Remember this...

[Red Phoenix]

18 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Remember this?

 

Earlier lockdown could have saved lives of 30,000, Hancock tells Covid inquiry

Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved if the UK had locked down three weeks earlier, Matt Hancock has told the Covid inquiry, as he described the operation of Boris Johnson’s Downing Street as undermined by a “culture of fear”.

 

The former health secretary said his staff were abused by Dominic Cummings and that Johnson’s then chief adviser attempted to exclude ministers and even Johnson himself from key decisions at the start of the pandemic, hampering the government’s response.

...

Hancock argued that in retrospect the ideal date for a first lockdown would have been three weeks earlier than the eventual date of 23 March 2020, saying this could have prevented about 90% of the death toll in the first Covid wave, or more than 30,000 lives.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/30/hancock-tells-covid-inquiry-of-toxic-culture-in-johnson-government

 

 

 

Ha Ha Hancock, are you for real taking that disgraced serial liar serious?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1.5 million potential years of life lost to COVID-19 in the UK, with each life cut short by 10 years on average

New analysis reveals ‘devastating’ scale of loss, with UK response ‘falling short in key areas’

 

23 March 2021

 

New analysis from the Health Foundation's REAL Centre has set out the huge loss of life from COVID-19 one year on from the first lockdown.

 

With 146,000 deaths due to COVID-19 in the UK, up to 1.5 million potential years of life have been lost, with those who died losing up to 10 years of life on average.

 

Almost three quarters of those who died were aged over 75, with people in this age group losing an average 6.5 years of life.

...

When compared with flu, the researchers found that despite misconceptions early in the pandemic, COVID-19 has been much deadlier, even with full scale national lockdowns in place. In an average year around 30,000 people die from flu and pneumonia, with around 250,000 years of life lost. This is just a sixth of the years lost to COVID-19, or a quarter when comparing with deaths of over 75s.

 

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/1.5-million-potential-years-of-life-lost-to-covid-19

 

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Or this:

 

Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe

Published: 08 June 2020

 

"Here we study the effect of major interventions across 11 European countries for the period from the start of the COVID-19 epidemics in February 2020 until 4 May 2020, when lockdowns started to be lifted.

...

We estimate that—for all of the countries we consider here—current interventions have been sufficient to drive R_t below 1 (probability R_t < 1.0 is greater than 99%) and achieve control of the epidemic. We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population.

 

Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7#article-info

 

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, transam said:

I will not be posting on this thread again, I know who the OP is, its a baiting thread...🤗

Not a baiting thread. An educational one.

[dhupverg]

Remind me again, what was the average age of a covid death?  Oh yeah, it was greater than the average lifespan.  All these lockdowns, masks, and other "measures" did nothing but instill fear.  The role of the government and authorities is to instill calm into the population during times of doubt and uncertainty, not fear.  Pure fail on the part of governments to instill calm.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

A good, and not unexpected, example of misrepresenting what statistics really mean:

Average Covid-19 victim dies years before they otherwise would

What was Claimed: The average age of Covid-19 deaths is higher than the average life expectancy, which means that people who get Covid live longer.

 

Our Verdict: This isn’t how life expectancy works. Life expectancy is an average, pulled down by people who die young. As you age, your life expectancy increases. People dying from Covid-19 lose about a decade of life on average.

 

A set of data called the National Life Tables, produced by the ONS, shows how life expectancy adjusts as a person ages. 

An 82-year-old man can expect to live for another 7.4 years on average, while an 85-year-old woman can expect to live another 6.87 years on average. 

 

https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Red Phoenix]

59 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

A good, and not unexpected, example of misrepresenting what statistics really mean:

Average Covid-19 victim dies years before they otherwise would

What was Claimed: The average age of Covid-19 deaths is higher than the average life expectancy, which means that people who get Covid live longer.

 

Our Verdict: This isn’t how life expectancy works. Life expectancy is an average, pulled down by people who die young. As you age, your life expectancy increases. People dying from Covid-19 lose about a decade of life on average.

 

A set of data called the National Life Tables, produced by the ONS, shows how life expectancy adjusts as a person ages. 

An 82-year-old man can expect to live for another 7.4 years on average, while an 85-year-old woman can expect to live another 6.87 years on average. 

 

https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/

 

 

Of course you have to do die from something (accident, cancer, covid-19, old age).  

And whatever the reason for the death, it will wipe away the 'remaining life expectancy' for your age at moment of death. 

Below the median and mean age in years for the UK population end 2021 (couldn't find any more recent data).

 

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19

 

> It shows that the average age of dying from/with Covid-19 was 80,3 years of age. 

All those that died at that age FROM THAT CAUSE had their remaining life-expectancy thus wiped out. 

 

But the crux of the matter is> > Did these figures justify mandating Covid-19 jabs for EVERYBODY irrespective of their age? 

A simple example will illustrate what these figures mean.  

> When somebody died with/from Covid-19 at age 60 (20 years before the average age of dying from Covid-19), that means there would have been 4 people dying at 85 years old to 'make up' for that average, or 2 of 90 years, or 20 of 81 years of age.

> When somebody died with/from Covid-19 at age 40 (40 years before the average age of dying from Covid-19), that means there would have been 8 people dying at 85 years old to 'make up' for that average, or 4 of 90 years, or 40 of 81 years of age.

 

So, however your slice it or represent it, Covid-19 deaths were abundant among the OLDEST people in the country (average 80,3 years of age).  And there is no denying that it must have been relatively low for the younger and middle-age people, because every death of somebody under 80,3 years of age, has to be 'compensated' by people dying above 80,3 years of age.  

Mandating covid-jabs for teenagers and people in their twenties/thirties amounts to 'pure gaslighting' in the light of the actual age-mortality figures.  

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

23 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Did these figures justify mandating Covid-19 jabs for EVERYBODY irrespective of their age? 

 

AFAIK, contrary to your claim above, COVID vaccines were never "mandated" "for EVERYBODY irrespective of their age," not in the UK, not in the US,  not in Thailand, etc.

 

The loud proclamations here of various posters boasting that they were never vaccinated and never will be attest to that -- not to mention the global statistics showing that only about two-thirds of the global population ever received the basic original two-dose COVID vaccinations.  And rates for youngsters are far less than that. So clearly there was no "EVERYBODY" mandate. There were, OTOH, many RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

 

https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?n=c

 

What there were, in various places to varying extents hardly involving "EVERYBODY", were selective requirements by some employers that their employees needed to be vaccinated if they wanted to continue in their jobs, especially in the health care sectors, and mandates by various countries at various  times to show proof of vaccination if one wanted to travel internationally during the worst of the pandemic.

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Red Phoenix]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

AFAIK, contrary to your claim above, COVID vaccines were never "mandated" "for EVERYBODY irrespective of their age," not in the UK, not in the US,  not in Thailand, etc.

 

The loud proclamations here of various posters boasting that they were never vaccinated and never will be attest to that -- not to mention the global statistics showing that only about two-thirds of the global population ever received the basic original two-dose COVID vaccinations.  And rates for youngsters are far less than that. So clearly there was no "EVERYBODY" mandate.

 

 

https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?n=c

 

What there were, in various places to varying extents hardly involving "EVERBODY", were selective requirements by some employers that their employees needed to be vaccinated if they wanted to continue in their jobs, especially in the health care sectors, and mandates by some countries to show proof of vaccination if one wanted to travel internationally.

 

Nice try to change the subject.  

The risk of dying of Covid-19 always has been in the senior part of the population (average age of dying from/with covid-19 being 80,3 years of age). 

A poll in UK showed that people thought the average age of a covid-19 death was 65 years.

And there are millions of young people in their 20s, 30s and 40s that were indeed not mandated to take the jab, but the consequence of not complying would have been loss of their job.  I personally know several young people that reluctantly gave in to the pressure, as they had a family to support.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, and as best as I recall, no one here ever forced or required me to obtain a COVID vaccine, nor my Thai wife.

 

And in my case along with many other foreigners here, it also was never made a requirement in order to renew people's annual extensions of stay to continue living here.

 

Perhaps next time,  you should reconsider posting such unsourced and unsubstantiated nonsense as:

 

Quote

Did these figures justify mandating Covid-19 jabs for EVERYBODY irrespective of their age? 

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Red Phoenix]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, and no one here ever forced or required me to obtain a COVID vaccine, nor my Thai wife.

And in my case along with many other foreigners here, it also was never made a requirement in order to renew people's annual extensions of stay to continue living here.

I also lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, but our small village in Isaan got an unanounced  visit of a Healthcare delegation of 10 (!) people (with 2 nurses) going door-to-door, persuading people to get the jab, which they would administer on the spot.  Needless to say that with such social pressure as good as the whole village rolled up their sleeves.  Me and my girlfriend being the only ones not succumbing to their pleas and arguments, and of course we being also the only ones in the whole village that did NOT catch Covid-19.  

It's a small sample but it's very clear that the number of funerals here in the village has sharply risen, from approx once a month to about once a week.     

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

If it really had been "everybody," many more people would be alive today.

 

https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?m49=764&n=c

 

 

 

https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?m49=840&n=c

 

COVID vaccines saved 20M lives in 1st year, scientists say

"The researchers used data from 185 countries to estimate that vaccines prevented 4.2 million COVID-19 deaths in India, 1.9 million in the United States, 1 million in Brazil, 631,000 in France and 507,000 in the United Kingdom.

 

An additional 600,000 deaths would have been prevented if the World Health Organization target of 40% vaccination coverage by the end of 2021 had been met, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases."

 

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-england-54d29ae3af5c700f15d704c14ee224

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[KhunLA]

26 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, and no one here ever forced or required me to obtain a COVID vaccine, nor my Thai wife.

 

And in my case along with many other foreigners here, it also was never made a requirement in order to renew people's annual extensions of stay to continue living here.

 

Perhaps next time,  you should reconsider posting such unsourced and unsubstantiated nonsense as:

Vaccination was required at my daughter's employment, and thankfully they allowed the Chinese (non mRNA) vaccine, or she would have quit.  23 yrs old, healthy, and doesn't need to have experiment chemicals injected into her body.  Especially since she already had covid on one of it's firsts rounds, if not the first, confirmed.   And possibly again, but like the first, symptom wise, wasn't worth getting tested.  She doesn't run to the hospital after every little sniffle, even though free to do so.

 

Mask of course were required for many private & public services, and IMHO, do absolutely nothing.  And I have the same opinion about mRNA vaccines, and fairly useless in stopping you getting or spreading the virus ... again IMHO

 

Myself, simply didn't do anything different, stayed healthy, outdoors, boosting immune system instead of locked down.  Out & about when frowned upon.   Some practical social distancing, more so since other people were so paranoid.  Only wore mask to enter Makro & 7-11.

 

If I was infected, I certainly didn't know it.  On one of the last variations, I did get a runny nose & headache, for 1 day, and very rare for me, so maybe.  That was within the last year.   

 

Waved at PoPo numerous times while O&A with dog, when supposed to be locked down the first couple weeks, and masked up, without one of course.   Basically no enforcement, and after first day or so, all shops wanting, opened back, and all was ignored.

 

Surfside vendors suffered, as weekender complied, and the shuttered for more than a few months.   Most surviving, since old family money, and probably owning their buildings.   

 

One street parallel to surfside road, and all was normal, like there was no pandemic, unlike most other areas we visited, even months after the official 'lockdown'

 

So many lost everything, for nothing ... IMHO

Edited May 9 by KhunLA

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

And I have the same opinion about mRNA vaccines, and fairly useless in stopping you getting or spreading the virus ... again IMHO

 

The COVID vaccines were never approved on those bases. They were approved based on their ability to significantly reduce the risk of a vaccinated person becoming ill with COVID, which in fact they have done to varying degrees over the life of the pandemic.

 

Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

February 13, 2024

 

"To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time."

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The COVID vaccines were never approved on those bases. They were approved based on their ability to significantly reduce the risk of a vaccinated person becoming ill with COVID, which in fact they have done to varying degrees over the life of the pandemic.

Every vaccination I ever had stopped me catching the disease ....... Except COVID vaccine which appeared to do nothing.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Dunno what particular vaccinations you've had, but the broader evidence says otherwise. Examples:

 

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 18-64

Vaccine effectiveness was 45 percent against E.D./critical care visits(moderate disease) for adults under age 65. Effectiveness against hospitalization (severe disease) was 23 percent.

 

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 65 and older

Vaccine effectiveness was 41 percent against both flu-associated E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) and hospitalization (serious disease) for this age group.

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240219/CDC-studies-show-effectiveness-of-flu-vaccines-across-all-age-groups.aspx

 

Study confirms significant waning of original shingles vaccine over 10 years

 

The original vaccine against shingles — Zostavax, a live shingles vaccine no longer used in the U.S. — is effective in the first year after vaccination but wanes significantly over the following decade, according to a study by Kaiser Permanente’s Vaccine Study Center published in the journal BMJ.

...

The study found strongest effectiveness against shingles in the first year (67%), [emphasis added]  which dropped to 50% the second year, 27% the eighth year, and 15% after 10 years.

 

https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/waning-original-shingles-vaccine/

 

 

 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The COVID vaccines were never approved on those bases. They were approved based on their ability to significantly reduce the risk of a vaccinated person becoming ill with COVID, which in fact they have done to varying degrees over the life of the pandemic.

 

Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

February 13, 2024

 

"To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time."

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

 

 

 

 

I posted the CDC timeline for the definition of vaccine being change to fit that narrative.   As it failed to be effective in the original, and 2nd version of the definition,    So 3rd version, fit what if may or may not have don't.   NOT  ... IMHO

 

Since this answers your reply and not off topic, I'll try again  Since it proves you wrong ... IMHO ... feel free to report it, and it will probably be deleted again.

 

Take note of the date, Sept 2021, almost a full 2 years, after covid discovered, and about 9 months, after the vaccines were available (Dec. 11, 2020), and I believe, I think I remember correctly, "take the vaccine" to avoid getting and or spreading covid.   

 

I can post vids of people saying vaccine prevents covid, but I think most have the same memory as myself.   Realize they were lied to in the beginning ... IMHO of course.

 

That narrative sure did change 9 months later when they realized the vaccine didn't prevent you from getting covid or spreading..  Time to change that definition.   

 

Maybe the manufacturers were looking for some legal protection if labeled as a 'vaccine', as many, including myself, are under the opinion of.

 

CDC definition of vaccine ...

 “pre-2015” ..: “Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent disease.”

 

"2015-2021" ..: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

 

"September 2021", ... “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”

 

And sadly, it's not even very effective to do that, neither protects you from getting or spreading covid.  With 700+ million contracting, and 10% / 7 million dying with covid.

 

Source: vaccine definitions from CDC archives confirmed by AP, w/silly effort to justify it ... IMHO

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Experts say changes to CDC’s vaccination definition are normal

CLAIM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its definition of vaccination because COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective.

 

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology.

...

The CDC told the AP in a statement that it made the language shifts to add detail and increase transparency.

“While there have been slight changes in wording over time to the definition of ‘vaccine’ on CDC’s website, those haven’t impacted the overall definition,” the statement said, noting that the previous definition “could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine.”

 

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061

 

[KhunLA]

23 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Dunno what particular vaccinations you've had, but the broader evidence says otherwise. Examples:

 

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 18-64

Vaccine effectiveness was 45 percent against E.D./critical care visits(moderate disease) for adults under age 65. Effectiveness against hospitalization (severe disease) was 23 percent.

 

Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 65 and older

Vaccine effectiveness was 41 percent against both flu-associated E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) and hospitalization (serious disease) for this age group.

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240219/CDC-studies-show-effectiveness-of-flu-vaccines-across-all-age-groups.aspx

 

Study confirms significant waning of original shingles vaccine over 10 years

 

The original vaccine against shingles — Zostavax, a live shingles vaccine no longer used in the U.S. — is effective in the first year after vaccination but wanes significantly over the following decade, according to a study by Kaiser Permanente’s Vaccine Study Center published in the journal BMJ.

...

The study found strongest effectiveness against shingles in the first year (67%), [emphasis added]  which dropped to 50% the second year, 27% the eighth year, and 15% after 10 years.

 

https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/waning-original-shingles-vaccine/

Why isn't that a headliner every flu season ?   Because if people knew how ineffective they were, they probably wouldn't bother.   One year, it was something like 10% effective (flu vaccine) if memory serves, and that was from CDC site, and easy to find.

 

I've never had a flu vaccine at work, 13 yrs available for free, and never got the flu.  Much different than those that did get vaccinated.  Co-workers always getting the flu .. oh well.

Edited May 9 by KhunLA

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I think I remember correctly, "take the vaccine" to avoid getting and or spreading covid.   

 

I can post vids of people saying vaccine prevents covid, but I think most have the same memory as myself.   Realize they were lied to in the beginning ... IMHO of course.

 

The official public health guidance being given at the time was generally correct, both about protecting against illness and reducing transmission. The claims made back at that early point in the pandemic were consistent with what the research at that time was showing:

 

 

VACCINE DID REDUCE TRANSMISSION

 

"Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUKKBN2AQ1A7) and Israel (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762

, opens new tab(21)00127-7/fulltext) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus.

 

In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736

, opens new tab(21)00448-7/fulltext) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person. [emphasis added]

 

“Whether it is 75 or 90 percent reduction doesn’t matter - it is a big drop in transmission,” Michal Linial, a professor of molecular biology and bioinformatics at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, told Reuters at the time. “It means that not only is the individual vaccinated protected, the inoculation also provides protection to his or her surroundings” (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J)"

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

 

 

Later, as the virus mutated and changed as the pandemic went on, the documented protections against transmission weakened. And the official public health guidance changed accordingly.

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Robert Paulson]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

I also lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, but our small village in Isaan got an unanounced  visit of a Healthcare delegation of 10 (!) people (with 2 nurses) going door-to-door, persuading people to get the jab, which they would administer on the spot.  Needless to say that with such social pressure as good as the whole village rolled up their sleeves.  Me and my girlfriend being the only ones not succumbing to their pleas and arguments, and of course we being also the only ones in the whole village that did NOT catch Covid-19.  

It's a small sample but it's very clear that the number of funerals here in the village has sharply risen, from approx once a month to about once a week.     

I had to buy a car when the pandemic started, I didn’t want to at all of course. I’m actually happy I have the car now but that is beside the point. I could not get anywhere! I contacted hotels, they would not have me. Etc etc etc

 

It’s crazy how people are starting to lie and act like the vaccines and lockdowns affected nobody. Just flat out lying. I guess it’s the only thing that can keep them sane.

 

In the village I went to in isaan during the pandemic, a lady would come over every time I arrived and asked for my id and vaccinations papers. I would mumble something to her about my vaccine papers (which I never had) and she seemed to get the point after a while but she’d take my id and take a bunch of records and ask me all sorts of questions. I felt lucky I could even go there unvaccinated but tbh I would not have been too put out if she would have kicked me out of the village so it was not too big a deal, I’m just reporting on how invasive it all was, and people now act like nothing happened at the time and it’s sickening. People just aren’t honest with themselves. I suppose it’s too difficult to be that wrong

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

One year, it was something like 10% effective (flu vaccine) if memory serves, and that was from CDC site, and easy to find.

 

Because a vaccination that reduces the risk of people getting sick and being hospitalized by 40-50% is better than doing nothing, and having all of those extra folks getting sick instead.

 

Edited May 9 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

I had to buy a car when the pandemic started, I didn’t want to at all of course. I’m actually happy I have the car now but that is beside the point. I could not get anywhere! I contacted hotels, they would not have me. Etc etc etc

 

It’s crazy how people are starting to lie and act like the vaccines and lockdowns affected nobody. Just flat out lying. I guess it’s the only thing that can keep them sane.

 

In the village I went to in isaan during the pandemic, a lady would come over every time I arrived and asked for my id and vaccinations papers. I would mumble something to her about my vaccine papers (which I never had) and she seemed to get the point after a while but she’d take my id and take a bunch of records and ask me all sorts of questions. I felt lucky I could even go there unvaccinated but tbh I would not have been too put out if she would have kicked me out of the village so it was not too big a deal, I’m just reporting on how invasive it all was, and people now act like nothing happened at the time and it’s sickening. People just aren’t honest with themselves. I suppose it’s too difficult to be that wrong

I didn't affect us personally.  Matter of fact, some of the best, if not the best O&A we had, and the cheapest.  As the places that were open, were offering rates so low, I think they just wanted people there to keep the lights on.  Definitely not looking for profits.

 

We were getting hotels, from 500-1000 baht, that are now charge 5000 baht during high season, and that's when we were traveling.  Phuket was never better.  We almost had every beach pretty much to ourselves, and that's not an exaggeration.   Places were accepting our dog, that certainly didn't before and won't now.

 

Phuket 'playlist' ... Feb 2021 ... high season ... 

 

Edited May 9 by KhunLA

[Amethyst]

A profanity/flame post with unsourced claims and several off-topic posts have been removed.

 

[Ralf001]

19 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   All those heat testing when entering shops , putting an electronic thermometer to your head .

Did they ever catch even one person with a high temperature ?

I was getting tested numerous times every day , as was everyone else 

Monday morning after a huge weekend on the piss, my temp was slightly high that morning as I was checked entering my workplace.

Got sent home for 5 days !!

[Ralf001]

11 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I didn't affect us personally.  Matter of fact, some of the best, if not the best O&A we had, and the cheapest.  As the places that were open, were offering rates so low, I think they just wanted people there to keep the lights on.  Definitely not looking for profits.

 

 

 

Yeah the whole farce did not affect me much at all, Pattaya was 100% a better place to live though.. no crowds and congested roads !

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Remember this?

 

Lockdowns and face masks ‘unequivocally’ cut spread of Covid, report finds

 

Royal Society review looks at non-pharmaceutical interventions when applied in packages of several measures

 

Measures taken during the Covid pandemic such as social distancing and wearing face masks “unequivocally” reduced the spread of infections, a report has found.

 

Experts looked at the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – not drugs or vaccines – when applied in packages that combine a number of measures that complement one another.

 

The Royal Society report, called Covid-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions, reviewed the evidence gathered during the pandemic for six groups of NPIs and their effectiveness in reducing transmission.

...

When assessed individually, there was positive – if limited – evidence of transmission reduction from many of the NPIs used in the pandemic, the review found. However, evidence of a positive effect was clear when countries used combinations of NPIs.

 

(more)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/24/lockdowns-face-masks-unequivocally-cut-spread-covid-study-finds

 

Was it peer reviewed?  No?  How do you treat non-peer reviewed studies performed by those on the other side of you?  Do you see a problem?  Want to talk about it?  Full disclosure?

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

18 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Remember this?

 

Earlier lockdown could have saved lives of 30,000, Hancock tells Covid inquiry

Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved if the UK had locked down three weeks earlier, Matt Hancock has told the Covid inquiry, as he described the operation of Boris Johnson’s Downing Street as undermined by a “culture of fear”.

 

The former health secretary said his staff were abused by Dominic Cummings and that Johnson’s then chief adviser attempted to exclude ministers and even Johnson himself from key decisions at the start of the pandemic, hampering the government’s response.

...

Hancock argued that in retrospect the ideal date for a first lockdown would have been three weeks earlier than the eventual date of 23 March 2020, saying this could have prevented about 90% of the death toll in the first Covid wave, or more than 30,000 lives.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/30/hancock-tells-covid-inquiry-of-toxic-culture-in-johnson-government

 

 

 

Ha Ha Hancock, are you for real taking that disgraced serial liar serious?

 

I second you in calling out TallGuyJohninBKK for referencing Hancock.  Citing Hancock is a abject joke.  @TallGuyJohninBKK, please explain what makes you believe Hancock has more than zero credibility.

[owl sees all]

19 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Our Verdict: This isn’t how life expectancy works. Life expectancy is an average, pulled down by people who die young. As you age, your life expectancy increases. People dying from Covid-19 lose about a decade of life on average.

Utter nonsense!

[johng]

Remember this guy on CNN ? 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chris-cuomo-makes-ivermectin-face-210453781.html

 

 

Chris Cuomo’s stance on Ivermectin as a theraputic drug for COVID-19 has done a complete 180, as the news anchor who once said on CNN that anyone promoting it should be “shamed” now says he’s “taking a regular dose” to deal with his own struggles with long-term effects of an infection.

 

“Everyone’s going to say ‘Joe Rogan was right,'” Cuomo continued. “No, Joe Rogan was saying – yeah, he was right – that’s not what matters. What matters is, the entire medical community knew that Ivermectin couldn’t hurt you. They knew it … I know they knew it. How do I know? Because now I’m doing nothing but talking to these clinicians, who at the time were overwhelmed by COVID, and they weren’t saying anything!”

When Cuomo was still a CNN anchor, he and colleague Don Lemon ridiculed its use after Rogan’s disclosure: