- This topic has 401 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by Clark.
April 12, 2020 at 19:27 #51667SA
Node, I hope you forgive this very long answer.
“Before we get into definitions, we need to establish some basic common grounds”
What I believe is irrelevant to the point I made about the use of “denialist,” with its connotations of Holocaust denial, to shut down discussion. If the meaning isn’t evident without discussion, you shouldn’t use it. But since you you have recognised the validity of my point with your remarks about conspiracy theorists, I will answer your questions.
Node thank you for your detailed answer, it shows you are willing to engage. The purpose of the detailed question was to know where we have a common ground of understanding and where we may differ but can answer each other rationally. So, to start with I will analyse your answers and see where we may differ in interpretation.
“1. Do we both believe that there is a pandemic ….”
Yes, all flu viruses spread throughout the world and are therefore pandemics.
But this is not a flu virus it is a corona virus; they are different in many ways which we need not go into but suffice it to note that there are major clinical differences between the diseases caused by either. This is what alerted the Chinese doctors to look for other causative agents and they found this virus. The major differences is that SARS-cov2 presents classically with a dry cough and after a period of time of 5-7 days, may progress in some individuals to a severe form of what is called interstitial pneumonia, which is different from what happens in flu. It causes what is known as ARDS where fluid accumulates in the lung, and although ventilation may be used, it is limited in effects and half the patients die. I repeat, this picture rarely occurs in people who die of flu. I labour this point because it is an error to say that it is just another flu.
Not all Flu viruses necessarily cause pandemics or for that matter not all viruses or other infectious agents. A pandemic is an epidemiological definition and it occurs when a highly contagious disease spreads quickly across the world. For example, we have had cholera, or bubonic plague localised outbreaks, but these did not evolve into pandemics. The ease of spread of SARS-Cov2 and the fact that many who transmitted the virus initially had no symptoms, or mild symptoms, and the fact that the aeroplane was an efficient vector of the disease, and the fact that the virus infectivity is high all meant that it had the ability to produce a pandemic.
“… caused by a novel corona virus new to man with no immunity to the virus …”
Yes, all viruses mutate into varieties that are novel to their hosts. That’s what viruses do, mutate to new forms which their hosts don’t have antibodies to fight, thus the virus prospers and spreads until enough of the host has immunity at which point it would die out if it didn’t mutate into a novel variation, then the whole cycle repeats. All viruses have done this for a billion+ years.
There is a difference between say a human flu virus mutating in humans, something that happens regularly, and necessitates the manufacture of new vaccine every year, and where there is a bit of immunity in humans, because only part of the virus has changed, and a non-human virus that has never infected humans, but has for some reason developed the ability to infect humans. There is no background immunity that can deal with the virus, This does not mean that the virus will infect everybody or that everybody will die from it because of individual variability, but it means that effects of infection are unpredictable and immunity in the population may take a long time to naturally develop. In fact, there are still many unknowns about the immunity to this virus.
“… and this is an animal virus that has jumped species?”
Don’t know. I’m not an expert. As I understand it : viruses mutate by mix-and-matching the DNA in the cells they invade … they can do this in animal and plant cells … if the mutation did involve DNA from an animal cell, this wouldn’t be unusual and wouldn’t necessarily make the virus more dangerous.
Not quite how you describe it, it is the virus’ own genetic makeup that mutates. In the case of SARS Cov-2 I think the mutation meant that the virus could attach to a receptor in the human cells which the wild form of bat virus could not do, and this attachment is a prerequisite to infection and multiplication of the virus.
“2. Do we both believe that this virus is highly infectious with an exponential curve of infection resulting in a very quick spread around the world with infections documented in most countries in the world over 2-3 months?”
Yes, I believe if you tracked any viral infection in real time, you would see it spread as you describe.
Not true of all viruses, or at least those that cause identifiable disease.
“3. Do we both believe that this virus can cause death, Although this lethality is more commonly associated with older individuals and those with other co-morbidities?”
Yes, in that respect this virus acts like any flu virus.
Not just like the flu virus, as I indicated earlier.
“4. Do we both believe that although the above is true, that some younger people are also severely affected and that there have been many deaths in healthcare workers and bus drivers and others who were previously healthy?”
Yes, a very small number of younger people are severely affected, same as other flus. For all ages, death nearly always involves pre-existing conditions. For example, in Italy, only 0.8% of the deceased had no pre-existing chronic illnesses.
Yes of course death nearly often involves pre-existing conditions. Every day of the year, between 1200 and 2000 people die in UK. Death is a natural phenomenon, and guess who are those people that die every day? Yes, those who have pre-existing conditions. But they may getting along nicely with their medical conditions, some of them not necessarily lethal in themselves, but this makes them more susceptible to other illnesses such as flu, urinary tract infections, falls, breaking hips and so on and that is what kills them, they do not necessarily die of their diabetes, hypertension or dementia, but if they have these conditions they become more susceptible to the infections, The cause of death is the infection not the co-morbidities. But what we are talking about here is that these people are dying in larger numbers in a shorter period. So, in Italy for example between mid-February and 27th March over 7500 individuals died of Covid-19 in 6 weeks. But it was not just that, the death rate was rising in an alarming fashion until measures were introduced.
As to those who are older and with co-morbidities dying, the whole thrust of modern medicine has been to prolong life and in some cases to artificially do so. The progress has been incremental and through many different ways. But just to give you an example of how prolonging life is treated. Some cancer drugs are very expensive but may prolong life by a few months but inevitably the patient dies. But we as I society do not then say, oh well, its only a few months why spend all this money? No what happens is that the drugs get licensed and used and paid for by the NHS. If this does not happen there is a huge clamour.
“5. Do we both believe that even if the mortality rate from this virus may not be more than 1%, there is still a high number of people suffering from the disease at the same time that this is likely to swamp healthcare systems? ”
Yes, our NHS has been run down to the point where it has no spare capacity for anything. Our health services have prioritised a routine problem – vulnerable people catching flu – and thrown far more resources than they would do normally at every case. That is why the services are overwhelmed.
You do have a point here. Our NHS goes through this winter crisis every winter. It is understaffed and under resourced. But generally, the NHS copes coming out every year bruised but not on its knees. This is different not only because of the large numbers but also that these large numbers are occurring over a shorter period of time and actually at the end of winter where some relaxation of these pressures are expected. I am not sure on what basis you make this statement “Our health services have prioritised a routine problem – vulnerable people catching flu – and thrown far more resources than they would do normally at every case. That is why the services are overwhelmed.”
I am afraid this is a rather strange statement, so the health service decided to believe the rumours that there was an extraordinary pandemic, and admitted patients that did not need treatment, thereby overwhelming the service? You obviously have never been near a hospital in your life. In fact, in UK, the government from the start made sure that you had to be very seriously ill before they wanted to know. They even discouraged people from contacting 111. No hospital would admit someone who was not ill enough to be admitted. That is the first point you raise which indicates that you would rather explain the fact that this is extraordinary by just saying that it was perceived to be extraordinary and therefore it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. All of this with no evidence at all. That is beginning to look like a conspiracy theory.
“Examples occur in Italy and Spain and probably now in US although there are other problems there too which obscure the real situation and there is a threat of it happening here.”
Yes, for the same reasons – no health system can cope if you demand huge resources are thrown at a very common health problem.
If you want to believe that this is a common health problem then that is conspiracy theory no.2
“6. Finally do we both believe that there is still little understanding of various aspects of this virus …”
Yes, as is the case for every new variation of a virus. Until we get the data – how it spreads, mortality rate, symptoms, recurrence rate, etc – we don’t know what we’re dealing with or how dangerous it is. In the case of Covid-19, we took unprecedented extreme measures before we had this data.
Actually, we had a very good example not only for the trajectory of the disease but for how to deal with it with an effective lockdown in China. You do not have to wait for millions of deaths to stop a pandemic.
“…. including that many infections may cause no symptoms …”
Yes, the vast majority will have no symptoms, or very mild ones, as is is typical with flu.
… and that unfortunately we do not have tests for immunity?
I don’t understand what you mean. We haven’t tested widely for infection, therefore we don’t the total infected, therefore we don’t know the mortality rate.
There is no reliable antibody test yet to test if someone has been exposed to the virus and developed antibodies.
“Do we both believe that we do not know whether individuals infected with the virus will have immunity against reinfection?”
Yes, recurrence is possible with all flus.
This is an oversimplification.
Now, I’ve fully answered all your questions. Please answer one of mine:
Do you believe the figures released as coronavirus deaths in the UK and many other countries, including the ones you mentioned – Italy, Spain, Germany, the USA – are deliberately and hugely exaggerated?
In answer to your question, the simple answer is No I do not believe the numbers are exaggerated. Why would they be, who gains? Boris Johnson who wanted to do nothing and get herd immunity, Donald Trump, who want MAGA and exceptionalism would inflate figures and highlight the inadequacies of the US health care system? Other countries in Europe? China, Japan, Russia etc.. all countries and major health and scientific organisations involved in this (Conspiracy theory no. 3).
And why? On the contrary, I believe the figures could be much worse. Recently we heard that many deaths of people in care homes were not reported as Covid-19 deaths, and similar stories come out of Spain and Italy.
Since you made this statemen, please tell me why you think all why these governments are seeking to inflate the figures?
Now I will tell you my own conspiracy theories about Covid 19 and these are more serious.
1. The UK (and others) were given 2 months advance notice of an epidemic. They were also given a model successful blueprint of how to deal with the infection once it is established (China) or to prevent its spread (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) from early stages but chose not even to prepare by look at basic requirements such as PPE, and limiting flights from infected areas. This was gross negligence, but to make it into a conspiracy theory we need to look at the first official reaction of the government when cases began to accelerate, they just slipped that we are all going to take it on the chin, a few elderly people will die, but no matter, just like Node, we will not overburden the NHS just let us all develop herd immunity. When various organisations rightly did not agree with the government, amongst the Football Association and started cancelling mass events, the government decided to carry on with the policy, not issue PPE and let the NHS take it on the chin and come up with a hardened herd of herd immune Britons. They are still dragging their feet on testing, made no attempts to widely test and isolate milder case, as is the norm with a pandemic making excuses. They keep throwing smokescreens on getting weapon manufacturers to produce ventilators and such fantastic claims but can’t even arrange basic logistics of deliveries of PPE to hospitals, and food to the self-isolating.
2. No doubt the necessary measures for social isolation will be used for nefarious purposes. In the first instance the government has been very ambiguous about what a lockdown or curfew meant. There was sand still is much ambiguity but with all these ambiguities, they want to clamp down on rather trivial exceptions like someone buying a none-essential item from Tesco, or two walkers travelling several miles to the Peak district but not within reach of anyone for miles. But the panic shoppers in the first week after the announcement of the half hearted curfew was probably more instrumental in further dissemination of the disease, and so where measures to curb the number of tube trains in number without curbing builders and others travelling to non-essential work.
3. The suspension of parliament. This is an extremely serious event, much more serious than the prorogation earlier on, at a time of national crisis and the refusal to involve opposition in talks on measures to combat the epidemic. These should be non-party political issues and the fact that all what happens to this country depends on the say so of the likes of Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, orcgestrated behind=d the scenes by Dominic Cummings is the real conspiracy we should all be united in exposing.
It does not really matter whether we call it Covid-denial. Yes I sort of agree with you it is lazy shorthand, but as you can see from my tediously long post, if you are still reading, life is too short not to use lazy terminology that conveys the meaning succinctly.April 12, 2020 at 20:57 #51670Node
“But this is not a flu virus it is a corona virus;”
Coronavirus is a flu virus. Flu is just a catch-all term for about 100 viruses that live ‘in the wild,’ causing seasonal illnesses. Many but not all of them have been identified. Glasgow University has been tracking about 10 of the ones they have tests for, recording their fluctuations year to year. Variations of coronavirus have constituted about 10% of the flu viruses for as long as they have been testing. Covid-19 is just one of many variants of coronavirus.
“The major differences is that SARS-cov2 presents classically with a dry cough and after a period of time of 5-7 days, may progress in some individuals to a severe form of what is called interstitial pneumonia, which is different from what happens in flu.”
All flus are liable to cause respiratory problems. The virus lives in the lungs. “one-third of pneumonia cases develop from a respiratory virus, with the flu the most common of those.”
“Not all Flu viruses necessarily cause pandemics or for that matter not all viruses or other infectious agents. A pandemic is an epidemiological definition and it occurs when a highly contagious disease spreads quickly across the world. ”
All viruses spread easily. Depending on the type and symptoms, many will be pandemics, but we don’t usually bother labeling them as such because it is such a common occurrence.
“For example, we have had cholera, or bubonic plague localised outbreaks, but these did not evolve into pandemics.”
Cholera spreads through bacteria not virus, usually through contact with infected feces, it is not airborne. Bubonic plague is also a bacteria, but can be spread through coughs and sneezes – it caused one of the worst pandemics in human history.
I’ve been reading your answer and responding as I go, but now I have reached a point where you are just saying “Covid is not flu therefore I discount Node’s opinion,” and then you become insulting and sarcastic. You stop responding to what I actually said, and instead imagine what a ‘conspiracy theorist’ might believe and respond to that. So much for polite discourse. I’ll leave it there.April 12, 2020 at 23:56 #51671Clark
A quick search shows that flu viruses are not coronaviruses. Coronaviruses are positive-sense RNA viruses, in which the viral RNA can be translated directly into viral proteins, whereas flu viruses are negative-sense RNA viruses, in which transcription via viral polymerases must occur prior to translation. It’s like in pre-digital chemical photography; the difference between a colour negative for making prints, and “colour reversal film” for slides or cine.
SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, not a flu virus. This is bad news, because no vaccines have been successfully developed against coronaviruses.
I think what Node is referring to is misdiagnosis, in which particularly bad cases of common cold (caused by coronaviruses and/or rhinoviruses) are misdiagnosed as flu.
I suspect it would make more sense to call SARS-CoV-2 a SARS virus rather than a coronavirus, but neither of these are flu viruses.April 13, 2020 at 00:27 #51672Clark
SA – “That is the first point you raise which indicates that you would rather explain the fact that this is extraordinary by just saying that it was perceived to be extraordinary and therefore it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. All of this with no evidence at all. That is beginning to look like a conspiracy theory.
– If you want to believe that this is a common health problem then that is conspiracy theory no.2”
SA, you seem to use “conspiracy theory” differently from the way I do; I wouldn’t count either mass hysteria, or a mistake, as conspiracy theories. For me, the theory would have to propose some group intentionally spreading mass hysteria or misinformation, for some nefarious purpose; a conspiracy theory has to include covert intent.
But that condition is necessary but not sufficient; it would amount only to a theory about a conspiracy, and conspiracies do occur.
To be genuinely a conspiracy theory in the derogatory sense (which is the only sense in which I use the term), the conspiracy must have almost supernatural power to control the evidence, and/or the accusations of conspiracy must expand without reasonable limit, eg. to 90% or more of everyone in an entire field of science. These 90% must be promoting wrong information not merely because, for instance, they are clinging to an established theory despite a new, better theory attempting to supplant it. They must be doing so despite knowing better, because the all-powerful conspiracy is coercing them by some means, ie. willingly or not, they are “in on it”.April 13, 2020 at 01:17 #51673Clark
SA, for me, Node descends to conspiracy theory only at your point “conspiracy theory no. 3”, by writing: “Do you believe the figures released as coronavirus deaths in the UK and many other countries, including the ones you mentioned – Italy, Spain, Germany, the USA – are deliberately and hugely exaggerated?”.
At this point Node leaps right past a theory about a conspiracy. Node’s alleged conspiracy here expands beyond reasonable limit, to include swathes of scientists in multiple fields knowingly submitting and peer-reviewing fraudulent papers, huge numbers of doctors and medical staff claiming that their hospitals are overloaded five to twenty times beyond their usual capacity, vast numbers of employees in scores of national and hundreds of local governments knowingly inflating statistics, entire staffs of local newspapers in multiple countries suddenly printing twenty times more obituaries than they normally would, mayors and priests of small towns in Italy, on and on and on, countless thousands of ordinary people who usually just do their jobs but who now suddenly start acting like CIA officers on a mission. Why would they start doing this, or how would the “puppetmasters” force them to?
In a conspiracy theorist’s mind, all these ordinary people are either sheeple, acting this way just because they’ve been told to, or agents of the conspiracy, knowingly manipulating the sheeple around them. Stupid sheeple and lying agents – quite the opposite of honest, upright, perspicacious conspiracy theorists, fearless truth-tellers and guardians of wisdom.
And this is what drives conspiracy theory; feelings of self-superiority over “the masses”.April 13, 2020 at 01:35 #51674Node
Node’s alleged conspiracy here expands beyond reasonable limit, to include swathes of scientists in multiple fields knowingly submitting and peer-reviewing fraudulent papers, huge numbers of doctors and medical staff claiming that their hospitals are overloaded five to twenty times beyond their usual capacity, vast numbers of employees in scores of national and hundreds of local governments knowingly inflating statistics, entire staffs of local newspapers in multiple countries suddenly printing twenty times more obituaries than they normally would, mayors and priests of small towns in Italy, on and on and on, countless thousands of ordinary people who usually just do their jobs but who now suddenly start acting like CIA officers on a mission.
Straw man nonsense.April 13, 2020 at 05:00 #51676SA
“Coronavirus is a flu virus.”
I know know why Clark and I are banging against a brick wall. I we are using Flu as shorthand for Influenza. These are distinct viruses, the ones that cause more serious disease are called Influenza A and B viruses. But Flu is a lay term which people use loosely to mean mostly an upper respiratory tract infection, a common cold, to a severe illness ending in secondary bacterial bronchopneumonia. It is a loose lay term. Human corona viruses usually cause the mild end of the spectrum but the ones of concern do not even cause ‘flu’ in the common sense, but SARS-cov of 2003 caused SARS, MERS, a corona virus from camels caused another outbreak in the ME in 2012. The pattern of disease is different. If we cannot agree on these basic facts which are not really in dispute, then we cannot conduct any meaningful discussion.
I notice you suddenly had a huff, accusing me of something I didn’t do. Do you are trying to create a hostile atmosphere.Also of course I know that Cholera is caused by a bacterium vibrio cholerae but was talking about why something can cause a contained ‘outbreak’ but has in the past caused a ‘pandemic’ but the point was lost. I can continue but I won’t until we establish a common ground for botbasic nomenclature.April 13, 2020 at 08:52 #51678SA
I now know the cause of the huff it is this statement:
“I am afraid this is a rather strange statement, so the health service decided to believe the rumours that there was an extraordinary pandemic, and admitted patients that did not need treatment, thereby overwhelming the service? You obviously have never been near a hospital in your life. ”
I do apologise, there is a note of sarcasm but this was triggered by your statement :
“Our health services have prioritised a routine problem – vulnerable people catching flu – and thrown far more resources than they would do normally at every case. That is why the services are overwhelmed.”
And this is the root of the problem, denial that this is not an extraordinary infection, but a routine -vulnerable people catching flu. This is not just plain wrong, it is insensitive, and I am sorry if this upsets you. The meaning of what you say here is that if elderly and vulnerable people get serious complications of Flu (even though this is also a mistaken belief, because they have covid-19 and not just flu) then they should not be admitted to hospital and resources wasted on them. Please look again at what you said and convince me that that is not really what you meant.
The reason why this is important for me and also it seems for Clark, to debunk such talk is that frankly it is extremely harmful in many ways. It underplays a major crisis by trying to belittle the risks and undermining all the efforts of medical people and scientists as being in cahoots with governments to hoodwink us. It also means that genuine criticisms that should be directed at governments for inaction and slow inadequate responses are deflected. It discredits individuals who may have genuine concerns about the economic consequences and you voice will be lost.April 13, 2020 at 09:23 #51679SA
Clark @ April 13, 2020 at 00:27
Yes I am afraid I can be accused of both pedantry and ignorance in my use of the term ‘Conspiracy Theory’. This is partly because I would like words to have a meaning and partly to resist the CIA and Wikipedia from defining how we use language.
And this and also as in the case of the use of the word ‘Flu’ is where misunderstandings occur and terms need disambiguation. So for me a conspiracy theory is how it is defined by Wiktionary
conspiracy theory (plural conspiracy theories)
A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s] quotations ▼
(dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish. quotations ▼
The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., “just a conspiracy theory”). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase “conspiracy theory” in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form.
This is the meaning sensu lato SL, in the broadest sense. But then the more narrow definition as found in Wikipedia is the one commonly used now which is
For other uses, see Conspiracy theory (disambiguation).
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.
So for disambiguation Conspiracy theory SL is what I mean when I use the term, but you use it in the Conspiracy Theory Wikipedia sense. The reason why I like to distinguish these is simply that conspiracies abound and to start to debunk them you start to have a hypothesis as to who benefits and slowly work through this thought process. Sometimes you find a smoking gun, but often this remains hidden. So to give some examples , Craig Murray our host has developed a theory that there is an establishment conspiracy to discredit Alex Salmond. He stated this hypothesis and is slowly accumulating evidence that this is the case and for some this is clearly the case, but for others this remains a conspiracy theory (SL). This will unfortunately remain the case until a real smoking gun is found, at least in the MSM and by inference, the public eye. Another example is the Iraq War. The conspiracy theory there was that the Governments of the US and UK conspired to aggressively invade the sovereignty of an independent nation under a false pretence. This particular conspiracy theory was confirmed through many channels and evidence produced, not that it made a difference.
A current conspiracy theory is that the 2019 elections in UK was rigged through postal vote fiddling (see discussion forum on this blog) and there are pieces of suggestive facts but it would need a very large coordinated effort to prove that this is the case, but for some it will remain a conspiracy theory.
But the reason for me cutting slack is that we must try and break the Conspiracy Theories (Wikipedia) without alienation if possible. Of course there are serious questions about 911 and there are some outlandish allegations, but sometimes grouping all these under the CIA/Wikipedia definition does not do justice to some who still hold a degree of scepticism especially about how all of it was mishandled.April 13, 2020 at 09:40 #51681SA
Clark @ April 13, 2020 at 01:17
Yes of course but what I should have said is that there are three instances where Node has made unsubstantiated allegations to prove his theories. This is important as it starts to dissect the common arguments used by the ‘denialists’. I use this term despite its limitations as a short hand. There is one website that has been scouring the internet to cherry pick some of these arguments.
1. That Covid-19 is just another ‘flu’. My answer and yours shows the basic play on a slang term to define somewhat more complex different clin9cal conditions.
2. Ascribing the overwhelming of hospitals in many different countries to a panic response causing more panic, rather than accepting that this is extraordinary. Implying that hospital staff are unthinking and do not know what they are doing, and that the writer knows better.
3. Latching on to the fact that many deaths are in a vulnerable population, thereby using an obvious fact of life, death occurs in those more vulnerable for whatever cause, to deflect from the fact that these deaths are untimely and occur in a very short timescale.
4. That the numbers of deaths are exaggerated, ignoring the fact that actually they are probably underreported because of limited testing especially of people dying untested outside of hospital setting.
It is a pity that these same people have not been able to criticise the woefully inadequate preparation for an epidemic and have mismanaged every step of the response.April 13, 2020 at 10:55 #51684Dave
There is a conflation between corona-viruses and flu, but by your own admission corona is less severe.
There are over 600,000 deaths a year in UK, and even if we accept the latest figure of 10,000 ‘corona-related deaths’, this still leaves 590,000 ‘non-corona-related’ deaths a year. So is it rational to impose a lockdown due to the 10,000 and not the 590,000?
However according the “Office of National Statistics, weekly all-cause mortality surveillance 2019 to 2020” the overall death rate this year is below the average for the preceding 5 years.
But as is revealed by the use of the words died with, after and now related, as opposed died FROM corona there is a deliberate misuse of words to artificially increase the ‘corona death figures’.
There is also a policy to heighten the apparent severity of the disease, by the severity of the restrictions (which make no sense) to tackle it, such as stay at home, when going out is better for general health and well-being. And the lockdown hasn’t saved lives, but will cost many lives and livelihoods.
The other undeclared (real) reason for the severe measures is to impose a ban on political meetings and assembly to stop people protesting against the criminal lockdown under fear of arrest, under the guise of protecting the people from a virus.
The purpose of the deep state MSM driven panic is to wreck the economy and blame Trump for mishandling their crisis. This shows the satanic nature of the deep state, ready to crush humanity to defend the 1%. And shows why Sanders supporters and socialists should switch to Trump who despite his faults is a threat to the Washington swamp and preferable to the Mafia/Democrats.
Trump initially and correctly identified this, and wanted like Boris (and Sweden) a proportionate response, but due to the wall to wall MSM scaremongering calling for a extreme lockdown, had to outflank the plot with some lockdown measures and (got to laugh) turned it to his advantage with daily Whitehouse briefing that have boosted his popularity.
And the difference this time compared to for example 9/11 is this lockdown hurts everyone to varying degrees, (except the 1%) but because its dressed up as a medical matter there is already massive debunking, as many people naively reveal the truth, not aware of the political agenda behind the crisis.April 13, 2020 at 11:29 #51685Node
SA “No I do not believe the numbers are exaggerated.”
Italy does not differentiate between those who simply have the virus in their body, and those who are actually killed by it. Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health said:
The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus […] On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,”
Robert Koch Institute confirmed that Germany counts any deceased person who was infected with coronavirus as a Covid19 death, whether or not it actually caused death.
In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that was without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics.
In the USA, Minnesota State Senator Dr Scott Jensen says Department of Health guidelines instruct doctors to list Covid19 as cause of death, without being tested. He said he had never before in his thirty-five-year career received specific instructions on how to fill out a death certificate.
In the UK, Northern Ireland’s HSC Public Health Agency is releasing weekly surveillance bulletins on the pandemic, in those reports they define a “Covid19 death” as:
“individuals who have died within 28 days of first positive result, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death.”
NHS England’s Office of National Statistics change the way they report the numbers in weekly reports on nation-wide mortality. They now report the same deaths twice – once in provisional totals and again the following week when the death has been registered. ONS tell doctors it is OK to list “Covid-19” as a cause of death when there is literally no evidence the deceased was infected. That means there are potentially huge numbers of “Covid19 deaths” that were never even tested for the disease. NHS guidance is “if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.”
The Coronavirus Bill has altered the law such that the true figures can never be known. “Usually, any death attributed to a “notifiable disease” had to be referred to a coroner for a jury hearing. Under UK law Covid19 is a “notifiable disease”, but the new Coronavirus Bill alters the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, to specifically exempt alleged Covid19 deaths from jury inquests. Further, according to the office of the Chief Coroner, the Coronavirus Bill means that these deaths don’t have to be referred to a coroner at all, and that medical practitioners can sign off a cause of death for a body they have never even seen. [….] Deaths “in the community” can be listed as Covid19 deaths without being tested for the disease, or even seen by a doctor at all These deaths will not necessarily be referred to a coroner, and certainly not heard by a jury.”
A typical example : An 18-year-old in Coventry tested positive for coronavirus the day before he died and was reported as its youngest victim at the time. But the hospital subsequently released a statement saying his death had been due to a separate “significant” health condition and not connected to the virus. Despite the hospital specifically informing the press that the death was unconnected to coronavirus, the case is still being reported as the youngest coronavirus victim.April 13, 2020 at 11:36 #51686Node
I forgot to add the link for N. Ireland definition of covid-19 death: “individuals who have died within 28 days of first positive result, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death.
[pretty weird link but the document seems to be genuine]April 13, 2020 at 11:47 #51687SA
“There is a conflation between corona-viruses and flu, but by your own admission corona is less severe.”
There is only conflation in certain people’s minds. So as not to repeat myself look up what I wrote earlier:
April 13, 2020 at 05:00
There is a spectrum of disease caused by SARS-Cov2 which includes SARS at the severe end and mild or asymptomatic disease. The proportions of each of these is still not known because we do not have a denominator because of the lack of widespread testing. SARS is not a feature of infection with influenza viruses so to keep on repeating the same thing is just wrong. Once again let me repeat: Influenza and Covid-19 are two different diseases.
Your use of statistics is fallacious:
“There are over 600,000 deaths a year in UK, and even if we accept the latest figure of 10,000 ‘corona-related deaths’, this still leaves 590,000 ‘non-corona-related’ deaths a year. So is it rational to impose a lockdown due to the 10,000 and not the 590,000? ”
So because 600,000 people died last year we accept that this figure will be fixed despite having a pandemic? What sort of logic is that? The 600,000 people died over 12 months roughly about 1250 people a day. The figures of increasing mortality from Covid-19 have only recently started to reach high figures getting just over 1000 a few days ago. Therefore fixing your figure for Covid-19 deaths to 10,000 and assuming no one is going to die of the disease for the rest of the year is a bit premature.
You think that your hero Trump will save us if only he is allowed to? Remember he has been around now for 3 and a half years, and things are only getting worse. The US is no less a gangster state than it has been under other POTUSs.April 13, 2020 at 12:23 #51689SA
I do take your point but a lot of what you are saying boils down to two points:
1. That everyone who has been found to have the virus and died has been labelled as dying of the virus. Valid point but what happens in a situation like this is that there are thorough clinical studies as those published in the Lancet and JAMA by the Chinese groups which detail the clinical picture, and then what happens in the real world with limited resources and fast moving scenarios. It is easy to document two parameters: those who are positive for SARS cov-2, because testing is centralised and data available immediately and a great deal of accuracy, and those who have died because again that is an easily verifiable occurrence. But the clinical details of what the actual cause of death such as is registered in death certificates may not be as easily collectable and collatable in this situation. This is my own analysis and I may be wrong but this would explain the wordings of some of the pronouncements made. Because of what was seen in China and Italy and Spain, you cannot afford the luxury of waiting for 100% proof data. In any case why are people dying in these numbers whatever the cause of death is? It may be more instructive to look at the weekly mortality figures from the ONS but even these lag by about two weeks. The latest available figures are from 27th March at the start of the sudden rise in cases.
2. Reliance on anecdotes of certain misdiagnoses that achieve a high profile and become the exceptions to prove the case, The Slough girl is a case in point, and so is the German patient who died of heart failure. But nobody seems concerned about many residents in care homes dying of what appears to be covid-19 but remained untested.
Yes there may be inaccuracies and confusion in specific cases but can we really get away from acknowledging that many people not expected to die are dying and very quickly and in large increasing numbers?April 13, 2020 at 12:59 #51690Node
Italy’s Ministry of Health calculated that their method of registering covid 19 deaths overstated the number of people dying of cornonavirus (as opposed to with it) by a factor of 8.5. They were so concerned about the false impression the figures were giving that they called a press conference to clarify the situation. The only paper in Britain that reported it was the Daily Telegraph).
Britain and the USA are using the same flawed method of counting coronavirus deaths but with the additional instructions that deaths should be included even if no test was done, and if the death was ‘in the community’ coronavirus should be presumed to be responsible.
In the light of Italy’s analysis, and the additional inflationary factors present in UK’s system, we can conservatively assume that UK’s coronavirus death figures are exaggerated by considerably more than 10 times. We may also assume that the UK is aware of the statement by Italy’s Ministry of Health.
So I repeat my question : Do you believe the figures released as coronavirus deaths in the UK and many other countries, including the ones you mentioned – Italy, Spain, Germany, the USA – are deliberately and hugely exaggerated?April 13, 2020 at 13:25 #51692Dave
There is a conflation because they are similar and the preventative measures are similar, albeit there is no actual defence to a microscopic virus as opposed treatment for the symptoms.
The focus of the lockdown has been on the healthy public and economy, rather than on those most at risk, hence the on-going fatalities. And so its wreck a healthy economy and civil rights policy under guise of fighting a virus policy.
Within the 600,000 are victims of infections caught in hospitals and care homes are underfunded/mismanaged and inmates are sometimes mistreated. In other words there are many areas deserving better attention and funding, which in turn require a healthy economy to deliver.
Therefore to wreck an economy to ‘help’ a particular group (and failing to do so) is at best sincere but counter-productive, but as its so obviously an irrational approach based on dodgy figures, its just wicked really. But for those who gave us 9/11 and “humanitarian destruction of defenceless countries to save lives”, its just the day job!April 13, 2020 at 13:28 #51693SA
This is from the Italian public health centre, equivalent to PHE here and with actual analysis of causes of death:
It is worth quoting the first 6 headings:
The analysis is based on a sample of 16,654 patients who died and tested positive for COVID-19 in Italy.
The average age of patients who died and tested positive for COVID-19 is 78 years (median 80, range 5-100, Range InterQuartile – IQR 73-85). There are 5478 women (32.9%). Figure 1 shows that the median age of COVID-19-positive patients is over 15 years higher than that of patients who contracted the infection (median age: patients who died 80 years – patients with infection 62 years). Age data was not available for 1 patient. The figure shows the number of deaths by age group. Women who died after contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection are older than men (median age: women 83 – men 78).
3. Pre-existing pathologies
The graph presents the most common pre-existing chronic diseases (diagnosed before contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection) in deceased patients. This figure was obtained from 1453 deceased people for whom medical records could be analysed. The average number of pathologies observed in this population is 3.3 (median 3, Standard Deviation 1.9). Overall, 51 patients (3.5% of the sample) had 0 pathologies, 215 (14.8%) 1 pathology, 301 had 2 pathologies (20.7%) 886 (61.0%) had three or more pathologies. Prior to hospitalization, 25% of COVID-19 positive patients had ACE-inhibitors and 15% had therapy with Sartani (angiotensin receptor blockers). In women (n-448) the average number of diseases observed is 3.3 (median 3, Standard Deviation 1.9); in men (n-1005) the average number of pathologies observed is 3.2 (median 3, Standard Deviation 1.9). standard deviation 1.9).
4. Diagnosis of hospitalization
93.5% of hospitalisation diagnoses mention coVID-19-compatible conditions (e.g. pneumonia, respiratory failure) or symptoms (e.g. fever, breathlessness, cough). In 91 cases (6.5% of the total) the diagnosis of hospitalization was not related to the infection. In 8 cases the diagnosis of hospitalization concerned only cancer diseases, in 40 cases cardiovascular pathologies (e.g. acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke), in 13 cases gastrointestinal diseases (e.g. gallbladder, intestinal perforation, intestinal occlusion, cirrhosis), in 30 other cases.
The graph shows the most commonly observed symptoms before hospitalization in COVID-19 positive patients. Breath and cough fever are the most common symptoms. Less frequent are diarrhea and emotic. 5.7% of people had no symptoms at the time of admission.
Respiratory failure was the most commonly observed complication in this sample (96.7% of cases), followed by acute kidney damage (23.5%), overinfection (11.0%) acute myocardial damage (9.8%).
Not that in this sample of over 16,000 deaths 96.7% died of respiratory failure and this is much harder data than the anecdotes you quote.April 13, 2020 at 13:31 #51694SA
Let us concede for the sake of argument that you are right. Why are all those capitalists trying to wreck the capitalist economy? Could you tell me in easily verifiable terms how they stand to gain? Also how do you explain this rising death toll suddenly arising in many countries, escalating exponentially with a repeated pattern?April 13, 2020 at 13:39 #51695SA
“So I repeat my question : Do you believe the figures released as coronavirus deaths in the UK and many other countries, including the ones you mentioned – Italy, Spain, Germany, the USA – are deliberately and hugely exaggerated?”
But I have already answered this question in the negative if you would like to go back and have a look. You started answering that post above but on your own admission decided to abandon reading further because your feelings were hurt.April 13, 2020 at 13:49 #51696Node
I have provided evidence that the system the UK uses inflates the figures by a factor of 8.5, and that the UK has introduced additional inflationary counting methods.
I have made a reasonable assumption that the UK is aware of the above.
On what grounds do you dispute that the UK is deliberately inflating its coronavirus death figures?April 13, 2020 at 14:31 #51700SA
You stated that the figures were inflated but did not provide any evidence.April 13, 2020 at 14:55 #51701Dave
Rather than Capitalists, think modern day Alchemists, the Bankers, who have found the secret of turning lead into gold, through the private control of money creation, a privilege they could lose if either left or right wing populists win power and restore this power to the people. As ironically could happen as governments increase spending using Modern Monetary Theory, to respond to the crisis.
A privilege guarded by an electric fence called “anti-Semitism”, hence why both left and right get reviled by the private alchemists, unless they agree to toe the line. Corrupt or compromised politicians normally do, but independent thinkers do occasionally appear and are deemed extremely dangerous, in case they (even innocently) act on behalf of the people.
For example Corbyn and Trump are polar opposites and revile each other, but are both equally reviled by the money power. They got rid of Corbyn, but Trump is proving popular and tenacious, hence why they have had to up-the-anti to get rid of him, bearing in mind a recession ultimately favours the rich, who can buy assets cheap and ‘double-their-money’ when the economy is reflated.
And bearing in mind wrecking the economy is still not as bad as starting another world war to maintain their financial empire.April 13, 2020 at 15:04 #51702Dave
The evidence for inflated figures is the use of the words WITH, AFTER and RELATED rather than FROM to describe the coronavirus death figures.April 13, 2020 at 15:05 #51703SA
Just a slight problem with your analysis Dave.
Trump is part of those rich people you are talking about which you say he stands up against. Trump is hardly anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli. If you think he is whilst having recognised Israel’s right to annex territories and to own Jerusalem, whilst his son in law produces a one-sided deal of the century, then something doesn’t add up..April 13, 2020 at 15:06 #51704SA
Are you quoting from any particular document? If so please reference so I can analyse.April 13, 2020 at 15:11 #51705Node
SA “You stated that the figures were inflated but did not provide any evidence.”
I provided a statement from the Italian Institute of Health that only 12% of Italy’s reported Covid19 deaths actually listed Covid19 as the cause of death.
I provided links to Office of National Statistics and NHS documents which prove that the UK is using the same flawed reporting system as Italy.
I provided further UK Office of the Chief Coroner documents that prove the UK has introduced further reporting measures – such as including those who have not been tested, and even those who have not been seen by a doctor – which inflate the figures even more than Italy.
Do you dispute the validity any of this evidence?April 13, 2020 at 15:52 #51708Clark
It is likely that the changes in counting death statistics are because covid-19 deaths were being undercounted. This happened earlier in China. At first, deaths were only recorded as due to covid-19 if a test had proven positive, but far larger numbers were dying than being tested. So the criteria were altered to include clinical judgement based on symptoms, especially lung scans, because covid-19 produces characteristic lung damage.
There is also evidence of undercounting from Italy:
– Coronavirus, the real death toll: 4,500 victims in one month in the province of Bergamo
– This is the result of the analysis carried out by L’Eco di Bergamo and InTwig using the data provided by local municipalities.
– What the official figures don’t say. They don’t say that in March 2020 more than 5,400 people have died in Bergamo province, 4,500 of which due to coronavirus. Six times more than the previous year. Of only 2,060 of them, the official certified deaths caused by Covid-19 in the local hospitals (data as at yesterday), we know everything: age, gender, pre-existing conditions. We do not know anything about the other 2,500. Many of them are old people, who died at home or in assisted residential homes. In spite of the unmistakable symptoms, as recorded by physicians and relatives, they were never tested for the disease. On their death certificate you can just read: interstitial pneumonia.
Bergamo Province has a population of about 1.1 million people.
– – – – – – – –
Node has already seen this evidence elsewhere, but continues to tell only one side of a story. It is possible that Node is knowingly making a false case.April 13, 2020 at 15:54 #51709Clark
Is that right Dave? We are prevented from criticising banking practices because it would be anti-Semitic?April 13, 2020 at 16:15 #51711michael norton
Apparently in the United Kingdom
not a single person taken in to hospital suspected of having covid-19 has been counted as recovered, not even Boris Johnson.
Yet in other European countries, they claim thousands have recovered.
In Germany they are claiming 50% have recovered.
Surely things can’t be so different between Germany and the U.K.?
https://coronavirus.thebaselab.com/April 13, 2020 at 16:27 #51712Clark
Those who promote false claims frequently retreat to untestable conditions, but failing that, complex matters can provide many details from which it is possible to cherry-pick.
This thread was originally about the UAF Report into the collapse of WTC7. I made some rigorous claims in that most rigorous field of hard science, classical physics, namely that g and free-fall are not even conceptually similar, that acceleration at g does not imply free-fall, that the rooflines of buildings that are demolished fall at less than g anyway, and that collapsing building debris cannot be in free-fall.
All argument for demolition of the Twin Towers, not WTC7, rapidly evaporated, and the thread changed tack, to the messiest and most complex fields of science, those that deal with health, and cherry-picking ensued. Que bono?April 13, 2020 at 16:28 #51713Dave
Well Corbyn was denounced over supporting an east end mural, showing bankers playing monopoly on the backs of the poor! The mural was deemed “anti-Semitic”, do you agree?April 13, 2020 at 16:36 #51715Dave
You exchange sophistry for science. You assert, because something fell a few seconds outside free fall, it isn’t free fall and of course that would be technically correct. But even a few seconds outside free fall would be evidence of assisted demolition. But you with usual audacity focus on saying “outside free fall” as if that’s evidence of unassisted demolition!April 13, 2020 at 16:38 #51716SA
I am sorry Node. Not trying to be awkward but your referencing means I have to do a lot of homework to get to what you are trying to prove. Your reference April 13, 2020 at 11:29 #51685
to your post on the Italian Government is a link to an OffGuardian article and not to what was originally said by the Italian institute of Health. I have on the contrary not only sent you a reference to a primary source but have taken relevant extracts to show how the death of over 16000 cases were accounted for with a lot of clinical details. I think you would agree that such a clinical analysis is worth more than an article from a website written by a non-expert?
“I provided links to Office of National Statistics and NHS documents which prove that the UK is using the same flawed reporting system as Italy.” I see no such reference from you pointing to what you claim. However I think I know what you say as this comes from the chart of the weekly mortality figures:
“Because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, our regular weekly deaths release now provides a separate breakdown of the numbers of deaths involving COVID-19. That is, where COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, including in combination with other health conditions. Previously, the number of deaths with an underlying cause of respiratory disease was published a week behind the current week. These will now be published for the current week and revised the following week. Alongside this, a new bulletin summarises the latest weekly information and will be updated each week during the pandemic. A link to the bulletin can be found in the notice box on the weekly deaths dataset page.”
So we will need to go back to the death certificate where this information arises. You point somewhere that Doctors have been advised as to how to fill death certificates with modifications to take account of Covid-19. There is no conspiracy there it is just a clarification. Death certificates may be issued on clinical grounds if other information is lacking. The fact that all those who are virus positive are all then grouped as deaths relating to Covid-19 may slightly overestimate the numbers but I cannot see how this can produce a figure of x 8.5 the actual numbers. Given that the majority of the patients admitted to hospital in this epidemic will be so admitted because they have symptoms relating to the virus then it is reasonable to take this approach. ONS also say that the figures would be revised when more information is available.
I see no smoking gun there given that at present detailed clinical studies in China and Italy have shown the extent of the problem.
As to guidance filling death certificates, here is a relevant extract
“4. How to complete the cause of death section
• COVID-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death • COVID-19 is not a reason on its own to refer a death to a coroner under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. • That COVID-19 is a notifiable disease under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 does not mean referral to a coroner is required by virtue of its notifiable status.
“Medical practitioners are required to certify causes of death “to the best of their knowledge and belief”. Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle ‘2’ in the MCCD (“information from post-mortem may be available later”) or tick Box B on the reverse of the MCCD for ante-mortem investigations. For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement. ”
But that is what death certificates always do, they are based on clinical judgement.
I still have not seen any solid analysis to substantiate your claim that the reported death from Covid-19 is 8.5 times that of the true figureApril 13, 2020 at 16:45 #51717SA
You are quite right Clark. I shall stop commenting on the covid-19 on this thread. Those who wish can join in at
But as you say, cherry picking is the order of the day. Finding an obscure US governor disagreeing with science is easy. Selective statistics and here say is another.April 13, 2020 at 16:47 #51718SA
Sometime it is worth looking at the mirror.
Sophistry: the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.April 13, 2020 at 17:28 #51720Dave
Trump has declared for “America First”, this patriotic idea will inevitably worry Alchemists as a patriot worried about sovereignty will inevitably question who controls the money, because who controls the money will control the country.
Many patriots may not have even considered the idea, and alas many conservatives consider it communist to do so, but its a question a patriot will be naturally inclined to consider, a heresy waiting to happen.
Also as an “America First” Zionist he supports a Middle-East peace settlement rather than perpetual war on behalf of Israel. Hence why when he refused to bomb Syria and kill a lot of civilians, the Trotskyite neo-cons declared him ‘unsafe’ on Israel.
In America you can’t get elected without rich backers or being rich yourself. Trump’s wealth is another reason he’s deemed a threat (waiting to happen) as whether you like him or not, he’s his own man.April 13, 2020 at 18:46 #51721Clark
Dave, yes, a smear campaign of false accusations of anti-Semitism was used against Jeremy Corbyn. It probably wasn’t very effective because in the 2017 General Election the Labour Party gained 30 seats and the Conservatives lost their majority.
Your 16:36 comment demonstrates that you don’t understand the arguments I have presented; you are still confusing g with free-fall, and have failed to grasp that buildings being demolished aren’t in free-fall and fall slower than g.
What I did with the Twin Tower collapses was to calculate the lower bound of the collapse time, taking momentum transfer between floor assemblies into consideration but not mechanical resistance, because the latter was beyond my expertise. The collapse times were well above this limit.
To check mechanical resistance, I worked backwards from estimated collapse times measured from video. By subtracting my result above I calculated free energy not expended in collapse itself, and found it to be ample to overcome mechanical resistance – it was equivalent to the energy of more than enough explosives to detach all floor assemblies from the vertical frame.
Thus the collapse times provide no reason to suspect explosives; the Twin Towers would have collapsed that fast without them.
A complete building collapse almost has to accelerate. If it were to decelerate it would stop, incomplete. There is a critical case of roughly uniform velocity, but it is unlikely, like a falling pencil landing upright, balanced on its end.
I doubt you understand the arguments above, though I doubt that will stop you either. But I did these calculations with simple O Level physics, so Twin Tower demolition theories just look silly to mechanical engineers, just as Node’s “just like flu” arguments must look silly to epidemiologists.April 13, 2020 at 20:07 #51726Dave
And so despite the two towers (allegedly) being hit by two planes in different places, they both disintegrated in the same way?April 13, 2020 at 20:24 #51727Clark
Yep. Well almost; there were differences, consistent with the different impact points. The towers were of almost identical structure (the clue’s in the name), and the aircraft were pretty similar too.
Anyway, today’s the day, fifty years ago, that Apollo 13 suffered an internal explosion, so I’m off over here: