Covid conspiracies / rants/ BS

[cheb]

I took his point as being there's currently lots of attention paid to the death rate because of the pandemic, but it's not much increased over the normal death rate, and we don't really care what the latter is usually. We care about deaths close to us or that we can identify with, a common chosen mode of transport perhaps, but the others? Meh.

As I've said before, if I die then there'll be about 10 people who will grieve and 100 who might be a bit saddened. The other however many? They'll either not care or not know.

I stress, I'm not saying that what he's saying, it's my interpretation of what's he's said. Others may interpret differently and my version doesn't negate theirs.

[DefTrap]

, but it's not much increased over the normal death rate,

... Because we've all hidden for a year?

[Horse]

I took his point as being there's currently lots of attention paid to the death rate because of the pandemic, but it's not much increased over the normal death rate, and we don't really care what the latter is usually. We care about deaths close to us or that we can identify with, a common chosen mode of transport perhaps, but the others? Meh.

We care about deaths enough to fund an enormous amount of research into the prevention and treatment of disease.

"Not much above"? Doesn't look like that here:



Although there has been scepticism over 'actual' covid death rates, looked at as absolute numbers, a lot more people died in a short time period.

[cheb]

I said that's how I interpreted his posts, nothing about the stats.

If we cared that much about deaths we'd do things like stopping the arms trade, providing clean water to the whole world, and many other things. But we don't.

[Saga Lout]

Is it callous to point out that our current death rate is lower by some margin than it was during the second half of the last century?

Not sure what point you're making. Are you saying we could/should happily lose a few more?

Not necessarily happily, but we could lose a lot more before we got back to the level that was normal in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. The death rate was a lot higher and we didn't panic and close the country down.

[Horse]

Is it callous to point out that our current death rate is lower by some margin than it was during the second half of the last century?

Not sure what point you're making. Are you saying we could/should happily lose a few more?

Not necessarily happily, but we could lose a lot more before we got back to the level that was normal in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. The death rate was a lot higher and we didn't panic and close the country down.

But we did ban smoking in public places, etc. We've had campaigns on reduction of salt intake. etc etc

'Panic and close the country down'? That sounds very much like the arguments put forward about the effects on pubs from the smoking ban

[Saga Lout]

So what is exactly your point?
I'm no longer interested in that you don't think the big numbers are of interest, as we clearly don't agree.

Numbers need to be seen in context. That's the point.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but you think we should all get out now, crack on and let the weak and vulnerable take their chances?

Yes and no.

Yes, everybody should crack on.
Except
No, the weak and vulnerable should isolate and shield and be supported in doing so

[Cousin Jack]

Not necessarily happily, but we could lose a lot more before we got back to the level that was normal in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. The death ra, 30s, e was a lot higher and we didn't panic and close the country down.

We could go back to the 20s,30s, or 40s. Lots of 'minor' infections killed people in those 'good old days'. No panic mind.

[Saga Lout]

I took his point as being there's currently lots of attention paid to the death rate because of the pandemic, but it's not much increased over the normal death rate, and we don't really care what the latter is usually. We care about deaths close to us or that we can identify with, a common chosen mode of transport perhaps, but the others? Meh.

We care about deaths enough to fund an enormous amount of research into the prevention and treatment of disease.

"Not much above"? Doesn't look like that here:



Although there has been scepticism over 'actual' covid death rates, looked at as absolute numbers, a lot more people died in a short time period.

I did provide a link in support of "not much above". Here it is again: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/G ... death-rate

Not only is it not much higher than recent years (2007 to present) it's below every year before that and it's substantially below the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. I didn't hear anybody suggesting we should shut the country down then.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I didn't hear anybody suggesting we should shut the country down then.

I bet you moaned just as much when they took action against smoking, drinking, speeding, not wearing seatbelts, measles, TB, air quality and got knows what else too didn't you?

[Saga Lout]

I bet you moaned just as much when they took action against smoking, drinking, speeding, not wearing seatbelts, measles, TB, air quality and got knows what else too didn't you?

How much? A Soapy tenner?
You lose.

[KungFooBob]

I bet you moaned just as much when they took action against smoking, drinking, speeding, not wearing seatbelts, measles, TB, air quality and got knows what else too didn't you?

How much? A Soapy tenner?
You lose.

I think Dazzler was trying to surreptitiously imply that you're a miserable moaning bastard.

I don't see it, I think you're a right fucking ray of sunshine.

[DefTrap]

Yes, everybody should crack on.
Except
No, the weak and vulnerable should isolate and shield and be supported in doing so

The trouble is, how much collateral damage do you want to sustain and for how long? Hospitals have been maxed out for a year and routine ops have stagnated (my own dad has put off his knee op til who knows when).

This could take years to burn out if you let it run its course. I don't think the general population is geared up for that, therefore the vulnerable will be exposed (as they have done already through a mixture of ignorance, bad luck, non-compliance, poor policy decisions etc).

My own aged parents don't want to spend the next five years isolating.

[irie]

Yes, everybody should crack on.
Except
No, the weak and vulnerable should isolate and shield and be supported in doing so

The trouble is, how much collateral damage do you want to sustain and for how long? Hospitals have been maxed out for a year and routine ops have stagnated (my own dad has put off his knee op til who knows when).

This could take years to burn out if you let it run its course. I don't think the general population is geared up for that, therefore the vulnerable will be exposed (as they have done already through a mixture of ignorance, bad luck, non-compliance, poor policy decisions etc).

My own aged parents don't want to spend the next five years isolating.

It might well come down to either the general population being geared up for repeated lockdowns and social restrictions to protect your aged parents, or your aged parents isolating as and when necessary.

Your call.

[Mr. Dazzle]

The weak and vulnerable have been shielding all along....didn't seem to help that much did it?

[DefTrap]

The weak and vulnerable have been shielding all along....didn't seem to help that much did it?

Well mine aren't dead.

You need a baseline to be able to make such wild statements, otherwise you're just guessing.
"Help much" translates into 10s of thousands not dead yet.

Sorry I think your line of argument, and you're not alone on here, is borderline conspiracy but more like blind ignorance and yes also callous.

[Saga Lout]

The weak and vulnerable have been shielding all along....didn't seem to help that much did it?

Well mine aren't dead.

And I'm not dead.

(Yet)

[Horse]

And I'm not dead.

(Yet)

Ah, so we have something to thank the lockdowns, shielding, masks, hand sanitiser, etc for

[Yorick]

Some folk are barmy..

Religious satellite TV channel fined £125,000 for broadcasting COVID conspiracy theories

Loveworld is a religious television channel broadcast on satellite to a UK audience, from an Evangelical Christian denomination with a global network of churches.
An investigation by broadcast regulator Ofcom found its 29-hour programme, the Global Day of Prayer, breached its rules by presenting "potentially harmful" claims about COVID-19.

It is the second time in a year the watchdog has ruled against the channel for statements made on air about the virus.

The programme, which aired from 1 December 2020, contained claims the pandemic is a "planned" event created by the "deep state" for nefarious purposes and that the vaccine is a "sinister" means of administering "nanochips" to control and harm people.

Other claims included the debunked conspiracy theory linking the cause of COVID to the rollout of 5G technology.

Ofcom had previously ordered Loveworld not to repeat the programme and to broadcast a summary of its decision three times in a day.

It has now ordered the further sanction of a fine after concluding the breaches were "serious, repeated and reckless".

A statement from Ofcom said: "Loveworld's failure to put these unsubstantiated statements into context risked serious harm to its audience.

"They had the potential to undermine confidence in public health measures put in place to tackle COVID-19 - at a time when cases, hospital admissions and deaths were rising in the UK, and when people were looking for reliable information given advances in the vaccination programme."

[Skub]

Some folk are barmy..

Religious satellite TV channel fined £125,000 for broadcasting COVID conspiracy theories

Loveworld is a religious television channel broadcast on satellite to a UK audience, from an Evangelical Christian denomination with a global network of churches.
An investigation by broadcast regulator Ofcom found its 29-hour programme, the Global Day of Prayer, breached its rules by presenting "potentially harmful" claims about COVID-19.

It is the second time in a year the watchdog has ruled against the channel for statements made on air about the virus.

The programme, which aired from 1 December 2020, contained claims the pandemic is a "planned" event created by the "deep state" for nefarious purposes and that the vaccine is a "sinister" means of administering "nanochips" to control and harm people.

Other claims included the debunked conspiracy theory linking the cause of COVID to the rollout of 5G technology.

Ofcom had previously ordered Loveworld not to repeat the programme and to broadcast a summary of its decision three times in a day.

It has now ordered the further sanction of a fine after concluding the breaches were "serious, repeated and reckless".

A statement from Ofcom said: "Loveworld's failure to put these unsubstantiated statements into context risked serious harm to its audience.

"They had the potential to undermine confidence in public health measures put in place to tackle COVID-19 - at a time when cases, hospital admissions and deaths were rising in the UK, and when people were looking for reliable information given advances in the vaccination programme."

If it were just laughable,that would be harmless enough. Point and laugh,move on.

The problem with this is, it is perpetrated by people of certain influence,so there will be a percentage of evangelicals who will believe it and a further percentage who think there is no smoke without fire. The end result is more folk refusing the vaccine and that's when it stops being harmless rhetoric and effects us all.