Coronavirus

[Ldr]

It is factual to say then that 200k deaths were registered in the period you mention. To assume they all died from Covid is that, an assumption and I think that’s an important point to make. Other factors linked to covid will be at play, the shutdown of elective surgery, cancellation of clinics etc. will have contributed to that excess death figure.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ldr

We've been through this over and over again.

If you really think the overwhelming majority of the excess deaths weren't BECAUSE of COVID, how do you explain the fact that the trend in excess deaths pretty much exactly matched the trend in COVID cases 1-2 weeks before?

You surely aren't telling me that the number of cancellations of clinics or elective surgery matched the number of COVID cases are you? Or that thousands of people suddenly died a week after their clinic was cancelled?

[Ldr]

No what I am simply saying is you have an interpretation of available numbers, it is wrong to paint your conclusions as fact without evidence to back it up that’s all.

[Nudga]

Midazolam played it's part too.

[SydneyRover]

Updated in August.

''Overall, the number of people who have died from Covid-19 to end-July 2022 is 180,000, about 1 in 8 of all deaths in England and Wales during the pandemic.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19#impact-on-life-expectancy

[Panda]

There is no way of knowing or measuring if the vaccines have saved lives also. Most people might have already had immunity before the vaccines became available anyway.

[Colin C No.3]

There is no way of knowing or measuring if the vaccines have saved lives also. Most people might have already had immunity before the vaccines became available anyway.

I had no immunity until I was vaccinated.

Your ‘throw away’ comments are laughable….. Handshake.

[Panda]

Glad to be of comedic service to you Mr number 3. Or should that be, number 2?

[TommyC]

BST - that's way off the mark in terms of careful and detailed analysis. You know this.

Deaths with does not equal deaths from - lets start there.

Further, the excess deaths that can be measured are partly to do with (I'm being kind) a stretched health service that let people die it would otherwise have kept alive. And then there are direct deaths from the lockdown effect - suicides, vulnerable people not receiving proper care, people not asking for help due to the "only contact the health service if it's essential", and so on, lots more reasons.

I have no doubt covid was a very serious illness, especially in its first incarnation.

The management should have been to protect vulnerable, isolate the infected, and to allow others to get on with their lives, as has been the case through most of human history.

Absolutely spot on. Many of us felt this at the time but were shouted down as being selfish uncaring "deniers".  I do also recall a legitimate argument put forward at the time against that approach was that it would unfairly penalise certain ethnic minorities due to the fact that many live in multi-generational households. Our response (and that of the rest of the world) is increasingly looking to me like an over-reaction and will in my view be written about as the greatest act of economic self-harm ever perpetrated by international Governments on their citizens. I understand completely where it came from though. Government these days is all about opinion polls and what plays well in the media. Nothing else matters but the pure short term aim of staying popular and remaining in Government. The problem is of course that "public opinion" and the shouty majority are very often wrong - history has taught us that time and time again. The simple fact though is that there is absolutely nothing else the Government could have done because not to do so would have led to them being pilloried in the press as the nasty uncaring party, willing to let the bodies pile high and unlikely to ever be elected again for a generation. Ultimately the fear had been whipped up to such an extent by your mass media and your shouty Piers Morgan/James O'Brien types that there was no other choice. Anyone who possessed even an ounce of critical thinking ability, could make an informed judgement that the balanced and sensible view lay somewhere in between, like it usually does. Unfortunately proportionality and perspective went out of the window.

As an aside, it's also interesting to note that it's no coincidence of course that those who could be categorised as having shall we say "socialist" leanings and desiring a society founded upon socialist principles were and still are the ones shouting loudest in support of lockdowns. This is true both on this forum and in the wider outside world. As is always the case in times of crisis, those who shout loudest about social inequality grab any opportunity they can to impose ever increased Government intervention at the expense of personal liberty as they know that "central control" is the only way to achieve true socialism. The pandemic was capitalised upon  and politicised by certain people who have a very clear ideological political agenda and I find that incredibly distasteful and disingenuous. The same is true for climate change. I don't seek to trivialise either the pandemic or climate change, but those of us who shout loudest regarding both issues should I feel be a little more transparent about their true motives. I say that in direct reference to certain posters on here as well as many of the scientists to whom the Government blindly abdicated their responsibilities.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST - that's way off the mark in terms of careful and detailed analysis. You know this.

Deaths with does not equal deaths from - lets start there.

Further, the excess deaths that can be measured are partly to do with (I'm being kind) a stretched health service that let people die it would otherwise have kept alive. And then there are direct deaths from the lockdown effect - suicides, vulnerable people not receiving proper care, people not asking for help due to the "only contact the health service if it's essential", and so on, lots more reasons.

I have no doubt covid was a very serious illness, especially in its first incarnation.

The management should have been to protect vulnerable, isolate the infected, and to allow others to get on with their lives, as has been the case through most of human history.

1) The suicide rate was significantly lower in 2020 than it was in the previous two years.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsfromsuicidethatoccurredinenglandandwales/apriltodecember2020#suicide-rates-and-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

But...facts, eh?

2) Run it by me how you would have protected the vulnerable while letting the rest of us get on with life as normal. Only I heard that no end of times, but never heard any detail about how it works in practice.

3) As I've said to Ldr, before you suggest that I'm deliberately being misleading, go and have a look at the ONS numbers of excess deaths, and when they rose and fell compared to the rise and fall of COVID cases. Then come back and tell me how that fits with your insistence that I'm wrong.

[Ldr]

Billy I don’t think in this case you are deliberately misleading, more possibly Making leaps of faith without considering all the variables that’s all. One cannot argue the excess death figure nor can one attribute 100% of it to one thing without evidence. I understand your logic but stand by what I say. It’s an (however likely) assumption without the evidence to back it up. Therefore you can’t legitimately state it as a fact that’s all I am trying to get across.

[SydneyRover]

BST - that's way off the mark in terms of careful and detailed analysis. You know this.

Deaths with does not equal deaths from - lets start there.

Further, the excess deaths that can be measured are partly to do with (I'm being kind) a stretched health service that let people die it would otherwise have kept alive. And then there are direct deaths from the lockdown effect - suicides, vulnerable people not receiving proper care, people not asking for help due to the "only contact the health service if it's essential", and so on, lots more reasons.

I have no doubt covid was a very serious illness, especially in its first incarnation.

The management should have been to protect vulnerable, isolate the infected, and to allow others to get on with their lives, as has been the case through most of human history.

Absolutely spot on. Many of us felt this at the time but were shouted down as being selfish uncaring "deniers".  I do also recall a legitimate argument put forward at the time against that approach was that it would unfairly penalise certain ethnic minorities due to the fact that many live in multi-generational households. Our response (and that of the rest of the world) is increasingly looking to me like an over-reaction and will in my view be written about as the greatest act of economic self-harm ever perpetrated by international Governments on their citizens. I understand completely where it came from though. Government these days is all about opinion polls and what plays well in the media. Nothing else matters but the pure short term aim of staying popular and remaining in Government. The problem is of course that "public opinion" and the shouty majority are very often wrong - history has taught us that time and time again. The simple fact though is that there is absolutely nothing else the Government could have done because not to do so would have led to them being pilloried in the press as the nasty uncaring party, willing to let the bodies pile high and unlikely to ever be elected again for a generation. Ultimately the fear had been whipped up to such an extent by your mass media and your shouty Piers Morgan/James O'Brien types that there was no other choice. Anyone who possessed even an ounce of critical thinking ability, could make an informed judgement that the balanced and sensible view lay somewhere in between, like it usually does. Unfortunately proportionality and perspective went out of the window.

As an aside, it's also interesting to note that it's no coincidence of course that those who could be categorised as having shall we say "socialist" leanings and desiring a society founded upon socialist principles were and still are the ones shouting loudest in support of lockdowns. This is true both on this forum and in the wider outside world. As is always the case in times of crisis, those who shout loudest about social inequality grab any opportunity they can to impose ever increased Government intervention at the expense of personal liberty as they know that "central control" is the only way to achieve true socialism. The pandemic was capitalised upon  and politicised by certain people who have a very clear ideological political agenda and I find that incredibly distasteful and disingenuous. The same is true for climate change. I don't seek to trivialise either the pandemic or climate change, but those of us who shout loudest regarding both issues should I feel be a little more transparent about their true motives. I say that in direct reference to certain posters on here as well as many of the scientists to whom the Government blindly abdicated their responsibilities.

Where did you debate this Tommy, on here in this thread?

[TommyC]

BST - that's way off the mark in terms of careful and detailed analysis. You know this.

Deaths with does not equal deaths from - lets start there.

Further, the excess deaths that can be measured are partly to do with (I'm being kind) a stretched health service that let people die it would otherwise have kept alive. And then there are direct deaths from the lockdown effect - suicides, vulnerable people not receiving proper care, people not asking for help due to the "only contact the health service if it's essential", and so on, lots more reasons.

I have no doubt covid was a very serious illness, especially in its first incarnation.

The management should have been to protect vulnerable, isolate the infected, and to allow others to get on with their lives, as has been the case through most of human history.

Absolutely spot on. Many of us felt this at the time but were shouted down as being selfish uncaring "deniers".  I do also recall a legitimate argument put forward at the time against that approach was that it would unfairly penalise certain ethnic minorities due to the fact that many live in multi-generational households. Our response (and that of the rest of the world) is increasingly looking to me like an over-reaction and will in my view be written about as the greatest act of economic self-harm ever perpetrated by international Governments on their citizens. I understand completely where it came from though. Government these days is all about opinion polls and what plays well in the media. Nothing else matters but the pure short term aim of staying popular and remaining in Government. The problem is of course that "public opinion" and the shouty majority are very often wrong - history has taught us that time and time again. The simple fact though is that there is absolutely nothing else the Government could have done because not to do so would have led to them being pilloried in the press as the nasty uncaring party, willing to let the bodies pile high and unlikely to ever be elected again for a generation. Ultimately the fear had been whipped up to such an extent by your mass media and your shouty Piers Morgan/James O'Brien types that there was no other choice. Anyone who possessed even an ounce of critical thinking ability, could make an informed judgement that the balanced and sensible view lay somewhere in between, like it usually does. Unfortunately proportionality and perspective went out of the window.

As an aside, it's also interesting to note that it's no coincidence of course that those who could be categorised as having shall we say "socialist" leanings and desiring a society founded upon socialist principles were and still are the ones shouting loudest in support of lockdowns. This is true both on this forum and in the wider outside world. As is always the case in times of crisis, those who shout loudest about social inequality grab any opportunity they can to impose ever increased Government intervention at the expense of personal liberty as they know that "central control" is the only way to achieve true socialism. The pandemic was capitalised upon  and politicised by certain people who have a very clear ideological political agenda and I find that incredibly distasteful and disingenuous. The same is true for climate change. I don't seek to trivialise either the pandemic or climate change, but those of us who shout loudest regarding both issues should I feel be a little more transparent about their true motives. I say that in direct reference to certain posters on here as well as many of the scientists to whom the Government blindly abdicated their responsibilities.

Where did you debate this Tommy, on here in this thread?

No not on here. I viewed the posts with interest whist keeping my counsel, as I do with most of the stuff I read on here. It was all a bit vitriolic for me at that time so I figured better to wait until the pearl-clutching had died down. Plenty of others did make that argument though so I count myself as one of the "we" who were shouted down.

I think I did post on this thread once albeit on a legal matter and you came up with some facile argument purely to divert from the actual point being made.........   

[SydneyRover]

If you look back up to the first lockdown there was very little argument about a lockdown then and no 'vitriol' Tommy.

[Panda]

I think even the most ardent freedom campaigner could maybe understand the first lockdown but it soon became apparent that this wasn't generally a serious disease for nearly all the population and yet we had further lockdowns / restrictions right up until summer 2021!

After the summer of 2020, everything should have been back to normal. One of the main reasons why it wasn't is because we didn't and still don't have a health service that is fit for purpose. 

So those of you who revere the NHS, just bear in mind that it was partly their fault why your lives were restricted and your kids couldn't go to school.

[SydneyRover]

I think even the most ardent freedom campaigner could maybe understand the first lockdown but it soon became apparent that this wasn't generally a serious disease for nearly all the population and yet we had further lockdowns / restrictions right up until summer 2021!

After the summer of 2020, everything should have been back to normal. The only reason why it wasn't is because we didn't and still don't have a health service that is fit for purpose. 

So those of you who revere the NHS, just bear in mind that it was partly their fault why your lives were restricted and your kids couldn't go to school.

I'd love to see your supporting proof Panda, having a scientific background that shouldn't be too difficult?

[TommyC]

If you look back up to the first lockdown there was very little argument about a lockdown then and no 'vitriol' Tommy.

My comments weren't referenced purely at the first lockdown in isolation. They were aimed at the entirety of the handling of the pandemic from March 2020 onwards and all 556 pages of discourse on the subject since then. Regarding the first lockdown, I'll happily admit that I was as scared and unsure as anyone was at that time.  However by Christmas 2020 and the batshit rules and regulations that we were being hit over the head with by then (scotch egg in the pub anyone?), I would say that is when my faith and that of many others began to falter. By the lockdown of Q1 of 2021 there was plenty of outrage both on here and in the real/outside world. 

If you want to trawl back and form the view that "vitriol" does not accurately describe the state of debate over these issues (either on here or elsewhere), then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Maybe it's just how I perceived things at the time!

[Panda]

I think even the most ardent freedom campaigner could maybe understand the first lockdown but it soon became apparent that this wasn't generally a serious disease for nearly all the population and yet we had further lockdowns / restrictions right up until summer 2021!

After the summer of 2020, everything should have been back to normal. The only reason why it wasn't is because we didn't and still don't have a health service that is fit for purpose. 

So those of you who revere the NHS, just bear in mind that it was partly their fault why your lives were restricted and your kids couldn't go to school.

I'd love to see your supporting proof Panda, having a scientific background that shouldn't be too difficult?

Proof of what? It actually happened lol. Common sense told you that at the time when people with half a brain could work out for themselves the trajectory and level of risk.

[SydneyRover]

If you look back up to the first lockdown there was very little argument about a lockdown then and no 'vitriol' Tommy.

My comments weren't referenced purely at the first lockdown in isolation. They were aimed at the entirety of the handling of the pandemic from March 2020 onwards and all 556 pages of discourse on the subject since then. Regarding the first lockdown, I'll happily admit that I was as scared and unsure as anyone was at that time.  However by Christmas 2020 and the batshit rules and regulations that we were being hit over the head with by then (scotch egg in the pub anyone?), I would say that is when my faith and that of many others began to falter. By the lockdown of Q1 of 2021 there was plenty of outrage both on here and in the real/outside world. 

If you want to trawl back and form the view that "vitriol" does not accurately describe the state of debate over these issues (either on here or elsewhere), then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Maybe it's just how I perceived things at the time!

Didn't say any of that Tommy, so you could see why some would get upset when they are misquoted or don't state their case correctly, use emotive language or do not supply proof on important subjects.

[TommyC]

If you look back up to the first lockdown there was very little argument about a lockdown then and no 'vitriol' Tommy.

My comments weren't referenced purely at the first lockdown in isolation. They were aimed at the entirety of the handling of the pandemic from March 2020 onwards and all 556 pages of discourse on the subject since then. Regarding the first lockdown, I'll happily admit that I was as scared and unsure as anyone was at that time.  However by Christmas 2020 and the batshit rules and regulations that we were being hit over the head with by then (scotch egg in the pub anyone?), I would say that is when my faith and that of many others began to falter. By the lockdown of Q1 of 2021 there was plenty of outrage both on here and in the real/outside world. 

If you want to trawl back and form the view that "vitriol" does not accurately describe the state of debate over these issues (either on here or elsewhere), then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Maybe it's just how I perceived things at the time!

Didn't say any of that Tommy, so you could see why some would get upset when they are misquoted or don't state their case correctly, use emotive language or do not supply proof on important subjects.

I think you'll find I agreed to disagree with you. Therefore I maintain it was vitriolic.

Any comments on the wider points made or are you continuing to focus on the facile?

[SydneyRover]

Using that emotive language again Tommy, I don't agree with anyone that misquotes me Tommy.

[TommyC]

Using that emotive language again Tommy, I don't agree with anyone that misquotes me Tommy.

Where did I quote you?

I'm sorry if my language elicits an emotive response from you. It isn't intentional.

[SydneyRover]

The bit I highlighted where you attribute it to what I think.

[TommyC]

The bit I highlighted where you attribute it to what I think.

No, you've interpreted it as being aimed at you.

You couldn't have been further from my thoughts when I wrote it.

[SydneyRover]

You're a funny guy tommy

[Bristol Red Rover]

Ldr

We've been through this over and over again.

If you really think the overwhelming majority of the excess deaths weren't BECAUSE of COVID, how do you explain the fact that the trend in excess deaths pretty much exactly matched the trend in COVID cases 1-2 weeks before?

You surely aren't telling me that the number of cancellations of clinics or elective surgery matched the number of COVID cases are you? Or that thousands of people suddenly died a week after their clinic was cancelled?

I saw doctors getting slap dash and leaving people to die who they normally wouldn't - it was disgusting and actually the fault of individuals allowed to get away with unprofessionalism as well as the stinking system they work in. And all that supervised by the idiot government health advosors. This effectively extended throughout the care system.

I'm far from blaming everyone in the health system but there were enough there following the narrative to enable the bad unprofessional practice.

Bergamo had other specific contributing factors, that pattern wasn't seen elsewhere, that was easy to see.

[SydneyRover]

I hope you reported all this BRR, it's dereliction of duty and goes against the hippocratic oath that doctors sign up to.

[Bristol Red Rover]

2) Run it by me how you would have protected the vulnerable while letting the rest of us get on with life as normal. Only I heard that no end of times, but never heard any detail about how it works in practice.

Vulnerable are advised to order shopping online, meet up with as few people as possible, isolate ideally, anyone who is coming into care contact with them needs testing first.

Where is the problem?

[Bristol Red Rover]

I hope you reported all this BRR, it's dereliction of duty and goes against the hippocratic oath that doctors sign up to.

Doctors do a lot that goes against that oath.

It wasn't my business to get involved which the particular cases I saw. If it were my direct relative I wpiuld have. And as with most professional sitiuations, it's very hard to prove, and especially with the self fullfilling exaggerated narrative on covid.

[SydneyRover]

I hope you reported all this BRR, it's dereliction of duty and goes against the hippocratic oath that doctors sign up to.

Doctors do a lot that goes against that oath.

It wasn't my business to get involved which the particular cases I saw. If it were my direct relative I wpiuld have. And as with most professional sitiuations, it's very hard to prove, and especially with the self fullfilling exaggerated narrative on covid.

But with the numbers and frequency your comment suggests how could you not?