11-16-2020, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2020, 02:16 PM by baggy1.)
Have you got an up to date version of the graph you posted to show no excess deaths at the moment - that one only goes up to the end of September by the looks of it. It was in the post where you called me disingenuous.
And don't want to be a stickler for detail but is that graph saying that we have over 40k deaths each week? The actual figure is around 10k
(11-16-2020, 10:29 AM)Brentbaggie Wrote: I'd like to lock you down forever.
why may I ask - don't I chime to your world view?
Thank god for that.
It’s interesting this is the first posting of mine you’ve replied to after several in which I’ve pointed out repeated inaccuracies of yours and expert opinions that have debunked much of what you’ve written. Don’t take it personally. As to a world view - given what the rest of the world is doing I doubt it’s my world view you’re at odds with.
Happy to answer here any inaccuracies you've found - fire away
(11-16-2020, 02:13 PM)baggy1 Wrote: Have you got an up to date version of the graph you posted to show no excess deaths at the moment - that one only goes up to the end of September by the looks of it. It was in the post where you called me disingenuous.
And don't want to be a stickler for detail but is that graph saying that we have over 40k deaths each week? The actual figure is around 10k
That was a population adjusted graph the axis does look wrong, apologies, I think Excel has had a mad one.
The point I'm trying to make is that circa 800 excess deaths with Covid on the death certificate since June. Of those 800 many have comorbidity - i.e. cancer, cardiac, dementia.
So as I said is the net benefit of all these measures worth it?
11-16-2020, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2020, 04:36 PM by baggy1.)
Talking of manipulating data - that graph takes the maximum amount of deaths in a week over the last 5 years and plots that against this year. So basically it's saying that 2020 is the equivalent of the worst week of each measured week over the last 5 years, and when those deaths average out they won't measure against it.
It also highlights how easy we had it at the start of the year which will bring our excess deaths this year down in comparison.
So basically that is showing that we are currently running at the same amount as the worst of the last 5 years. And because I can't read behind the data I'm going to guess that whichever year was highest at this point before was down to flu, which we will be containing this year through less contact etc. So we are matching the worst year whilst taking measures to reduce the spread which would normally be around.
And just noticed it adjusted by a random figure that they are guessing at for population growth. That really is manipulation of data to fit a story - measuring against the worst and then adding a bit to that worst because of an unmeasurable 'population growth' figure. And after all that still coming out below the current figure.
(11-16-2020, 02:13 PM)baggy1 Wrote: Have you got an up to date version of the graph you posted to show no excess deaths at the moment - that one only goes up to the end of September by the looks of it. It was in the post where you called me disingenuous.
And don't want to be a stickler for detail but is that graph saying that we have over 40k deaths each week? The actual figure is around 10k
That was a population adjusted graph the axis does look wrong, apologies, I think Excel has had a mad one.
The point I'm trying to make is that circa 800 excess deaths with Covid on the death certificate since June. Of those 800 many have comorbidity - i.e. cancer, cardiac, dementia.
So as I said is the net benefit of all these measures worth it?
With comorbidities are you discounting these? Surely we could assume a proportion of these people would still be alive if they had not of contracted Covid.
(11-16-2020, 10:29 AM)Brentbaggie Wrote: I'd like to lock you down forever.
why may I ask - don't I chime to your world view?
Thank god for that.
It’s interesting this is the first posting of mine you’ve replied to after several in which I’ve pointed out repeated inaccuracies of yours and expert opinions that have debunked much of what you’ve written. Don’t take it personally. As to a world view - given what the rest of the world is doing I doubt it’s my world view you’re at odds with.
Happy to answer here any inaccuracies you've found - fire away
Read the posts.
Having been through the whole thread seems like there were 3 responses missed. Plus to be honest it's basically me against the world on here so it becomes difficult to respond to every message. I hope your scan went well by the way even though it was late.
"Er, the lockdowns don’t work, cases are rising rapidly and health authorities in the north are warning about the danger of hospitals being unable to cope and you argue we should return to normal. I don’t get your logic. What do we dispense with? Do you mean everyone over 56 say just stays in their houses but everyone else do as they wish? The figures above are up to the 26th September. Numbers are rising exponentially every 11 days so I’m not sure you’re recommendation will help. It’s no longer the case that numbers admitted with Covid are low or those on ventilatiors are rising slowly as of the last few days. I’m not sure how we peg them back to safeguard hospitals and NHS staff but I don’t understand what or who “Everyone who can should get back to normal” means or refers to."
WHO report after years of research stated in Oct 2019 that lockdowns should not be used or contact tracing. The point I've made previously is that now we know the lethality of the virus 0.1-0.2% globally we should return to the mechanisms we use every year when dealing with influenza and other respiratory illnesses. Not lockdown, not any of the measures used. The only reason hospitals are struggling is because between 20-40% of staff are isolating because of the false positives from the PCR test.
"What is 1% if not a sensationalist number? I agree it has to be taken in context, just like Covid figures. The UK mortality rate has been rising since 2014 - something that should really worry a lot of people but politicians, or at least this lot, has chosen to ignore. I stated that I'm not sure what should be done with regard to policy on Covid, and would agree that wholesale lockdowns are not the answer, but I still would like you to elucidate on what “Everyone who can should get back to normal” means. Which section of the population lies outwith the "normal" and what should be done with them? Do teachers over the age of 55 for example continue in schools, an environment where they will almost certainly be exposed to large numbers of children with the virus, etc., etc? Your answer is too simplistic and fraught with variables. Just like Covid. I'm not interested in nit-picking I only know that the answer to the problems we face is not a straightforward/simple one as you seem to imply. And I come back to the fact that one of the main reasons for what passes as strategy so far is to protect NHS staff and try to keep hospital admissions to a minimum. The present course seems not to be working but the one you advocate would, I suggest, result in a nightmare that I hope I never have to encounter or deal with."
As above. We now know what the virus is and we should return to the usual mechanisms that happen every winter. We lose thousands of people every winter to respiratory illnesses I see this winter to be no different (other than the fact it's just Covid and we've cured flu)
"The one real concern that you seem not to want to take onboard is what might happen if the virus is to be treated as a lesser evil and allowed a certain amount of give. I think it's clear that the greatest immediate concern is what happens inside hospitals if Covid patients with severe life-threatening symptoms are admitted as a result of a rising infection rate. Some argue that the NHS can cope, I've seen it stated that things were not as bad as they were painted earlier this year - but I am sure that whatever rationale is being used for the present actions (or inaction) at its heart is the desire to ensure that hospitals and NHS workers are not overwhelmed. Maybe they wouldn't be, but the rate at which infections and hospital admissions are going, leads me to think it's not a risk worth taking because while, as Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead", I'd rather have the chance of a long run rather than a short one. I think the idea is to keep deaths as low as possible and hope that the vaccine trials mean the long-term damage remains a lesser evil."
The virus will not go away. No amount of lockdowns or social distancing or handwashing disappears the virus. It just waits. It waits until community immunity hits and becomes endemic. No virus wants to kill its host otherwise it dies. Again I refer to the fact that hospital admissions before lockdown 2 were in line with previous years.
I don't want anybody to die. But we do and we will. The question is are the net costs / benefits of these actions worth it long term. Absolutely not in my opinion
(11-16-2020, 04:32 PM)baggy1 Wrote: Talking of manipulating data - that graph takes the maximum amount of deaths in a week over the last 5 years and plots that against this year. So basically it's saying that 2020 is the equivalent of the worst week of each measured week over the last 5 years, and when those deaths average out they won't measure against it.
It also highlights how easy we had it at the start of the year which will bring our excess deaths this year down in comparison.
So basically that is showing that we are currently running at the same amount as the worst of the last 5 years. And because I can't read behind the data I'm going to guess that whichever year was highest at this point before was down to flu, which we will be containing this year through less contact etc. So we are matching the worst year whilst taking measures to reduce the spread which would normally be around.
And just noticed it adjusted by a random figure that they are guessing at for population growth. That really is manipulation of data to fit a story - measuring against the worst and then adding a bit to that worst because of an unmeasurable 'population growth' figure. And after all that still coming out below the current figure.
It's not a manipulation. It basically shows - as it supposed to - that even measured to the worst weeks over the last X years it's in the ballpark.
i.e it's not lethal and hence why I'm still awaiting the answer to this Q
Do you think the actions we've taken since June are net beneficial, in terms of the full package of health, wellbeing, education, business etc for the 98%+ of people, or not?
If you do then show me the equation.
If you don't then why are we doing it?
11-16-2020, 04:55 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2020, 04:56 PM by baggy1.)
It's manipulating data - the worst week 44 over the previous 5 was 2019 which was 10,164, before that it was 10,152 in 2016. The figure quoted on that graph is 10,861 - they have manipulated the data by an unknown amount for population growth.
The actual amount for week 44 2020 is 10,887 - 700 worse than the worst week over the last 5 years.
They have manipulated the data to fit the argument. Its dictionary definition of manipulation.
Your responses are not facts they are opinions shared by experts you agree with. You ignore the post when I quote several worldwide authorities which disagree with you and the “single” expert you held up as a worldwide authority. You ignore the post which I submitted that your beliefs are faith based and not fact. This is based on your complete inability to admit you may be in error. I stopped posting because you are not arguing in good faith but from an obsessive self belief which is not only illogical but unrealistic. You called those who disagreed with you culpable for the impending deaths of people who would otherwise survived. I asked how someone posting on a message board could influence policy to such an extent and you failed to retract or respond. I know far too many medics who would have a somewhat jaundiced view of your beliefs. When you are tasked with why most governments and their advisers in the rest of the world sees this differently you reply that they are mistaken. This is hubris on a scale even Charles the First would have difficulty maintaining. I am prepared to admit that I am wrong. Are you? I argued that it seemed logical to me that much of what was being done was to maintain a low R number in the hope of a vaccine. Well I still think this. Seems reasonable if tiresome. You seem to think statistics tell you everything you need to know about what the virus is doing. I don’t. Because as is clear from the perpetual disagreements between you and Baggy1 stats often only tell you what you want to hear. I trust experts. You aren’t one.
Nor are you. I'm lucky enough to have a wife who works in pharma and has access to everything and more from both sides of this sordid equation from vaccine trials, epidemiology, testing, local pharmacists, US, UK and German research.
I've read it all and whilst no expert, never claimed I was one, there's no way I'm.going to let things just roll on as they are wihout a fight. You may be happy with the concept of treat 1 disease at any cost but I'm not. You may be comfortable spending billions of pounds on measures never proven to be any worth in a pandemic situation. .I'll fight for my family's future as hard as I can. The utter drivel and bollocks I hear is phenomenal. This bored no exception.
My hubris, call it that if you want, I couldn't much care, is nothing to the damage being done in the name of health and science.
You keep supping at the trough of corruption and fraud I couldnt give a shit that's your perogative but like many on here you won't shut me up I'll keep countering.
I guess the missing 1000 dental cancer referall patients doesn't bother you either. As long as you can take Boris's vaccine you'll be happy and to the bonfire with the rest.
