Worst Excess Deaths in the UK Since WW2

[RickBradford]

Excuse me, what do you mean by a "Covid denier"?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Excuse me, what do you mean by a "Covid denier"?

If the shoe fits *something like that*

 

People who agrue that covid is not serious and that the extra deaths are not much at all. That is a covid denier. 

 

People like that should be send to the UK right now for some education. Do some tour in some hospitals.

[RickBradford]

I see. Very interesting.

 

And what about the people who agree that Covid is serious, but believe that lockdowns do not prevent Covid mortality?

 

Are they also "Covid deniers" or is there another term for them?

[James105]

7 hours ago, Virt said:

If we treated Covid 19 like the regular flu and carried on like nothing happened, no one really knows how chaotic the situation would have been

 

We can make an educated guess though based on Sweden.    In order to reach the probable figure you can take Professor Neil Fergusons wildly incorrect predicted number of deaths based on Swedens response (85,000) and then you divide by about 10 and then add 10% bringing you to about 9350 which isn't too far off the correct figure.   He predicted 500,000 would die in the UK so based on the same calculation then it would work out at 55,000 so the UK would actually be in a better position all round really.    

 

His modelling is improving though as he did predict that 150 million would die from bird flu in 2005, and it turned out that he was out by a bit as a mere 282 died from this.   Not really sure how he still has a job to be honest.   

[PGSan]

On 1/12/2021 at 7:19 PM, KhaoYai said:

I didn't 'bring in' WW2 - the BBC did

Or maybe the ONS did? 

[PGSan]

On 1/12/2021 at 9:49 PM, Histavia said:

skepitcality

Is that related to scepticism? 

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

His modelling is improving though as he did predict that 150 million would die from bird flu in 2005, and it turned out that he was out by a bit as a mere 282 died from this.   Not really sure how he still has a job to be honest.

Because he can be relied on to do what the Government wants, which is to produce catastrophic predictions which gives the Government the excuse to take drastic actions, which they love.

 

It's not about facts and accuracy, it's about being on the 'right' side.

[PGSan]

On 1/13/2021 at 1:57 AM, Histavia said:

that figure would be like in Thailand??

What has this country got to do with the UK ONS?? 

[robblok]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I see. Very interesting.

 

And what about the people who agree that Covid is serious, but believe that lockdowns do not prevent Covid mortality?

 

Are they also "Covid deniers" or is there another term for them?

I would call them delusional. A lockdown is the only way to slow down (not prevent) the spread of covid. If no lockdown the UK would not be doing triage and far more would be denied medical help more would die. This widely accepted. 

[robblok]

@RickBradford

 

I never understood people who think the governments want to make COVID out worse then it is. They would be tanking their popularity and economy. Why do you think BJ for instance was so reluctant to go for lockdown at first.

 

Look at Trump who played it down too (admitted by him).  Prayut plays it down too in Thailand. I have yet to see countries that want to make it out worse then it is

 

My Dutch government is also struggling to find a balance between economic disaster and COVID problems. I doubt that any government wants to tank their economy. I think governments understand better that a lockdown will curb the spread and make it easier for the hospitals to handle else extra deaths will follow.

 

Look at Italy where the health system got overwhelmed. 

 

 

[PGSan]

On 1/13/2021 at 6:17 AM, KhaoYai said:

28,000 in the UK?  I don't think so.

Why do you think not? 

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

I would call them delusional. A lockdown is the only way to slow down (not prevent) the spread of covid. If no lockdown the UK would not be doing triage and far more would be denied medical help more would die. This widely accepted. 

Then perhaps you should contact the editors of The Lancet, perhaps the world's most prestigious medical journal. Because they ran a detailed statistical study of 50 countries, and concluded, inter alia:

Quote

 

Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.

 

According to their study, the biggest factor in mortality is obesity, then a country's GDP.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Then perhaps you should contact the editors of The Lancet, perhaps the world's most prestigious medical journal. Because they ran a detailed statistical study of 50 countries, and concluded, inter alia:

According to their study, the biggest factor in mortality is obesity, then a country's GDP.

Maybe you should read the article of the lancet again. 

 

It says that it could stem the spread it of Covid. Seems logical that death rate depends on other things. I guess you don't get the difference between catching the disease and dying from it. 

 

Also the statistics prove that lock down slows things down. Also if lockdowns did not stem the spread then why is it that we saw lower cases after lock down. Its only logical that lock down slows the spread. 

 

But its a bit hard to prove how figures would be without a lockdown. For instance the UK who did it late is now flooded by cases. But sure we can't see how it would be had they not locked down.

 

Just look at for instance in Thailand how clusters of spread are always in bars or gambling or sports events. Without those the spread would not be there. Its all about logical thinking. 

 

Can i prove it no I can't because its impossible to prove. You need two exactly the same countries with same population one with a lockdown and one without. That is just not possible.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

It says that it could stem the spread it of Covid. Seems logical that death rate depends on other things. I guess you don't get the difference between catching the disease and dying from it. 

I understand that extremely well.

 

And The Lancet specifically states that full lockdowns did not affect mortality ratios, which was the question I was asking.

[robblok]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I understand that extremely well.

 

And The Lancet specifically states that full lockdowns did not affect mortality ratios, which was the question I was asking.

But mortality RATE has NOTHING to do with lockdown. (unless hospitals overflow)

 

So obviously you don't understand the difference.

 

The mortality rate is counted AFTER someone catches the disease. So it gives a percentage of people who die after infection. That is of course dependent on if someone is obese and how good the quality of healthcare is.

 

But if you put in more infections that actual number of people dying will be higher while the rate stays the same (until hospitals are flooded and can't care for its patients anymore).

 

A lockdown will only affect mortality rates if hospitals are overflooding something that is close to happening in the UK if they had not locked down you would have seen mortality rates go up because they could not care for everyone.

 

 

[gwapofarang]

On 1/12/2021 at 6:46 PM, RichardColeman said:

Yes, and if you actually took the time to read the story, it quotes - "When the age and size of the population is taken into account 2020 saw the worst overall death rates since the mid 2000s."

 

So, bringing in WW2 and not taking in population growth into account is more scare mongering than anything else.

 

 

 

Your source is the BBC? 

 

Enough said IMHO. British Broadcasting Of the Chinese who parrot everything all other mainstream media does and has for years sadly. 

[gwapofarang]

1 minute ago, gwapofarang said:

Your source is the BBC? 

 

Enough said IMHO. British Broadcasting Of the Chinese who parrot everything all other mainstream media does and has for years sadly. 

My bad the above post was meant for the OP. sorry about that folks

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

But mortality RATE has NOTHING to do with lockdown. (unless hospitals overflow)

 

So obviously you don't understand the difference.

 

The mortality rate is counted AFTER someone catches the disease. So it gives a percentage of people who die after infection. That is of course dependent on if someone is obese and how good the quality of healthcare is.

 

But if you put in more infections that actual number of people dying will be higher while the rate stays the same (until hospitals are flooded and can't care for its patients anymore).

 

A lockdown will only affect mortality rates if hospitals are overflooding something that is close to happening in the UK if they had not locked down you would have seen mortality rates go up because they could not care for everyone.

 

 

Nope, sorry.

 

They were talking about "deaths per million people" of a population, not the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), which is the proportion of infected people who die.

[Virt]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

We can make an educated guess though based on Sweden.    In order to reach the probable figure you can take Professor Neil Fergusons wildly incorrect predicted number of deaths based on Swedens response (85,000) and then you divide by about 10 and then add 10% bringing you to about 9350 which isn't too far off the correct figure.   He predicted 500,000 would die in the UK so based on the same calculation then it would work out at 55,000 so the UK would actually be in a better position all round really.    

 

His modelling is improving though as he did predict that 150 million would die from bird flu in 2005, and it turned out that he was out by a bit as a mere 282 died from this.   Not really sure how he still has a job to be honest.   

 

At least he is improving ????

 

As for excess deaths it's impossible to compare countries.

Different healthcare systems, different population density and so on.

 

Also If you take a look at the median age of covid 19 diseased in Europe vs Mexico, the difference is shocking.

It's 75 in Europe but 55 in Mexico. 

https://apnews.com/article/health-europe-coronavirus-pandemic-mexico-fcb5db0707f923f81c1339465ac58e76

 

[robblok]

39 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Nope, sorry.

 

They were talking about "deaths per million people" of a population, not the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), which is the proportion of infected people who die.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

 

seems a later article is not against lockdowns. 

[CG1 Blue]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

If someone can't get medical treatment because the beds and ICU are full then its a Covid death. We were not talking about car crashes being counted as covid deaths.

You are wrong. Any death from any cause that occurs within 28 days of a positive death is counted as a Covid death. There is no consideration as to whether the death was a knock on effect from Covid. 

 

[RickBradford]

Public Health England has finally realized that we are going to have to treat Covid in a similar way to flu.

Quote

 

Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at Public Health England, said that if the vaccine does not prevent COVID-19 transmission, the virus may need to be allowed to circulate among younger people. ... 

 

"We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, that we're going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it's not causing much harm.

"That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable.

 

Well, that only took 10 months.....

[Peter Denis]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

seems a later article is not against lock-downs. 

That Lancet article reads more like an opinion piece than a scientific study.

Attached a study authored by a.o. prof John P.A. Ioannidis in which the effectiveness of different strategies (and in particular lock-downs) is compared using the data of 10 countries. 

The cautiously formulated conclusion of the study >  While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.

Assessing-Mandatory-Stay‐at‐Home-and-Business-Closure-Effects-on-the-Spread-of-COVID‐19.pdf

[robblok]

16 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

That Lancet article reads more like an opinion piece than a scientific study.

Attached a study authored by a.o. prof John P.A. Ioannidis in which the effectiveness of different strategies (and in particular lock-downs) is compared using the data of 10 countries. 

The cautiously formulated conclusion of the study >  While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.

Assessing-Mandatory-Stay‐at‐Home-and-Business-Closure-Effects-on-the-Spread-of-COVID‐19.pdf 9.15 MB · 0 downloads

Dont you agree its a bit hard to study and measure. We have seen how lockdown curbs the spread. We don't need a study to prove . If it was the case that it would not help governments would not do it. Logically speaking limiting places of spread help. Anyone who can't see that must not be using his brain. 

 

If you restrict contact there is less spread. That is a fact.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-lockdowns-successful-evidence-from-around-the-world-2020-4

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/19/10484

 

sdtudy showing that it prevented 200k infections.

 

The deniers should be send to the UK and walk free there.(dont mean deportation from Thailand but Uk is the virus hot spot love to have anti vaxers there mixing in crowds and see how they fare I mean they seem to think nothing helps so why take precautions)

Edited January 15, 2021 by robblok

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Dont you agree its a bit hard to study and measure. We have seen how lockdown curbs the spread. We don't need a study to prove . If it was the case that it would not help governments would not do it. Logically speaking limiting places of spread help. Anyone who can't see that must not be using his brain. 

 

If you restrict contact there is less spread. That is a fact.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-lockdowns-successful-evidence-from-around-the-world-2020-4

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/19/10484

 

sdtudy showing that it prevented 200k infections.

 

The deniers should be send to the UK and walk free there.(dont mean deportation from Thailand but Uk is the virus hot spot love to have anti vaxers there mixing in crowds and see how they fare I mean they seem to think nothing helps so why take precautions)

Re efficacy of lock-downs you wrote: We don't need a study to prove . If it was the case that it would not help governments would not do it.

Mmmh, really? ...

Up until October 2019 the OFFICIAL guideline from the WHO recommended that isolating people to curb the spread was NOT recommended.  They didn't even mention lock-downs in those pre-October 2019 pandemic guidelines based on 50 years of solid scientific research, as the concept was too outer-worldly and anti-scientific to even consider it. 

And then China did a draconian lock-down in Wuhan, and without any evidence that that approach was the right one, it was copied everywhere.  So when studies are now conducted to evaluate whether that approach is indeed effective by comparing countries that used different approaches, such studies are 'not necessary' because the government is always right?

Does the fact that some countries are now doing a 2nd or 3rd lock-down, not 'proof' that such measures are not as effective as expected?  Or are these governments trying to disprove Einstein's quote about insanity, i.e. repeating the same thing, and expecting different results?

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Re efficacy of lock-downs you wrote: We don't need a study to prove . If it was the case that it would not help governments would not do it.

Mmmh, really? ...

Up until October 2019 the OFFICIAL guideline from the WHO recommended that isolating people to curb the spread was NOT recommended.  They didn't even mention lock-downs in those pre-October 2019 pandemic guidelines based on 50 years of solid scientific research, as the concept was too outer-worldly and anti-scientific to even consider it. 

And then China did a draconian lock-down in Wuhan, and without any evidence that that approach was the right one, it was copied everywhere.  So when studies are now conducted to evaluate whether that approach is indeed effective by comparing countries that used different approaches, such studies are 'not necessary' because the government is always right?

Does the fact that some countries are now doing a 2nd or 3rd lock-down, not 'proof' that such measures are not as effective as expected?  Or are these governments trying to disprove Einstein's quote about insanity, i.e. repeating the same thing, and expecting different results?

Tell me Peter how would you test it efficiency ? You need two identical countries with identical population and one in lockdown other not.

 

We know lockdowns worked look at my articles. Lockdowns work and easing of restrictions brings the virus back. Lockdowns are not done to eradicate the virus but to slow it down. 

 

I think even you know that lockdowns work but hate to admit it. I can't believe you would be so naieve to think they did not work As i said the Italian study proves it works. 

 

But I wonder why we even need studies if you just use your brain then you know less contact is less spread of infections and that is exactly what lockdown does. I mean are you disputing that the virus is spread by contact (yes or no) are you disputing that lockdown limits contact by limiting peoples movements ?

 

Can a lockdown completely stop the virus, no it cant but it can slow it down so health organisations like in the UK don't get overwhelmed. Even you must be aware of the situation right now. Even in my country its getting bad with possible shortages of ICU beds. 

 

I wonder why people like you who do have a brain are so strange. (hard to describe it otherwise). Your one of the less strange most anti vaxers are much weirder. In the old times Darwins law made sure they did not get spread too much. 

 

I mean don't you think that governments would NOT want to lockdown at all because it breaks an economy. Don't you think I dont want to lockdown either. I mean I would love to go back to the gym. But those kind of places can become hot beds of infections. Just pure logic proves it.

 

I mean you can't always prove things in science. But it is proven that the virus spread by human contact. So any limitation of that works by default.

[Peter Denis]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

Tell me Peter how would you test it efficiency ? You need two identical countries with identical population and one in lock-down other not.

Obviously, requiring 2 identical countries with identical population to evaluate the effectiveness of lock-downs is an impossible condition.

By comparing the effects of lock-down in 10 different countries - as the study by prof John P.A. Ioannidis, THE world-wide authority on epidemiology (interesting to take a look on his profile   https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis) did - you are at least able to distinguish the 'bandwidth effect' of results achieved in countries that used basically the same approach versus those that used a different approach.

And the conclusion was > While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.

 

31 minutes ago, robblok said:

...

We know lockdowns worked look at my articles. Lockdowns work and easing of restrictions brings the virus back. Lockdowns are not done to eradicate the virus but to slow it down. 

I think even you know that lockdowns work but hate to admit it. I can't believe you would be so naieve to think they did not work As i said the Italian study proves it works.

...

How can you state that the 'Italian study' proves that it works!

That article was reviewed 26 March 2020, so written even earlier and using the Feb21 till March25 data, and it just postulates the hypothesis that without a lock-down Italy might have been much worse of. 

The authors wrote > We examine the effects of these interventions, based on modeling of the unfolding epidemic. We test modeling options of the spatially explicit type, suggested by the wave of infections spreading from the initial foci to the rest of Italy.

 

= = = = =

The main difference between the Ioannidis authored study and the Italian article, is that Ioannidis based his conclusions on ACTUAL data as reported by the 10 countries that were compared.  And that the Italian article uses a Model to predict what MIGHT have happened in the absence of lock-downs (using the parameters of their model).  So no proof at all from any data, just like Neil Ferguson's model that predicted the Apocalypse, and got the whole Western world - except Sweden - in panic mode.  

In short Ioannidis article is based on FACT, the Italian model is a FANTASY.

[Peter Denis]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

...

But I wonder why we even need studies if you just use your brain then you know less contact is less spread of infections and that is exactly what lockdown does. I mean are you disputing that the virus is spread by contact (yes or no) are you disputing that lockdown limits contact by limiting peoples movements ?

 

Can a lockdown completely stop the virus, no it cant but it can slow it down so health organisations like in the UK don't get overwhelmed. Even you must be aware of the situation right now. Even in my country its getting bad with possible shortages of ICU beds. 

 

I wonder why people like you who do have a brain are so strange. (hard to describe it otherwise). Your one of the less strange most anti vaxers are much weirder. In the old times Darwins law made sure they did not get spread too much. 

 

I mean don't you think that governments would NOT want to lockdown at all because it breaks an economy. Don't you think I dont want to lockdown either. I mean I would love to go back to the gym. But those kind of places can become hot beds of infections. Just pure logic proves it.

 

I mean you can't always prove things in science. But it is proven that the virus spread by human contact. So any limitation of that works by default.

Of course I do not dispute that limiting human contact/interaction will slow (but not prevent!) the spread of the virus.  But the question for me is whether the harmful side-effects of all these protective measures ('for our own good') are worth it.  Imo NOT.  Basically healthy people are not falling like flies in the street, and when your immune system is not challenged by underlying conditions, chances are you will only have small discomfort from 'catching it' and might not even know that you had it.  Yes, and I do not deny the anecdotal stories of the young, healthy adult that was turned into a wreck when catching the virus, but these are the exceptions and by no means the general rule (how many were infected and hadn't even noticed it, until they were mandatory quarantained because of testing 'positive' due to the infection they already overcame).

Obviously we should protect the old and the vulnerable (those with underlying conditions).  But 'forced' protection at all costs has an ugly ring to it.  Elderly in care-homes whose family was not allowed to visit them for months. Shops, often the result of a lifetime of work to build, going bankrupt because of mandatory closing.  Children being denied social contact with other children (which is absolutely necessary for their harmonious development).  I can continue...

And all this for what... a nasty virus (yes I admit it) that is mainly dangerous for the elderly (a look at the average age of a 'covid-death' is illuminating, as it is HIGHER than the average life-expectancy).

Viruses have always been around.  And that didn't stop people from living their lives.  I am very tolerant, and I do not deny those who are afraid of the virus to hide in their homes, and avoid social contact as much as possible.  But it becomes a different matter when everybody is dragged along in that psychosis. Let's hope 2021 will bring back some mental sanity, as that is more needed than the physical barriers and means to 'fight the virus'.

[KhaoYai]

On 1/14/2021 at 5:43 AM, PGSan said:

Why do you think not? 

If you read on you will see why.

[gwapofarang]

On 1/15/2021 at 4:25 PM, Peter Denis said:

Of course I do not dispute that limiting human contact/interaction will slow (but not prevent!) the spread of the virus.  But the question for me is whether the harmful side-effects of all these protective measures ('for our own good') are worth it.  Imo NOT.  Basically healthy people are not falling like flies in the street, and when your immune system is not challenged by underlying conditions, chances are you will only have small discomfort from 'catching it' and might not even know that you had it.  Yes, and I do not deny the anecdotal stories of the young, healthy adult that was turned into a wreck when catching the virus, but these are the exceptions and by no means the general rule (how many were infected and hadn't even noticed it, until they were mandatory quarantained because of testing 'positive' due to the infection they already overcame).

Obviously we should protect the old and the vulnerable (those with underlying conditions).  But 'forced' protection at all costs has an ugly ring to it.  Elderly in care-homes whose family was not allowed to visit them for months. Shops, often the result of a lifetime of work to build, going bankrupt because of mandatory closing.  Children being denied social contact with other children (which is absolutely necessary for their harmonious development).  I can continue...

And all this for what... a nasty virus (yes I admit it) that is mainly dangerous for the elderly (a look at the average age of a 'covid-death' is illuminating, as it is HIGHER than the average life-expectancy).

Viruses have always been around.  And that didn't stop people from living their lives.  I am very tolerant, and I do not deny those who are afraid of the virus to hide in their homes, and avoid social contact as much as possible.  But it becomes a different matter when everybody is dragged along in that psychosis. Let's hope 2021 will bring back some mental sanity, as that is more needed than the physical barriers and means to 'fight the virus'.

Here here somebody with rational thought going on. My outlook on this whole situation is pretty much in line with the above post. As I have posed these very basic questions to everyone who I have spoken to regarding COVID-19:

 

Does this so called "pandemic" justify the crippling of literally billions of folks? If so why?

If you where given the choice of losing your life savings or business or taking the risk of getting COVID-19 with a death rate of less than 1% which would you choose? 

Where is the concrete scientific indisputable data showing that masks stop the spread of virus so small it goes right through them? 

Where is the scientific study on the 6 feet social distancing requirement? Why 6 feet? Why not 60? Why not 600? etc..... Let me see why, a very simple question.

 

IMHO this entire COVID-19 is absolute lie in terms of it's supposed danger to the entire planet. The reason for the last year of drastic measures is obvious to anybody with a rational thinking brain who researches and thinks for themselves. Putting your trust in mainstream media and believing everything they say is not only dangerous but rather naive. One only needs to look back on history which clearly shows how the mass media has been used as a tool in the past. Why would things change now?

 

In any event, people can believe what they wish and I don't hold grudges or hate anybody regardless of what they may or may not believe, the color of their skin, religion or race. At the end of the day, we all breathe the same air (barely now with these bloody masks) and bleed red blood.

 

In these immortal words, "if nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate". Patrick Henry, in other words, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"

 

Why has real scientific data been silenced over and over proving the opposite of what the "mainstream" parrots? Another simple question that never gets answered in proper debatable fashion. 

 

Peace and cheers all!