - 2021. 5G rollout commenced 2020
More than a co-incidence, I reckon
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
notice how he didn't even mention autism?
I'd love to see the arsehole who pushed that BS theory as fact prosecuted for fraud. It's caused so much damage and heartache - and not just to gullible people.
Friend of Mrs M is a clinical psychologist with an autistic son and blames the MMR jab and has refused any vaccine since - including the Covid jab - even though she's severely at risk. My oldest UK friend is a multi-lingual trademarks lawyer whose son has medium-severe Aspergers and while her head rules and she gets all her jabs, still struggles at times to convince herself it wasn't the MMR jab which caused the condition.
Imagine the impact on less well-informed people.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Yeh he’s still peddling that garbage, though no mainstream medical forum seems to want to play, thank God.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew Yeh he’s still peddling that garbage, though no mainstream medical forum seems to want to play, thank God.
Wakefield is a celebrity and in demand on the talk circuit in the US apparently. What a surprise
-
@Siam said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Some humour
Waiting... ?
You seem to have mixed up your "humour video" with "debunked scientists reciting trumped-up data on youtube have stopped working, so lets just use an old meme-type video with a heap of nonsensical and hysterical claims thrown on top of it" - and posted the latter?
-
@Kruse aaghhh you got me😄
What's the mortality rate and average age of covid deaths again?😉
It's prudent to continually test lockdown theories now and for the future. Disproving "conspiracies" is far more preferable to pejoratively dismissing them.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Typical propaganda from the pro-vaccine cabal to brainwash the sheeple.
I suggest you do your own research, maybe watch some youtube videos from discredited scientists, it's a real eye-opener.Smallpox Vaccine - 1796. Electric Telegraph -1795
Polio Vaccine - 1955 Integrated Circuits Developed - 1953
Measles Vaccine - 1963. Digital IC's developed - 1961
Covid-19 Vaccine - 2021. 5G rollout commenced 2020
More than a co-incidence, I reckon
I think the @nostrildamus handle is already taken.
-
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
Very good read
Not sure about this though
‘Around 20% of the population have had the virus, of whom over 100,000 have died. If 40% got it, 200,000 would be dead. If 60% got it, 300,000 would be dead. And so on.
This is just science and the remorseless logic of exponential growth.’
That would assume that there is an homogenous distribution of people to whom Covid-19 would prove fatal across the UK regardless of geography, race, age, wealth, and pre-existing health.
-
@MiketheSnow the disparity between the mortality rates of the two waves alone disproves such a linear argument.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
Very good read
Not sure about this though
‘Around 20% of the population have had the virus, of whom over 100,000 have died. If 40% got it, 200,000 would be dead. If 60% got it, 300,000 would be dead. And so on.
This is just science and the remorseless logic of exponential growth.’
That would assume that there is an homogenous distribution of people to whom Covid-19 would prove fatal across the UK regardless of geography, race, age, wealth, and pre-existing health.
It must assume all things being equal. My hunch is that the ‘first’ 100,000 were not only unlucky and on average unhealthy, but also more susceptible. In which case the next 20% might be expected to have lower mortality.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
Very good read
Not sure about this though
‘Around 20% of the population have had the virus, of whom over 100,000 have died. If 40% got it, 200,000 would be dead. If 60% got it, 300,000 would be dead. And so on.
This is just science and the remorseless logic of exponential growth.’
That would assume that there is an homogenous distribution of people to whom Covid-19 would prove fatal across the UK regardless of geography, race, age, wealth, and pre-existing health.
and there's a rate piece in there too. If we get it slowly (flatten the curve anyone?) then the medical system can cope. If it overloads, you get the Italy situation - triaging patients, and leaving people to die. Mortality rate climbs.
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
The problem with balanced, researched, and sources-cited articles like this... the "lock down just doesn't work" part of the public simply doesn't read them.
They want catchy memes, with no thought required to re-inforce the theories that they WANT to be true.
The hitler meme, with continuous ranting about "you've all been duped by CCP science, and ignored Western Science which always knew lockdowns didn't work, you sheeple" - with zero facts or basis - will always trump a full article describing how "Western Science does in fact support lockdowns, and always has - because... not just common sense, but also these facts, and this recorded data, and this lot, and this. Oh - and look, here's a handful of pretty graphs for those you are 'visual learners'. And, yes, there are some obvious downsides to them, so it's always going to be a balancing act." -
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
The problem with balanced, researched, and sources-cited articles like this... the "lock down just doesn't work" part of the public simply doesn't read them.
They want catchy memes, with no thought required to re-inforce the theories that they WANT to be true.
The hitler meme, with continuous ranting about "you've all been duped by CCP science, and ignored Western Science which always knew lockdowns didn't work, you sheeple" - with zero facts or basis - will always trump a full article describing how "Western Science does in fact support lockdowns, and always has - because... not just common sense, but also these facts, and this recorded data, and this lot, and this. Oh - and look, here's a handful of pretty graphs for those you are 'visual learners'. And, yes, there are some obvious downsides to them, so it's always going to be a balancing act."You haven't used science to back up the efficacy or lack of collateral damage of a year of lockdowns. All you've done is deride the people that don't agree with you. You even claim to know what people are thinking and what they want.
Perhaps people believe there are different more nuanced strategies. Perhaps people believe that, if given a coherent and consistent message that the people don't need government fines to observe social distancing and behaviours that lead to less transmission.
Perhaps people are wanting their doubts discussed on accessible media that comprehensively addresses and dispels the 30,000 health experts that made up the Barrington Agreement. Perhaps the people wonder why pandemic strategies and WHO pandemic guidelines of 2019 were immediately disregarded.Perhaps people want to see a cost benefit analysis of 2020 strategies.
Perhaps people are concerned that the government interference in their lives is an over reach for a "natural" event that has a demonstrable effect on a very particular segment of society. The same governments that many believe aren't equipped with a history of caring about you more than your family friends and community. The same members of governments that break lockdown restrictions.
I can understand frustration at experts ( not you) having to placate questioning sceptics, but to dismiss scientific enquiry as simply the ranting of inferior people is the least productive aspect of the common goal - to rid society of covid.
The only thing worse than lockdowns is surely silencing questions about lockdown. The efficacy of lockdowns requires data and discussion and evidence. If it's the best strategy, and I hope it is, then it will be demonstrably provable and explained. And for that we'll need facts, recorded data and yes, pretty graphs.
What's wrong with questioning a phenomenon that no one yet has all the answers for?
-
@Siam said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Good article. Also some Ferners caught playing away! https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2021/02/do-lockdowns-work.html?m=1
The problem with balanced, researched, and sources-cited articles like this... the "lock down just doesn't work" part of the public simply doesn't read them.
They want catchy memes, with no thought required to re-inforce the theories that they WANT to be true.
The hitler meme, with continuous ranting about "you've all been duped by CCP science, and ignored Western Science which always knew lockdowns didn't work, you sheeple" - with zero facts or basis - will always trump a full article describing how "Western Science does in fact support lockdowns, and always has - because... not just common sense, but also these facts, and this recorded data, and this lot, and this. Oh - and look, here's a handful of pretty graphs for those you are 'visual learners'. And, yes, there are some obvious downsides to them, so it's always going to be a balancing act."You haven't used science to back up the efficacy or lack of collateral damage of a year of lockdowns. All you've done is deride the people that don't agree with you. You even claim to know what people are thinking and what they want.
Perhaps people believe there are different more nuanced strategies. Perhaps people believe that, if given a coherent and consistent message that the people don't need government fines to observe social distancing and behaviours that lead to less transmission.
Perhaps people are wanting their doubts discussed on accessible media that comprehensively addresses and dispels the 30,000 health experts that made up the Barrington Agreement. Perhaps the people wonder why pandemic strategies and WHO pandemic guidelines of 2019 were immediately disregarded.Perhaps people want to see a cost benefit analysis of 2020 strategies.
Perhaps people are concerned that the government interference in their lives is an over reach for a "natural" event that has a demonstrable effect on a very particular segment of society. The same governments that many believe aren't equipped with a history of caring about you more than your family friends and community. The same members of governments that break lockdown restrictions.
I can understand frustration at experts ( not you) having to placate questioning sceptics, but to dismiss scientific enquiry as simply the ranting of inferior people is the least productive aspect of the common goal - to rid society of covid.
The only thing worse than lockdowns is surely silencing questions about lockdown. The efficacy of lockdowns requires data and discussion and evidence. If it's the best strategy, and I hope it is, then it will be demonstrably provable and explained. And for that we'll need facts, recorded data and yes, pretty graphs.
What's wrong with questioning a phenomenon that no one yet has all the answers for?
No - I'm not using science to back up anything. I'm only deriding people who use zero science in their arguments, and applauding the people that do cite references/sources/science in theirs... and perhaps highlighting a theory that one group of people tends to the first approach.
And - I also agree that there are certainly "more nuanced strategies" - in fact, I pointed out, as did the article cited by @pakman - that for the whole "to lockdown, or not to lockdown, that is the question" debate - the more scientific articles typically DO reference the obvious downsides of lockdowns... the side-effects, etc... just like scientific analysis typically does.
The whole "lockdowns don't work, our governments are fooling us" side of the argument... typically does not. Rather, as my post was mostly pointing out, they used to be pseudo-scientists producing dodgy youtube videos, and more recently - just cut-to-the-chase hysterical memes.Generally - the "efficacy of lockdown" HAS had discussion, HAS had plenty of data and evidence, and it HAS been demonstrably proven and explained.
AND - has down-sides which have plenty of data, plenty of evidence, but is still accumulating, as the economic effects, in particular, are probably going to have a several-year lead-time.Feel free to question a "phenomenon", but I haven't seen any questioning.
And one thing I fear - the more hysterical and nonsensical the anti-lockdown brigade comes across now... when it's been proven, and is obvious, that they are nutters... the less likely it is that anybody will be taken seriously when real and necessary questions are raised concerning governmental or societal movements in the future.
Anyway -that's my last word... I'd promised myself I wouldn't even respond to this thread any more, thinking of Mark Twain's quote regarding onlookers... but your response was on the surface fairly well-thought out, and I've been drinking, so figured it deserved one more response.
Also - another point I've already raised - logic, science, and all the things which typically back those lovely things up - aren't going to change the mind of people who obviously WANT a thing to be true.
When you watch one side of a debate constantly twisting and changing it's front-of-attack/defense... you know you're pretty much debating religion with a catholic. -
@Rapido said in Coronavirus - Overall:
The excess mortality data is getting more 'complete' as the pandemic nears a year old.
So, this page is quite interesting to see the patterns.
I'm surprised the UK one isn't much darker over January. The death toll has been very high. Having said that, apparently flu was 95% down, so this has been somewhat offset. The cold weather across the country right now may have something to say about that.
Coronavirus - Overall