Covid-19 response

[Dragonheart]

@Dragonheart Take a look at this story back in July 2021 on routinely testing people (which was against government advice e.g tests are meant to be used to confirm existing COVID disease) upon admission to hospital.

"The Department for Health and Social Care said this measure was still "the most important" because of the impact Covid-positive patients have on NHS capacity and workforce pressure.

This allows hospitals to provide the most appropriate care and use the right infection control measures to help stop the spread of the virus.

Patients with Covid should be treated away from non-infected patients".

Covid: Up to one in four admitted to hospital for other reasons

The government says counting all patients who test positive is vital because of the impact on the NHS.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes they used the word Covid nor sars-cov-2. Well done for pointing that out. The rest of the report looks like it makes sense. The important fact is that positive tests mean infectious people, and they wanted and needed to limit the spread because some of those positive patients and staff meant the ability to care for all was impacted. What don’t you get about that

@Dragonheart given mRNA vaccines don't prevent infection and thus a positive test, how are/were these vaccines going to change this situation and stop people testing positive? And knowing the vaccines didn't prevent infection or transmission or even illness in many,

The vaccines did reduce all of those things to some degree. Just not entirely or even enough. Medically aware people never really expected them to be sterilising vaccines. The media? Politicians? Much of the public? Apparently lots still don’t grasp that was unlikely to happen and had false expectations of them from the start and insist on holding that inability up as a failing

why did they:

Mandate them?
Coerce people into taking them?
Bribe them into taking them?
Effectively force them (no jab no job)?
Prevent travel if not jabbed?
Tell people to get them to protect others?

Worse still, they completely ignored and gaslit those with acquired immunity from prior infection.

I actually agree with you a number of those policies were less than perfect and not based entirely on science. Much was still unknown about the degree of immunity from either vaccines or infection in the real world initially. These rules helped to a degree but weren’t perfect by any means.

All they were interested in was getting people jabbed, regardless of age, risk, vulnerability, acquired immunity, personal choice. Especially given by the time vaccines came out the virus was not the same as the virus the vaccines were developed for.

They were telling us to get the jab to protect granny, whilst granny was being turfed out of hospital (where their beds were left empty for months) moved into care homes and left to die on their own.

Again. I agree many many poor decisions were made by those in charge. Some were probably even corrupt. I hope these get brought to light.

But you conflate these decisions with the unknown (in light of a totally NEW virus spreading like wildfire and overwhelming hospitals and killing hundreds of thousands across the world, millions eventually), unrealistic expectations and lack of understanding of some of the science by the media and politicians and thus the public too.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes they used the word Covid nor sars-cov-2. Well done for pointing that out. The rest of the report looks like it makes sense. The important fact is that positive tests mean infectious people, and they wanted and needed to limit the spread because some of those positive patients and staff meant the ability to care for all was impacted. What don’t you get about that

The vaccines did reduce all of those things to some degree. Just not entirely or even enough. Medically aware people never really expected them to be sterilising vaccines. The media? Politicians? Much of the public? Apparently lots still don’t grasp that was unlikely to happen and had false expectations of them from the start and insist on holding that inability up as a failing

I actually agree with you a number of those policies were less than perfect and not based entirely on science. Much was still unknown about the degree of immunity from either vaccines or infection in the real world initially. These rules helped to a degree but weren’t perfect by any means.

Again. I agree many many poor decisions were made by those in charge. Some were probably even corrupt. I hope these get brought to light.

But you conflate these decisions with the unknown (in light of a totally NEW virus spreading like wildfire and overwhelming hospitals and killing hundreds of thousands across the world, millions eventually), unrealistic expectations and lack of understanding of some of the science by the media and politicians and thus the public too.

Thanks for your reply @Dragonheart , although we clearly will never agree on some points (a positive test doesn't mean infectiousness), at least you are willing to talk about it. Many are not.

 

[Amity Island]

NHS England have published their site sign up info for the next phase of covid vaccines for Sept 24 to 31 March 2026.

NHS England » COVID-19 vaccination site sign-up process – guidance for all suppliers

www.england.nhs.uk

 

[Amity Island]

This needs a full public enquiry...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810346638591897836

 

[Bruce Stephens]

This needs a full public enquiry...

Based on what Nigel Farage says on GB News? Please.

 

[Amity Island]

Based on what Nigel Farage says on GB News? Please.

"this needs a full public enquiry" his words not mine.

Have you got some evidence which shows what he is saying is incorrect?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Have you got some evidence which shows what he is saying is incorrect?

For one, it's Nigel Farage. And secondly, it's from GB News.

 

[Amity Island]

For one, it's Nigel Farage. And secondly, it's from GB News.

He makes many valid points about many things and about all the lies and misinformation, like being told you can't catch covid once vaccinated, you can't pass on the virus to others once vaccinated, get the vaccine to protect others (e.g Granny). All such things were left out of the covid enquiry.

And, how come nobody in Authority ever stepped in to put right the lies and myths being pushed?

An old interview here about people pushing the no jab, no job policy.

For me this shows two things.

1. That people were misled about how the vaccines work and thus; many people insisted (you can't visit us, can't work for us etc) others should take the vaccine to protect everyone else.

2. It shows just how little faith and confidence people had in their own vaccination regarding the protection it gave to themselves.

 

[Amity Island]

Gut Microbiome and Covid19

This is a must watch!

The Role of Bifidobacterium in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, mainly causes respiratory and intestinal symptoms and changes in the microbiota of patients. We performed a systematic search in major databases using “Bifidobacterium” and “COVID-19” ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Compared with controls (n=20), severely symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (n=28) had significantly less bacterial diversity (Shannon Index, p=0.0499; Simpson Index, p=0.0581), and positive patients overall had lower relative abundances of Bifidobacterium (p<0.0001), Faecalibacterium (p=0.0077) and Roseburium (p=0.0327), while having increased Bacteroides (p=0.0075). Interestingly, there was an inverse association between disease severity and abundance of the same bacteria.

Lost microbes of COVID-19: Bifidobacterium, Faecalibacterium depletion and decreased microbiome diversity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity - PubMed

NCT04031469 (PCR-) and 04359836 (PCR+).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Should You Supplement With Bifidobacterium?

Bifidobacterium, a type of good bacteria, has been associated with health benefits, such as immune boosting, eczema prevention, and more.

www.verywellhealth.com

 

[Amity Island]

A court in Ontario, Canada has ruled that covid PCR nasal swabs were an ”unlawful requirement”.

Judge said:

”I do decide that the nasal swab test...was an unlawful requirement or demand..refusal to comply with the requirement or demand was lawful on her part. Because the requirement or demand made of her by the screening officer was not lawful”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812520522099364240

 

[Amity Island]

New interview on health, covid and the nhs etc with one of the "dragons" from dragons den.

 

[Amity Island]

In September 2021 the chief medical officer made the decision to override the JCVI advice - JCVI said to not vaccinate healthy children - and authorise the (novel) vaccination of children.

A new Oxford University paper, which with the approval of NHS England used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to study the effect of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine on over one million children aged 5-15.

Of the unvaccinated, no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded.

Broadly speaking, for each child that was spared a visit to the hospital due to Covid another sought treatment for heart damage!

The good news is that there were zero Covid deaths in any of the groups studied. No unvaccinated kids died of Covid nor did any vaccinated kids.

After 20 weeks there was no difference in the cumulative number of positive tests between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

According to an NAO (National Audit Office) report, we spent on average £64 per vaccine dose delivered. This means that to prevent one additional visit to A&E we had to spend £1,280,000 of taxpayer’s money. Was this really a good use of taxpayer’s money?

Oxford Study Lays Bare the Terrible Decision to Vaccinate Children Against Covid – The Daily Sceptic

A new study from Oxford University has laid bare the terrible decision to vaccinate children against Covid. Chris Whitty should hang his head in shame, says Nick Rendell.

dailysceptic.org

 

[Amity Island]

"One mistake which was made by governments here and around the world". Mandates.

Mistake?

 

[Amity Island]

The first article I've seen discussing the point I have been making since the first lockdown in March 2020. Why were there no signs of excess deaths until after lockdown (and emptying hospitals etc) was brought in? Thus, what justification was there to lockdown and ruin the country for generations to come?


"The salient point is that while more people were apparently becoming sick in these 27 weeks, no noticeable spike in all-cause deaths was ever observed. This suggests that if Covid was spreading much earlier than has been claimed by authorities, this virus or bug - whatever caused it - was NOT “deadly.”

Far more flu tests were given in 2019-2020

I don’t understand why this quantifiable evidence of possible “early spread” has not received more attention.

billricejr.substack.com

 

[Bruce Stephens]

"The salient point is that while more people were apparently becoming sick in these 27 weeks, no noticeable spike in all-cause deaths was ever observed. This suggests that if Covid was spreading much earlier than has been claimed by authorities, this virus or bug - whatever caused it - was NOT “deadly.”

On the other hand, with the generally accepted timeline (of infections in Europe and the US starting in early 2020) the numbers track pretty well: cases doubling roughly every 2 or 3 days, with hospitalisations tracking that a couple of weeks later and deaths following after that.

So if the infection wasn't deadly you need some kind of massive conspiracy: healthcare workers deliberately lying about the symptoms (pretending it isn't flu, for example), or healthcare workers deliberately killing lots of people with intubation.

The accepted story seems much more believable to me, with inconsistencies to be sure: people misspeak, people are wrong sometimes, politicians don't understand science well and our politicians especially decided not to try to convey the genuine uncertainties.

 

[Amity Island]

So if the infection wasn't deadly you need some kind of massive conspiracy:

I'm not saying covid wasn't deadly, but it certainly wasn't evident in the UK until after lockdowns and unlawfully emptying the hospital beds of the most vulnerable, with the remaining population scared away from hospitals (stay at home).

They couldn't justify using lockdowns etc etc because of all the excess deaths in the UK because there weren't any. So they said it's to protect the NHS (when in reality people's health was affected as a result of missed appointments, premature death, missed diagnosis), where beds were left empty for months after. Where people died from the inappropriate use of ventilators, where the elderly were neglected and died of hopelessness and isolation.

They could of instead told people to stay at home if they have symptoms (at the time a very noticeable severe cough) the people were very good at self policing and of course, informed people about gut microbiome to help prevent and deal with covid19.

 

[Amity Island]

Gut Microbiome and Covid19

This is a must watch!

The Role of Bifidobacterium in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, mainly causes respiratory and intestinal symptoms and changes in the microbiota of patients. We performed a systematic search in major databases using “Bifidobacterium” and “COVID-19” ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Compared with controls (n=20), severely symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (n=28) had significantly less bacterial diversity (Shannon Index, p=0.0499; Simpson Index, p=0.0581), and positive patients overall had lower relative abundances of Bifidobacterium (p<0.0001), Faecalibacterium (p=0.0077) and Roseburium (p=0.0327), while having increased Bacteroides (p=0.0075). Interestingly, there was an inverse association between disease severity and abundance of the same bacteria.

Lost microbes of COVID-19: Bifidobacterium, Faecalibacterium depletion and decreased microbiome diversity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity - PubMed

NCT04031469 (PCR-) and 04359836 (PCR+).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Should You Supplement With Bifidobacterium?

Bifidobacterium, a type of good bacteria, has been associated with health benefits, such as immune boosting, eczema prevention, and more.

www.verywellhealth.com

Another fascinating dive into gut microbiome, showing it was this that determined how well or how badly people suffered from covid. This was ignored throughout the pandemic by the mainstream, with their "no treatments, preventative methods or protection against covid".

 

[Dragonheart]

I'm not saying covid wasn't deadly, but it certainly wasn't evident in the UK until after lockdowns and unlawfully emptying the hospital beds of the most vulnerable, with the remaining population scared away from hospitals (stay at home).

They couldn't justify using lockdowns etc etc because of all the excess deaths in the UK because there weren't any. So they said it's to protect the NHS (when in reality people's health was affected as a result of missed appointments, premature death, missed diagnosis), where beds were left empty for months after. Where people died from the inappropriate use of ventilators, where the elderly were neglected and died of hopelessness and isolation.

They could of instead told people to stay at home if they have symptoms (at the time a very noticeable severe cough) the people were very good at self policing and of course, informed people about gut microbiome to help prevent and deal with covid19.

You are assuming the reports from late 2019 and early 2020 were unrecognised Covid rather than some other illness (flu for instance as was assumed at the time). If Covid really didn’t hit until the widely accepted timings (mostly late March onwards in the uk) then it’s hardly surprising that deaths only happened after that date. Exactly what are you suggesting happened if this isn’t the case?

Excess deaths were very apparent in countries hit harder and earlier, eg china and Italy, and lockdowns and nhs restrictions/protections were put in place in anticipation of this and considering the almost overwhelming numbers at certain points not entirely ridiculous even in retrospect (despite the obvious negative impact that had on other care, to myself and family included). But yes a lot of huge errors were made particularly in regards to the elderly.

You speak about ventilation as if it were known at the time it was useless or even inappropriate. I’ve met some “not great” medical professionals but none that would deliberately or knowingly harm a patient as you seem to be suggesting.

You banging on yet again about staying home once symptoms were apparent obstinately continues to ignore asymptomatic and presymtomatic spread of the disease to those more vulnerable to serious illness and death. I’m sure the vast majority of infections, both in the early days and now, occurred when people didn’t realise they were potentially spreading an illness that would be serious to some. Either that or we are a nation of psychopaths if we did.

 

[Amity Island]

Exactly what are you suggesting happened if this isn’t the case?

I'm suggesting that although that first wave of excess deaths was presented as all being COVID, it certainly wasn't the case. Lots died of neglect, loneliness, inability to seek hospital care and attention, inappropriate (not malicious) use of ventilators, missed appointments, missed diagnosis, no doubt suicide as well due to lockdowns, social isolation etc

The w.h.o always advised against lockdowns, for good reasons.

If you read my post further up, it was known early on in 2020 that it's gut microbiome that determines how well or not people deal with COVID. Lockdowns didn't help with COVID symptoms at all and the vaccines had a negative effect on gut microbiome hence why people caught COVID soon after vaccination.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

They couldn't justify using lockdowns etc etc because of all the excess deaths in the UK because there weren't any.

That's an advantage of not being first. One of the criticisms of the government's action (and lack of it) was that it showed an attitude of British exceptionalism: while Italy, etc., might have suffered badly, it would be different in the UK.

Should we have waited until the bodies started piling up in the UK? Given the lag time of that measure (a couple of weeks), that would have meant letting infections spread significantly, even faster than we in fact did.

Could we have slowed infections enough by smaller interventions, earlier? Stopping large sporting and other events, recommending working from home, recommending that sick people isolate, reducing the density of people in restaurants, etc.? Maybe, but the government really didn't want to do anything. Perhaps next time we'll do better, taking more limited action earlier?