SARS cov2 and Covid 19

Home Forums Discussion Forum SARS cov2 and Covid 19

  • This topic has 1,202 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 months ago by Dave.
Viewing 40 posts - 1,121 through 1,160 (of 1,203 total)
  • Author
  • #64802

    I haven’t muddied the facts of covid-19 mortality. I queried it, investigated it and then set out the difference between the government headline statistic and the WHO definition. A difference of around 14%, as stated by the ONS. It is telling that you regard that as muddying.
    You don’t like to be insulted. Neither do I. But to use one of your own, oft-used, responses – tough.


    A human rights Lawyer Adam Wagner wrote this in the Guardian:

    “Lockdown rules in England have been changed at least 64 times by the government since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a human rights barrister has calculated, amid growing calls for clearer guidance for the public.

    Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers, said that new national regulations, local regulations, regulations on face coverings or rules on travel quarantine have passed into law on average every four-and-a-half days since the first restrictions were introduced in the spring.

    As a result, the rules have become increasingly cumbersome, with police, lawyers and ministers unable to distinguish between laws and advice. The guidance given to the public often does not reflect the law, Wagner said.

    Many rules, including those demanding that people have a reasonable excuse before travelling, are effectively unenforceable, he said.”

    And that is the problem, the rules change often, there is no distinction between Law and guidance, and the law is not consistently applied. High profile politicians also are not setting good examples in their personal behaviors.


    Steph, are you generally interested in statistics? Or just with the “died of or with covid-19” non-issue component of the covid denial conspiracy theory? ‘Cos you went on about it in great detail for two whole pages of comments, arguing against doctors who are working very hard trying to avert these deaths.



    ” Here is a rather interesting little paper, only a pre-print I’m afraid, but quite well put together. “

    It is not a little paper, it is actually quite complicated in many ways. Have you read all the paper and reached your own conclusions? A personally found it difficult to do so. Of course it makes the point that there is currently more tolerance to harmful by-products due to measures to combat Covid-19 than those unrelated to Covid-19, and that this amounts to moralization of the issue:

    “As such, the harmful by-products inherent in combating C19’s health effects would be accepted as more tolerable than identical harm resulting from efforts unrelated to C19’s health effects. Predictions were overwhelmingly supported.”

    But this is the current problem with this pandemic. From the outset, public health experts and the WHO knew that this was serious and that there was a real risk of a pandemic. It is a fact that is not really for debate for many reasons we can discuss if needed, but there are still some who question this basic fact. Secondly there have been long-agreed protocols for dealing with pandemics and the aim is early containment with stringent measures and some countries managed to do so. In certain countries in the West, it was seen that these methods are outdated because individualism trumps the common good. Our country had not reviewed the plans to deal with epidemics, was totally unprepared for one, despite the threatened pandemics of 2003 and 2012 which luckily did not spread, but many experts would say that it is a question of when, not if, the next pandemic will occur, given the interconnectivity of countries.
    To return to the topic of morality and beliefs, in a situation with many unknowns, it is common to revert to tried and tested measures, and it is also understandable that those who are most at risk will be more fearful of the consequences of the disease to themselves and all of those around them. This is specially the case when there are so many unknowns about the virus, and we keep discovering more about these dangers, such as the recent quickly spreading variant, long covid, and increasingly severe disease in younger age groups. It is not uncommon for people who face an uncertain future to have strong beliefs and to see that those who are thwarting their possible changes of survival in moral terms, and this is exactly what this paper concludes. Why do we not haver papers in scientific journals to investigate why there is a rise in evangelical tele-preachers? It is a sort of related phenomenon. Proving it does not move us forward. Also when you look the supposed groups studied in the paper then there is a group with perceived direct threat which would be difficult to define in the general population, because they could be the elderly, with comorbidities, obese, people with underlying conditions, and so on, and then also those closely related to them or those who have had direct experience of the disease. These will still constitute a minority of the population whether it is 10% or 30%. However those who suffer most from lockdown are 100% of the population and therefore in any analysis we have unequal groups to compare. Moreover when we look at recruitment in the study in this paper, one of the studies relies on recruitment through social media, and these are generally people with strong and polarised group.

    My own feelings is that the pandemic has been politicised from the outset, with too much decisions left to governments to carry out measures in keeping with a political agenda. It has been divisive with polarisation of views. Tough measures taken from the outset could have possible stopped or slowed the pandemic, but needed worldwide bipartisan agreement. But it is too late now to have prolonged lockdowns, that train has long left the station. There are sadly no easy alternatives until hopefully vaccination will help to contain the spread of the virus.


    SA – Thank you for taking the time to read that paper and posting a considered response. Yes, I have of course read it myself and would not have linked to it otherwise. It is a bit unwieldy I agree, but as I tend to read studies and articles relating to ‘the bigger picture’ rather more than those specific to the virus itself, although I read some of those too, it was of interest to me.
    The problem for me is, and always has been, does the cost of the response outweigh the cost of the disease? Its all well and good to say ‘if we had done x at the beginning’ things might have worked out better. But we didn’t, and now we are where we are. It has indeed become horribly politicised, that was almost inevitable in our society, but I do also get a very strong sense that those still clamouring for harsher restrictions now view themselves as ‘morally’ right, always an exceedingly distasteful attitude in my opinion. I felt that this bit of research shed a little light on that and tried to warn of the dangers inherent in such a situation. A feeling of having morality on ones side, makes people behave differently than they might otherwise, what was ‘wrong’ before becomes acceptable ‘under the circumstances’. They are even clamouring to have sceptical or dissenting voices de-platformed and silenced altogether in the name of ‘stopping the spread of misinformation’. Have you ever really stopped to consider how incredibly dangerous that is to society? How that moral outrage will be used and how, far from finding a practical solution to the problem of this or any other virus, it will distort reality altogether? Both you and Clarke have made plain that you consider me callous, uncaring and even downright malicious. The result being that I no longer wish to debate with either of you. Do you see how that works in the wider context?


    [ MOD: Conspiracy theories belong in the appropriate forum. ]

    The communist rules (the ones they advertise) make no sense, which is why they are ignored, when people think its safe to do so, to avoid state sponsored harassment and threat of ludicrous fines.

    Some believe the rules make sense, and others want to avoid a fuss, but the fact is, although e.g. the rules advise people to wear a harmful mask, they also exempt everyone from doing so, but few know this and/or have the nerve to use their exemption.

    This may sound odd, but its the way the Politburo squares the circle. They dress up guidance as rules as if they were law, but give everyone an exemption, because its illegal to order people to wear masks without a medical risk assessment. Otherwise it means those doing the ordering are themselves committing an offence under hate and disability discrimination legislation and liable to prosecution.

    So they coerce people to wear them, but say its voluntary to do so, whilst ensuring nothing goes to court.

    That why nothing goes to court, and if it does, if people stand their ground, like Piers Corbyn, it gets dismissed, because if the matter was heard, it would involve testing out the legality of government policy which they wish to avoid. Simon Dolan of Keep Britain Free tried to bring a Judicial Review of their disproportionate use of the 1984 Public Health Act but the courts have refused to take the case, on lack of standing. (Same problem in US about election fraud).

    Put another way everyone can claim a medical exemption if mask wearing makes them ill, and of course its a personal matter whether they do. The Gov website says an exemption badge, saying EXEMPT, which can be downloaded from their site (but you can make your own) is written evidence of your exemption.

    Many people disbelieve this, thinking you would at least require a doctors letter proving your exemption, except the government site says don’t ask GPs for letters, and GPs have been told not to give them out. In other words the government is not concerned about mask wearing for health reasons but for compliance reasons, as you are de facto agreeing with government policy, and if you wear their badge instead, for them, this still amounts to loyal compliance too.

    To up the ante they are trying to get shop owners to enforce the rules, but the rules require them to advertise but not enforce the rules, which are guidance not law, but they fear they will be closed down if they don’t, (but again defiance would result in any legal/court action being dropped before it was heard). Its the Police’s job to enforce the rules, but they don’t want to enforce them either for the same reasons, as they’re not enforceable as everyone can claim an exemption.

    Fines are issued, and more are issued for repeat offences up to £10,000, and whilst some pay-up (de facto agreeing the offence) but if nothing’s paid, it climbs to £10,00 and then it gets dismissed at court.

    Activists can calmly explain their exemption when challenged, and normally saying your exempt, keeps everyone happy, as its playing the game imposed by communist government, but problems will inevitably arise when ordinary/angry people are challenged resulting in aggressive responses. And yet the government is coercing people and shopkeepers to spend money and risk assault to further government policy and rules that are guidance NOT law.

    And its gone on long enough, its time to vote them out, except they’ve conveniently cancelled all elections, until its safe to go out. In other words the whole thing involves government intimidation of the population by ministerial decree worthy of a banana republic making the cure far worse than the disease on behalf of international drug cartels and others.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.

    It’s started: ASDA say they will Covid-vaccinate customers in-store. No prizes for guessing what’s next.


    Thank you for your comment. The problem now is that it seems that we have painted ourselves in the corner and have nowhere to go. UK is one of the worst hit countries both from Covid-19 deaths and from the economic point of view. But we cannot let go of the restrictions, and even at tier 4 level the virus infected numbers were rising. The NHS is getting to the point of not being able to cope. I think it is obvious that relaxing the restrictions now will only lead to lots of deaths in a short period of time. So yes, unfortunately stricter measures are needed and also yes, lots of hardship is going to be experienced. Whereas I and others may see this clearly, because of my background and what I know, others appear to not see it and believe in alternative remedies for the situation on highly contentious grounds and also seem to believe the minority opinion, even if that minority opinion is not in the centre of dealing with the medical and scientific problem. The current mess we are in is purely due to our inept government and its mishandling of the crisis, and you may have noticed now that many doctors and scientists are coming out openly criticizing the government. The doubts expressed in these blogs seem to be directed against, and doubtful of the science, and not at the politicians. That is what is so frustrating. The virus is a force majeure and dealing with it can only be done in a limited number of ways, whereas economic and mental and other sufferings, which are very real, could either wait or be dealt with in alternative ways. For example, in this time of calamity nobody should be making excessive profits, but there are some who do and they all seem to be friends and donors of the governing party.


    And Steph, I agree that deplatforming and criminalising dissent only drives dissenters underground. But people like Dave above actually do because, although he has a point, he couches it in some nonsense about communists. For example, the discussion as to whether masks are useful or harmful has been addressed in this thread before and it is therefore futile to keep telling Dave that he is wrong in what he says about the masks being harmful. Only a minority of people could suffer from wearing masks, and should be exempt. But I also agree that this is not something that should be ‘policed’ or criminalised, It is a symptom of the lack of cohesion in our society that a vociferous minority need to keep questioning some basic points over and over again and to turn relatively simple measures such as wearing a mask, or social distancing into a political statement.


    Coercive mask wearing is not a minor matter, its a civil liberties issue as well as medical issue. There was a great deal of concerns, in reality few in number, at least in UK, about face coverings and the burka, and used as symbol of Islamist extremism and sexual discrimination. No doubt an inequality issue you think resolved by everyone wearing a face covering.

    Western liberalism is now similar to Eastern fundamentalism as the ratchet is tightened on civil restrictions which our own elites, like the Saudi Royals ignore, when it suits them.

    People are prepared to act for a while in an unreasonable way, for the common good, but not when it becomes obvious its about compliance to enrich the wealthy rather than help the vulnerable. There was never funding to improve adult social care, but billions has been found to lockdown the healthy and still the vulnerable suffer and die, because the policy never made sense from the start.

    The virus was used to topple Trump, and now they think its been achieved, the New York mayor announces an end of lockdown to save city, job done, but we won’t know for sure until 21st Jan.


    Surgeons and attendees at operations are required to wear masks too. Would you call that “coercive” too? What about the imposition of seat belts, which is another impingement on our freedoms for public health reasons. How about regulations curbing toxic emissions – another nail in the coffin of liberty?

    Dave – Everything you say has been repeatedly dealt with, it is ludicrous for you to bring up tired nonsense again and again such as asserting masks are harmful.

    Nobody wants the entire world wearing masks forever, whatever your fever-dreams might be telling you. As soon as the pandemic is over, so will the requirement to wear them. Do you actually think the authorities want their face recognition technology being thwarted like this?

    As a Trump fan-boy, I’m surprised you’re talking up concern about the vulnerable and poor. What are you – some sort of communist?

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.

    Mystic N_eg: “It’s started: ASDA say they will Covid-vaccinate customers in-store. No prizes for guessing what’s next.”

    OMG! It’s started?? Already?? OMG OMG OMG!!! Err.. What is “it” that’s actually started? And what _is_ going to happen next? Do tell, Mystic N_eg, do tell!

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.

    @ glenn-uk

    Masks are worn in a variety of occupations, depending on risk, but the growing general guidance, dressed up as law, to wear them, in public, in the open air, undermines public health, because they are harmful in many ways to the wearer and society as they’re used as part of a pretend health policy to push expensive vaccination, on behalf of the donors, rather than healthy living and therapeutics, and as an excuse to cancel democracy for political reasons.

    I asked Clark whether the May elections will be cancelled and whether he would support such a move, he said yes, what about you?


    “Coercive mask wearing is not a minor matter, its a civil liberties issue as well as medical issue.”

    It is a very minor civil liberties issue almost to the point of being inconsequential. The inconvenience is trivial, you are only asked to use a mask where you are in enclosed spaces with other people.
    When I read your post what immediately came to my mind was seatbelts. Glenn ninja’d me with this. I remember when compulsory seatbelt wearing in front seats (only front seats back then) was introduced in Ireland. The same bullshit was used about that as is now used about masks. How dare the government tell me what to do. Some situations a seatbelt can cause death etc etc. It was bullshit then and is bullshit now. Wearing a seatbelt is a very minor inconvenience if any at all, has no effect on your ability to drive or sit in a car seat comfortably and has been overwhelmingly proven to reduce horrific injuries to the seatbelt wearer and others by preventing the seatbelt wearer becoming a 70Kg projectile at 60 MPH crashing into others. In 2021 nobody cares about the compulsory nature of it and most people would think you are stupid to not wear one. Much the same argument could be made about banning smoking in pubs/restaurants and probably many other things.

    As for it being a medical issue. It isn’t, it just isn’t. I am talking about surgical grade masks and cloth masks here not N95 and higher grade masks. I have had to wear surgical masks for hours on end for years. So do operating theatre staff, dentists and many others. Again they are little to no inconvenience, they do not appreciably affect your ability to breath and the CO2 rebreathing is total nonsense. Kids playing cowboys and indians running about all day with cloth coverings. Gimme a break Dave. Stop taking everything they say at infowars as the “truth they don’t want you to hear.”
    Wear your mask when required even if just out of respect for others and stop whining about it. It is NOT a big deal.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by modbot.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by modbot.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by modbot.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by modbot.

    It’s pretty hard to unpack your sentences, Dave – the density of falsehoods is huge.

    D: “[…] to wear them, in public”

    Actually, only in public when you cannot avoid getting close to others. Not in the open air. Most definitely not while distant from others, on your own. Some people choose to do so, though, it’s up to them.

    D: “, in the open air, ”

    Utterly untrue. There is no requirement to wear masks in the open air.

    D: “…undermines public health, because they are harmful in many ways to the wearer and society as they’re used as part of a pretend health policy ”

    Ah, see what you did there? You’re bootstrapping. It’s harmful _because_ it’s part of a pretend policy. A “pretend policy” only in that you’re asserting this to be so. And it must be a “pretend policy” because it’s harmful. One thing that does undermine health policy are baseless conspiracies, lies and scaremongering.

    D: “to push expensive vaccination, on behalf of the donors, ”

    False. They are being provided at cost – the Oxford vaccine is also going to be made available to the third world at cost. Nobody is being forced to have one either.

    Incidentally, do you think the entire notion of vaccination is false/fake?

    D: “rather than healthy living and therapeutics, ”

    False. There is nothing stopping healthy living, in fact exercise is being encouraged. Unsure what “therapeutics” you think are being banned.

    D: “and as an excuse to cancel democracy for political reasons.”

    False. You’ll notice America just had elections – even though Trump wanted to cancel it because of the virus!
    I suppose you think all parties just agree to “cancel democracy”? Oh jeez.

    Actually, I don’t think elections should be cancelled. No reason we cannot all have postal votes, for instance.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by degmod.

    Within the last 30 minutes I have just been informed that my 90 year old mother with advanced Alzheimer’s who is in a care home in Ireland has been found to be positive. The care home tested all residents after some staff had tested positive a couple of days back. They were testing all staff every 48 hours for weeks. This particular care home were due to have vaccinations next week. Ireland in the last week has seen a meteoric rise in cases moving from 300 a day mid December to over 8000 one day. If similar rates were in UK there would be over 100,000 new cases daily. It has the world’s worst infection rates now having been previously one of the least in the western world. 45% new variant apparently.
    In the county I am from, Louth, they are seeing a large acceleration in case numbers and it is amongst the worst areas affected in the country. Weddings are limited to 25 people (including staff serving) in the current restriction period. Over the Christmas period a wedding was held somewhere in the county where there were 80 guests and the couple wanted a “mask free” day. Many cases have been traced back to this event and it is currently subject to a police investigation.

    I post this to portray just how easily this thing can get out of control. Ireland had been doing relatively well up until Christmas but allowed a comparatively relaxed Christmas period. The consequences of that are truly now becoming apparent. Hospitals are filling, ICU beds are filling up.

    This is the first person in my sphere (for want of a better word) I know to become infected. Of course, inevitably it had to be the most vulnerable person.


    I should also say that the care home in which my mother resides has had zero positive cases since the beginning of the pandemic until today. They had done remarkably well.

    Here is Ireland’s covid-19 dashboard page for anyone interested – Link


    I am so sorry to hear that ET.


    South Africa – for the week from 30 Dec to 5 Jan, covid-19 more than doubled the average death rate – 10,907 excess deaths out of 20,063 total.

    Manaus, Brazil – Last April, Manaus held the record for hospital admissions. Infection was so widespread that a scientific study suggested that Manaus had achieved herd immunity. 44% of a sample of the population tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2; extrapolating for further infections over the following months suggested that 76% of the population had been infected.

    …well, in just the first 12 days of this January, Manaus has had more hospital admissions than in the whole of last April. Burials in Manaus are five times the usual rate for this time of year.

    Barts NHS Trust – has confirmed another case of reinfection. The first instance was mild, the second critical, life threatening. This has been seen in other cases of reinfection. If it turns out to be a common pattern it could help explain the situation in Manaus.


    Terribly sorry to hear it, ET. Best wishes to you and your family.


    ET, I hope your mother does OK.

    My two friends in London – both tested positive, both in their 70s, both OK so far.

    A couple ten miles from me that a friend works for – the wife got ill and died.


    Steph, 14:09 – “…does the cost of the response outweigh the cost of the disease?”

    Steph, please lay your cards out on the table; let’s stop mucking about with all these long, wordy comments. What policy do you advocate?


    Thank you Steph. Time will tell what happens.

    Also, an update to the situation where I live. We now have 30 positive cases stemming from the two original cases on Dec 30 2020.


    Sorry to hear about your mother. Hope she is ok. Also worrying the news from Ireland and where you live. Shows that even when suppressed this virus can suddenly rekindle like wildfire. Have you heard of new variant in Brazil? Apparently Johnson now looks very worried.


    Thanks to everyone for the supportive posts re my mother.

    I hadn’t heard of any other new variants except for the two originating in South African and the UK if indeed that is where the did originate. Mutations are going to be a function of numbers and the more infected the more likely development of new variants. It could go either way, more transmissable but less virulent which could be a helpful development or more transmissable and more virulent which wouldn’t be or anything inbetween.


    There could be new strains from the US as well; it’s likely, as they have a large population with very high infection numbers. But we wouldn’t know because Trump cancelled the sequencing programme, bless him.


    A puzzling, and worrying thing about these new variants is that they have no clear line of descent, eg. the new lineage in Manaus denoted P.1 “carries 17 unique amino acid changes, 3 deletions, and 4 synonymous mutations, and one 4nt insertion compared to the most closely related available non-P.1 sequence (EPI_ISL_722052)”. This is a common theme with all three new strains; we haven’t seen any of the intermediate steps, so where are they coming from? Chronically ill patients? A wild animal reservoir? Our own research? Somewhere we aren’t looking, obviously.

    With only a small proportion of the world population having been infected so far, there is potential for the rate of evolution to increase several-fold.


    Managing expectations, but we’re being told the London Mayoral elections are in doubt, and if so all other elections too, which would mean elections cancelled for over 14 months, due to a virus, which would make a mockery of the struggle to achieve the sacred vote, but after banning Remembrance Sunday and Christmas, I suppose nothing’s sacred anymore, to the virus terrorists.

    However they are scheduled to happen and councils are being funded by the GLA (London councils help fund GLA with a tax and get some back) to close polling stations and locate them elsewhere. I’m not sure whether the idea is the Mayor’s, Government or Unions, but its being done ‘under cover of the virus’, and will result in a big increase in postal voting, which will be promoted by councils due to the long distance many residents will have to walk to the new polling stations, some in isolated areas, across busy roads in areas with little parking.

    One claim is due to the schools being disrupted for so long, the authorities (those responsible for the disruption) want to avoid closing schools for another day in May, but the schools are used due to their central location, as there is a legal requirement for polling stations to be within easy walking distance for residents.

    Its meant to be a temporary measure, but once polling stations have been removed from schools (mostly to their delight) it may prove difficult to put them back.

    However I think the main reason is to promote postal voting, rather than traditional ballot box voting on the day, which like cashless society is promoted as part of the Great Reset, and is conveniently open to fraud and worse still the GLA use voting machines!


    I find the following features of SARS cov2 somewhat worrying. Mutations, infectivity of asymptomatic carriers, prolonged asymptomatic harboring of virus and transmission to animals. The transmission to mink is well known, but more recently 8 Gorillas have become infected in St Diego’s Safari Park:

    “LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – As many as eight gorillas at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park are presumed to have contracted COVID-19 from a human handler after one of the animals tested positive, marking the first known transmission of the virus to apes, zoo officials said on Monday.”

    The handler was asymptomatic and observed appropriate measures according to the article.

    The prolonged transmissibility has been highlighted by ET in the cases he describes from his Island residence.


    Did you read about the Tanzanian case where a paw-paw fruit tested positive for the virus?


    This kind of statement just betrays total ignorance of how PCR works and has been addressed many times before. If you do not have any scientific background whatsoever you could be taken in by this sort of nonsense and it would be difficult to convince you that it is nonsense so let us pass on that.


    And this might help you understand, although I am not sure it will .


    This video (suggested by the excellent Off-Guardian) exactly sums up my feelings about the covid-19 narrative.


    Dave, in what field(s) do you have higher education, and/or professional or specialist experience? Not scientific fields, presumably, but there are many others.

    And as you think this pandemic is fake or a hoax or something, what do you think a real pandemic would be like?

    I’m expecting you to ignore these questions or evade answering directly; please demonstrate good faith by proving me wrong.


    Yes, Node. And how many people have been executed so far for opposing “the covid-19 narrative”?

    (And what “narrative” is that, exactly? The testimony of doctors from all over the world? The graphs I cite as evidence?)

    84,000 dead so far (oh, minus 14%, as per Steph). I hope you enjoy wearing your red arm band Node. I personally find your intellectual bullying highly offensive.


    Node, I find your 11:37 comment unbelievably offensive. We have doctors contributing to this thread, who have worked themselves to exhaustion, risking infection themselves to save lives and ameliorate suffering. By insinuation, you have depicted them as murderous thugs. Words are inadequate to express my revulsion.


    Unlike the juvenile video from OffGuardian posted above, this article from the Canary is extremely relevant and should induce some soul searching especially from those who claim to be concerned about their neighbors and fellow citizens:

    “We need to support each other
    We do know by now that a lockdown comes at a massive cost. People’s mental health undeniably suffers, as more and more of us feel lonely, anxious and isolated.
    So it’s up to all of us to think proactively about what we can do in our communities to help. All of us – anarchists, socialists and Covid-deniers alike – can agree on one thing: that the government has failed us. We can’t rely on it to look out for the most vulnerable people, so we need to continue to build the mutual aid networks that we formed during the first lockdown. We need to continue using our neighbourhood WhatsApp groups – or set them up – and check in with our neighbours. A sense of community will give people strength.”


    Node, 2+2=4, 4-2=2, 2 is 50% of 4. I used similarly basic maths skills to produce these small calculations using information from ONS 2020 weekly all deaths.
    Would you check my calculations please to ensure that the fgures are consistent with 2+2=4?

    Disregarding the cause of death for a moment I don’t think you can plausibly argue that the deaths didn’t happen. Assuming you agree that as given, please outline your explanation as to what might have caused the increases in deaths with a reference to the age groups I mentioned in that post. I ask this in particular for the 15-44 age group where there was an almost 5% increase in deaths in 2020 compared to 2019. At first glance 5% doesn’t seem that much but bear in mind that this age group has a very low risk of death in general. If say a cardiac surgery unit had 5% more deaths than the average or a maternity unit had 5% more neonatal deaths than average it would be a national scandal. (and has been).


    ET: I fear you are wasting your time, it is not possible to make a denialist see reason. The explanation will be along the lines of “The lockdowns caused the excess deaths!”. Pointing out that countries (like Sweden, the US) which did not have any meaningful lockdown also had excess deaths, will gain you the response “The figures are fixed! It’s all a hoax!”.

    Every time you point something out, the conspiracy just gets a little bit bigger to include a negation of the inconvenient fact.

    I heard a wise hillbilly in West Virginia pointing out something that evades rational people – you cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into in the first place.

    You will not get a denialist to see the thing they are denying. It has become too important to their sense of being, they have too much invested in it. Their heads have been in an echo-chamber of like minded denialists, their views have been reinforced too often.


    ET, I think you are taking the video too literally. I am not challenging mortality statistics on this occasion – I may get into that discussion another time.

    “2 + 2 = 5” is a metaphor for how authority can impose a belief system, even a ridiculous one. The majority don’t question the narrative for a variety of reasons that don’t necessarily imply stupidity or ignorance, a certain proportion will feel unease but ignore it for expediency or more complex reasons, a small few will speak out and be punished to deter les autres, and a further few will see it as an opportunity for advancement by displaying their willingness to embrace the new thinking. Very quickly, the new orthodoxy becomes self-policing.

    Putting aside our differing opinions on covid, do you agree that this video portrays a real process by which authority implements and enforces its agenda?

Viewing 40 posts - 1,121 through 1,160 (of 1,203 total)
  • The topic ‘SARS cov2 and Covid 19’ is closed to new replies.