Stealth Omicron

[Saga Lout]

I could go on, but how do you strike a balance between these people dying over here or those people dying over there?

I have never said i've got any answers.... do you ?

Protect the vulnerable (if they want to be protected, it's supposed to be a free country after all).

[weeksy]

I could go on, but how do you strike a balance between these people dying over here or those people dying over there?

I have never said i've got any answers.... do you ?

Protect the vulnerable (if they want to be protected, it's supposed to be a free country after all).

And how do you define them ? and what do you do about the non-vunerable who've died/will die ?

[Saga Lout]

With the information that the government had at the time , and the knowledge that was existing in the world, I wonder how many of the pandemic experts on here would have made a fundamentally different decision?

The first lockdown was possibly justified once the government had made the mistake of believing Neil Ferguson's reading of the entrails but by about the fourth or fifth week of the three weeks to flatten the curve it was pretty obvious that the disease was attacking predominantly the old and the infirm. The measures should have been modified to target assistance at those people.

[Saga Lout]

Protect the vulnerable (if they want to be protected, it's supposed to be a free country after all).

And how do you define them ?

The same way the government defined them would work for me

and what do you do about the non-vunerable who've died/will die ?

We can't stop everybody dying. We don't even want to stop everybody dying. If we did we'd ban anything that was even a little bit dangerous. Motorcycles would be near the top of the list. Horse riding, cycling, rugby, mountaineering, smoking, drinking. If we are really so concerned about people dying we'll stop people doing dangerous things. But we aren't so we don't.

[Mr Moofo]

With the information that the government had at the time , and the knowledge that was existing in the world, I wonder how many of the pandemic experts on here would have made a fundamentally different decision?

The first lockdown was possibly justified once the government had made the mistake of believing Neil Ferguson's reading of the entrails but by about the fourth or fifth week of the three weeks to flatten the curve it was pretty obvious that the disease was attacking predominantly the old and the infirm. The measures should have been modified to target assistance at those people.

With the benefit of hindsight ...
The disease was attacking the old and the obese (as we know now) -but who was carrying it / transmitting it etc?
Too much emphasis has been put on modelling - and the worst case scenario, rather than looking at best case / worst case / most realistic - with the benefit of hindsight.
There have been way too many snouts in troughs - including Dr Ian Ferguson, who suggested lockdown and then went of shagging his fancy piece. But scientists have shown that they are not factual based - but but just as prone to politicking as everyone else - which is now belittling science. But again, this is with hindsight,
If you are a virologist with shares and interests in a testing company/ screening company etc, then what is you proposal going to be?

TBH I have been through the whole sage with the belief that you should have just let it run. You would have an exponential death toll at the start - but the chances are that it would tail of quicker - its a virus lifecycle thing. I am not convinced any more that 150k in Britain would have died - and the overall costs would have been much less.
But there are two factors
1) The government cannot govern when there are bodies lying in the street - they have to be seen to be taking action. And they did - in line with what other governments did - so bette maybe to be approximately right than wholly wrong. They got canned for not locking down early enough ( which is in fact incorrect) - so hardly surprising when their approach became more cautious.
2) "Our" NHS - our world leading health service could not cope. Despite the 100 billion it gets plus the extra 20 billion it was awarded it continued to do as it always does, and do thing the same way. NHS politicking by managers / doctors stopped the Nightingale hospitals being used. So more money wasted. Oddly , when we are locked down last year, we were told the NHS was on it's knees and capacity was used up. Listing to and interview with one of the senior managers in the NHS just before Christmas 2021 he stated " Last year bed occupancy was only 88% and this year (2021) is is at 93.4% - we are on our knees". So it would appear that 2020 wasn't as bad as was being stated at the time.
The NHS doesn't need more money - it needs to be restructured - but that is now never going to happen with the beatifying of the NHS as untouchable , and its current "Branding".
Again all hindsight, using info we know know.

Two other points:
a) The money spunked up with Dido Harding and Track n Trace needs to be throughly investigated - it produced nothing, it saved no one, and it did not stop the spread of the virus. In hindsight it was great way for many people to make lots of money.
b) This Covid is not the Big One. There will be something that comes along in the next few years which is going to be far worse. I hope we all learn for this pandemic

[Hoonercat]

I could go on, but how do you strike a balance between these people dying over here or those people dying over there?

I have never said i've got any answers.... do you ?

Protect the vulnerable (if they want to be protected, it's supposed to be a free country after all).

I kind of agree with the principle but I don't think letting everyone get on with life as normal would actually benefit the vulnerable. Most of the vulnerable are elderly, I very much doubt that the majority want to be locked away in their homes for an undeterminable amount of time in their twighlight years. Keeping the infection rate as low as possible via restrictions may give them the confidence to venture out a bit more, removing those restrictions may take away that confidence if, as is likely, infection rates rocket. Yes, it is still their choice, but in reality the choice will be forced on them if Covid is allowed to run rampant. And to be clear, I do agree that we need to find a way of getting back to some sense of normality, but I'm not convinced there's a way to do it (yet).

[Hoonercat]

With the information that the government had at the time , and the knowledge that was existing in the world, I wonder how many of the pandemic experts on here would have made a fundamentally different decision?

The first lockdown was possibly justified once the government had made the mistake of believing Neil Ferguson's reading of the entrails but by about the fourth or fifth week of the three weeks to flatten the curve it was pretty obvious that the disease was attacking predominantly the old and the infirm. The measures should have been modified to target assistance at those people.

I don't know why Ferguson gets such a bad rap, this report expected 520,000 deaths in the first 6 months in a 'do nothing' scenario, higher than Ferguson's estimate.

Department of Health and Social Care, Office for National Statistics, Government Actuary’s Department and Home Office
The RWC-U (5 March) scenario assumed 520,000 people will die
from COVID-19 in the 6 months; we further estimate that
420,000 to 470,000 of these people would not have died in the
next year in the absence of COVID-19. These excess deaths
represent 2,800,000 to 5,400,000 years of life lost

[Saga Lout]

I don't know why Ferguson gets such a bad rap

I don't know why he still has a job. He predicted hundreds of thousands would die unless we all locked ourselves away. He didn't even believe it himself, why did anybody else believe him?

[DefTrap]

I don't know why he still has a job. He predicted hundreds of thousands would die unless we all locked ourselves away. He didn't even believe it himself, why did anybody else believe him?

It was a guessing game based upon an equation where small changes in input variables had huge changes in predicted outcomes.
Better to be overly cautious than have the ability to take action but just say it's a figment of the imagination and let the country burn? Bolsonaro is an obvious example. Trump another.

It's very easy for armchair virologists to pick over the scientist's bones afterwards. Maybe scientists should be given the same amount of slack that politicians are "this is unprecedented, they're doing their best" ?
The problem with hanging out your scientists to dry is that if there is a "next time", what are they going to do?

[wheelnut]

I don't know why he still has a job. He predicted hundreds of thousands would die unless we all locked ourselves away. He didn't even believe it himself, why did anybody else believe him?

Do you think he was wrong? 150k have died with lockdowns and a vaccine. How many do you think would have died if not for the mitigation measures?

[Saga Lout]

I don't know why he still has a job. He predicted hundreds of thousands would die unless we all locked ourselves away. He didn't even believe it himself, why did anybody else believe him?

It was a guessing game based upon an equation where small changes in input variables had huge changes in predicted outcomes...

Yes, a guessing game. About as accurate as reading the entrails. His predictions always seem to err on the side of "millions are going to die, lock everybody up". But as I said before, he doesn't believe his own predictions, why should we?

[wheelnut]

Yes, a guessing game. About as accurate as reading the entrails. His predictions always seem to err on the side of "millions are going to die, lock everybody up". But as I said before, he doesn't believe his own predictions, why should we?

He does seem to have some expertise in his chosen profession. He gave some numbers based on certain variables. Those variables could have a huge impact on the calculated numbers. Yes, they weren’t exact numbers, but I bet he would have been the first to stress the caveats.

Also it wasn’t his role to suggest a course of action, just possible outcomes. It’s up to government to decide on mitigation measures.

[Saga Lout]

Yes, a guessing game. About as accurate as reading the entrails. His predictions always seem to err on the side of "millions are going to die, lock everybody up". But as I said before, he doesn't believe his own predictions, why should we?

He does seem to have some expertise in his chosen profession. He gave some numbers based on certain variables. Those variables could have a huge impact on the calculated numbers. Yes, they weren’t exact numbers, but I bet he would have been the first to stress the caveats.

Also it wasn’t his role to suggest a course of action, just possible outcomes. It’s up to government to decide on mitigation measures.

And now we learn, if we didn't already know, that the government didn't believe it either.

[Screwdriver]

I guess we all assume this to be the case now but anyway, the "official" enquiry suggests the virus was most likely created in a lab and somehow escaped.



So what you might say. Well, a laboratory in Boston has just completed its own gain of function research and created an even more deadly strain by combining a highly contagious version (omicron) with a more lethal one.

So humanity has created a vastly more lethal version (80% death rate) using a more highly contagious virus. Great.

What's the worst that could happen...

[wheelnut]

I guess we all assume this to be the case now but anyway, the "official" enquiry suggests the virus was most likely created in a lab and somehow escaped.



So what you might say. Well, a laboratory in Boston has just completed its own gain of function research and created an even more deadly strain by combining a highly contagious version (omicron) with a more lethal one.

So humanity has created a vastly more lethal version (80% death rate) using a more highly contagious virus. Great.

What's the worst that could happen...

There’s been all sorts of viruses kicking round in level 4 labs for the last 60 years - some a lot more lethal than covid and its variants.

[Horse]

What's the worst that could happen...

Gruinard Island is uninhabitable for another 70 years?

[Screwdriver]

There’s been all sorts of viruses kicking round in level 4 labs for the last 60 years - some a lot more lethal than covid and its variants.

Oh well, that's all right then.

No. wait...

Isn't it a bit odd though that all of the data about how effective these "immunisation" jabs are has been redacted? Pfizer (in particular) simply refuse to say anything about the test results or even if tests have been performed! All they seem to be concerned about is selling as many shots as possible and lobbying (bribing) governments to make immunisation compulsory.

On top of that, it transpires the spike protein they used to create the jab is really not that good for you and can cause all sorts of complications. Plus of course with the data we are "allowed" to see, there is a substantial and inexplicable rise in the excess death rate...

[wheelnut]

On top of that, it transpires the spike protein they used to create the jab is really not that good for you and can cause all sorts of complications. Plus of course with the data we are "allowed" to see, there is a substantial and inexplicable rise in the excess death rate...

Mmm, no doubt there will be plenty of YouTubers willing to explain it for us.

Not sure that’s a particularly good internet rabbit hole to disappear down.

[Screwdriver]

On top of that, it transpires the spike protein they used to create the jab is really not that good for you and can cause all sorts of complications. Plus of course with the data we are "allowed" to see, there is a substantial and inexplicable rise in the excess death rate...

Mmm, no doubt there will be plenty of YouTubers willing to explain it for us.

Not sure that’s a particularly good internet rabbit hole to disappear down.

I would much prefer it if both observations were not true. Sadly it's not from YouTube but from a published report from the BMJ. There are however plenty of YouTubers who have picked up on it, some of whom will of course be total nutjobs. That is not to say that the underlying evidence is invalid. There might even be completely innocuous reasons (no pun intended) but the additional problem is the veil of secrecy surrounding this entire fiasco.

Do you trust Pfizer?

[Count Steer]

The rise in the excess death rate isn't 'inexplicable' at all. In England for example, 3300 linked to the heatwave, diminished access to care, there's a possible link to cardiovascular disease and diabetes related deaths due to Covid infection, there are mentally related issues and lack of self-care following the lockdowns, there's the impact of sedentary lifestyle and dietary choices during the pandemic period etc etc etc.

No need to invoke 'killer jabs from evil pharma' until the other causes are understood and factored in.