COVID Inquiry findings

Teddy Eagle said:
With selfishness being cited as a reason for lockdown scepticism is there no thought for the 1.3 m people who lost their jobs between March 20 and January 21?
Click to expand...
Of course there were thoughts. There was much more than just thoughts. There was a lot of help.

You cannot help those who died, sometimes a very nasty death.

Would you rather have been dead than on furlough?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I am doing no such thing. I understand the difference between confirmed cases and the level of unreported infection. The death rate, at the time the scientists made their statement, for confirmed cases was around 5% in the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus death rate: What are the chances of dying?

The current best guess of a 1% death rate does not apply to everyone.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Sweden is not the UK. There are many differences. Including demographics, a health service better able to respond and more disciplined and cooperative people, ie less people like you.

Governments represent all the people. Whatever their age, sex, skin colour, religion etc.

I can do the maths. They are totally irrelevant other than as totals. Governments don’t discriminate. If they started to do that all hell would break loose. I would argue, for starters, that those refusing to cooperate should be refused treatment by the NHS. Those putting it at risk have forfeited their right to treatment.
Click to expand...

Only severe cases were tested. SAGE and the BBC explicitly said the true infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.5–1% of everyone infected.

Sweden had no lockdowns, schools open, bars open had far less damage.

Risk was always massively age-stratified. Pretty much almost zero for kids, tiny for under 50, high only for the very old. "Flattening the curve" for the elderly by crushing everyone else’s lives was the error.

Suggesting people who disagreed should be denied NHS care isn’t maths it’s authoritarianism, dystopian and tyranny 👍
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Oh I much prefer science. I rely on it.

Yours is a strange claim.

Trickery being the antithesis of science.
Click to expand...
Including this scientist?

unherd.com

Did the Covid inquiry just admit lockdown was a mistake?

The Covid inquiry has this afternoon published a full report on its first module, assessing the resilience and preparedness of the UK’s pandemic response. It has so far been met with apparently predetermined headlines of how the UK Government failed its citizens by “preparing for the wrong...
unherd.com unherd.com
 
Talking about Reeves on another thread reminded me how the establishment loves a scapegoat.

It suits all parties (not necessarily political) to blame Johnson and he certainly has culpability as PM.

Of course the so called "experts" that the government listened to are now on the missing list. Meanwhile the opposition parties are quietly forgetting that at the time they were telling the government that lockdowns should be longer and stricter and compensation should be higher.

MY how convenient that they all forget this.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Including this scientist?

unherd.com

Did the Covid inquiry just admit lockdown was a mistake?

The Covid inquiry has this afternoon published a full report on its first module, assessing the resilience and preparedness of the UK’s pandemic response. It has so far been met with apparently predetermined headlines of how the UK Government failed its citizens by “preparing for the wrong...
unherd.com unherd.com
Click to expand...
During the lockdowns I worked in an office of 200 people. Masks were not mandatory to start with (don't work and are dangerous anyway). No real social distantancing was observed. I can't remember anyone getting ill. I do recall many healthy people being sent home because of track and trace.

This is surely what happened in NHS hospitals too. Many healthy people being sent home from their work because other healthy people had tested positive with a pcr test that is not a test for a virus.

People being sent home caused chaos at my work and surely in hospitals too. Don't get me started on the tik tok dances from all those overworked nurses and doctors.

Funny how essential workers like me were deemed ok to go into work to face this "deadly disease" , but others had to stay at home.

Even if it was a disease that we needed to be locked down over, why not just keep the elderly at home. The average age of death from "covid" was 82 I think. Sounds logical to me.
 
Last edited:
Wisbech Eagle said:
I know some jobs were lost, with those people receiving support until they found a replacement. Jobs are lost during the best of times too, though not with the support.

Many others were furloughed.

Maybe you could answer my question?
Click to expand...
It wasn't rhetorical? Obviously I'd rather be dead. Who wouldn't?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
What you regard as trickery wasn’t.

The experts stated the truth as they perceived it at the time. Emphasising worst case scenarios to gain attention and compliance isn’t trickery. It’s behaviour management. Which is a science.
Click to expand...
It was a computer model. Crap put in to the computer and crap came out.

The proof of what a disaster their forecasts were, are for all to see.
 
eaglesdare said:
Only severe cases were tested. SAGE and the BBC explicitly said the true infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.5–1% of everyone infected.

Sweden had no lockdowns, schools open, bars open had far less damage.

Risk was always massively age-stratified. Pretty much almost zero for kids, tiny for under 50, high only for the very old. "Flattening the curve" for the elderly by crushing everyone else’s lives was the error.

Suggesting people who disagreed should be denied NHS care isn’t maths it’s authoritarianism, dystopian and tyranny 👍
Click to expand...
Segmenting data can be dangerous out of context. The report states that the fatality rate was 0.01% for 19 year old and 8.76% for those in their 80s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top