Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

Moderator note: These posts developed into their own discussion, so were split from the thread about emergency alerts: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/are-you-ready.101714/page-3

Thing is your truth about pandemic is far removed from what I & others believe is truth, so who is actually telling the truth when discussing virus, treatment & precautions in your many threads on subject.



Listen you do have a unhealthy obsession about subject, it stands out so clearly.

Can you not remember anything about what happened? It's nothing to do with my truth, it's what happened.

We were told night after night it was deadly, whilst they had their parties, affairs, met who they wanted, travelled as they pleased.

They stood up and showed us the first covid wave of deaths in March/April 2020 when in reality, they failed to test those elderly folk thrown out of hospitals into care homes to spread the virus.

They stood up and showed us the first covid wave of deaths, which at least 40% died through loneliness, dehydration and neglect, not covid.

They spread such fear for everyone of all ages for a virus which they advised us all had a 99% survival rate (and that was only if you were one of the 1% during the first wave who got covid) which the average age of death was the very same as the average age of death of 82.

They mandated masks when according to the w.h.o had no evidence they would work for the public during a pandemic, and confirmed again in the Cochrane review this month.

They classed everyone as a covid case, from just a pcr test, even if they didn't have a case of covid19 (no symptoms).

They called the sarscov2 test the covid test, when the test detects a virus not a disease. Not everyone goes on to develop covid 19.

They called the pcr test centres covid19 test centres, when a test alone can't detect the disease known as covid19.

They mandated a vaccine which doesn't provide sterilising immunity. Nor did it put an end to the pandemic.

They basically ignored natural immunity which would have been a very important part of a strategy to deal with the virus.

They ruined businesses, shut schools, ruined the economy, scared the pants of people, put people out of work, left the country with debt that generations will be paying back, all whilst waiting for a vaccine that didn't end the pandemic, that needed dose after dose after dose after dose after dose.

 

[nonethewiser]

Can you not remember anything about what happened? It's nothing to do with my truth, it's what happened.

We were told night after night it was deadly, whilst they had their parties, affairs, met who they wanted, travelled as they pleased.

They stood up and showed us the first covid wave of deaths in March/April 2020 when in reality, they failed to test those elderly folk thrown out of hospitals into care homes to spread the virus.

They stood up and showed us the first covid wave of deaths, which at least 40% died through loneliness, dehydration and neglect, not covid.

They spread such fear for everyone of all ages for a virus which they advised us all had a 99% survival rate (and that was only if you were one of the 1% during the first wave who got covid) which the average age of death was the very same as the average age of death of 82.

They mandated masks when according to the w.h.o had no evidence they would work for the public during a pandemic, and confirmed again in the Cochrane review this month.

They classed everyone as a covid case, from just a pcr test, even if they didn't have a case of covid19 (no symptoms).

They called the sarscov2 test the covid test, when the test detects a virus not a disease. Not everyone goes on to develop covid 19.

They called the pcr test centres covid19 test centres, when a test alone can't detect the disease known as covid19.

They mandated a vaccine which doesn't provide sterilising immunity. Nor did it put an end to the pandemic.

They basically ignored natural immunity which would have been a very important part of a strategy to deal with the virus.

They ruined businesses, shut schools, ruined the economy, scared the pants of people, put people out of work, left the country with debt that generations will be paying back, all whilst waiting for a vaccine that didn't end the pandemic, that needed dose after dose after dose after dose after dose.

See your at it again.

Most of what you've wrote above is just rubbish mate, not going to debate it all again but your obsession with subject should be worrying to you.

Anyway last say on matters so you just carry on regardless.

 

[Amity Island]

See your at it again.

Most of what you've wrote above is just rubbish mate, not going to debate it all again but your obsession with subject should be worrying to you.

Anyway last say on matters so you just carry on regardless.

I'm actually concerned for you @nonethewiser thinking what I have said is rubbish.

Anyway, last say on matters so you can carry on, ignorance is bliss as they say.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

We were told night after night it was deadly, whilst they had their parties, affairs, met who they wanted, travelled as they pleased.

Alternatively we could take them (mostly) at their word.

They were worried about what we all saw from Italy: an overwhelmed healthcare system, forced to ration emergency care and to let people die.

The government repeatedly said that the goal was to protect the NHS, and that (I suggest) was the case. They weren't trying to stop people from being infected; on the contrary, they assumed everyone would be (because they thought trying to contain a respiratory infection couldn't work).

They tried to delay the entry into care homes because they knew it would be very bad in those contexts (they just didn't do it all that effectively). I'm not sure they had a particular plan on how to end that, but assuming better treatments would appear (allowing safer opening up) doesn't seem crazy. (As I say, I'm not sure they had a specific plan, but trying to delay in the face of a new virus doesn't seem bad to me: something might happen.)

So the goal was always to try and keep the number of people needing care low enough that the care could be provided. Which is a particular problem for the UK because we have relatively low numbers of ventilators (and ITU beds, hospital beds, nurses, GPs, etc.).

If one believes that, then having parties in No 10 doesn't really matter. The participants are (I imagine) on the young, healthy, end of the spectrum, and there aren't that many of them. It would surely seem bad if they were all sick at the same time and it does seem surprising they don't seem to have tried to have a plan for that (maybe split the staff into two or more groups who never physically meet). And they're all working in the same building, breathing the same air, so I can imagine they wouldn't feel that having wine Fridays really doesn't change their risk much.

So they weren't in deadly fear of being infected because they thought it was inevitable anyway, as it was for everyone. The goal was just to limit the maximum number at any one time. (To flatten the curve.)

That doesn't make it right. One can certainly feel that something can only be right for people working there if it is right for people working everywhere. And that (if one believes there's a potential problem of too many people needing care at the same time) wouldn't be safe. And it doesn't justify the former Prime Minister repeatedly saying that all the guidelines were followed at all times (even if he believed it, he should have corrected the record after learning it wasn't true).

 

[Amity Island]

Alternatively we could take them (mostly) at their word.

Alternatively, they could of just told people to stay at home if they are sick.

btw they threw the elderly out of hospital beds and at the same time, "scared the pants" off everyone else, told them to stay at home, which left those very same empty beds they cleared empty and unused.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Alternatively, they could of just told people to stay at home if they are sick.

That might have worked, yes. I suspect they (or the modellers) worried that it might not be, and I'm not sure. There was lots of uncertainty at the beginning (and still is).

 

[Amity Island]

That might have worked, yes.

It certainly would have. "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases." Although during the pandemic, this well known and established fact was turned on it's head, like just about every other thing we've ever known about science.

This "coughs and sneezes spread diseases" became:

"Anyone infected with COVID-19 can spread it, even if they do NOT have symptoms."

Now tell me this, how can anyone have this serious and deadly disease called covid 19 and not have symptoms? If you have no symptoms then you don't have covid 19. To have a confirmed case of covid19 you would need both a positive sarscov2 pcr test + symptoms of covid19.

Here was the first national tv alert from our pm back in March 2020. At no point on the national tv alert was it mentioned about staying at home if you are sick! Instead they locked everyone in their homes, shut businesses, schools, began the two year path of destruction.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It certainly would have. "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases." Although during the pandemic, this well known and established fact was turned on it's head, like just about every other thing we've ever known about science.

This "coughs and sneezes spread diseases" became:

"Anyone infected with COVID-19 can spread it, even if they do NOT have symptoms."

If that's what you're hanging on you're missing the point. Sure, they're being a little imprecise in using "infected with COVID-19" for what might be better phrased as "infected with the virus which can cause COVID-19", but does that really matter?

The important question is whether someone infected can spread that infection even if they do not have symptoms. So, was someone with COVID-19 transmitting the virus before they had symptoms (and might they be after the symptoms have passed)? And can someone who gets infected but never develops symptoms transmit the virus?

As I understand it the answer is yes, that is possible.

So the modelling question is whether asking people who have symptoms to stay at home would have been sufficient on its own. I'm guessing not, but I don't know. I would guess it would also have a significant cost, especially in winter, since presumably we'd have had more of the usual level of colds and other respiratory infections which we'd have to treat more seriously and stay isolated.

 

[42istheanswer]

Most respiratory viruses can be spread prior to people having symptoms (or at least sufficient symptoms to realise they have the virus). Chicken pox, colds, RSV, pertussis (especially in adults who don't get the "whoop" and may assume the cough is from smoking, pollution, hayfever etc etc)

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

"Anyone infected with COVID-19 can spread it, even if they do NOT have symptoms."

My understanding of the advice distributed by mainstream news and the government at the time was that anyone infected with the virus which causes covid-19 (technically sars cov 2, but for expediency they simply referred to the 'covid virus') can spread sars cov 2, whether or not they have any symptoms at the time; and that some people who are infected with sars cov 2 can go on to develop a severe case of covid 19. Most cases of sars cov 2 / covid 19 would be mild... but the more people who are infected with the virus the larger the number of people who would have a devastating, possibly even fatal case.

Personally I don't find the technicalities between infection with sars cov 2 and 'actual' covid 19 as being particularly crucial. Sars cov 2 is the virus that can lead to Covid 19, just as HIV is the virus that can lead to AIDS. Reducing HIV infections reduces potential cases of AIDS.

 

[MikeyBikey]

I knew four that died and their average age was 54! The care home scenario increased the average but it was deadly to many in their 40s and 50s. Two care home workers I know suffered mental health problems as a result of the frightening death rate of those in their care! So please stop writing cattle manure! Some of your other replies are really good so please try and tackle this obsession!

 

[Amity Island]

Personally I don't find the technicalities between infection with sars cov 2 and 'actual' covid 19 as being particularly crucial.

Mike, the crucial thing I'm trying to show is that nobody died from having a positive test. So it is crucial and truthful not to class everyone with a positive test as a case of covid19 (the disease), which is what they did.

Everyone that died within 28 days (no matter what they died of, sepsis, heart failure, road traffic accident, drowning etc) of a positive test was then classed as a covid19 death.

On the tests themselves, they were carried out at a replication of up to 45 cycles, a billion replications. Fouchie, confirmed that using cycles of over 30 were just not tenable as a test. You can simply find traces of almost anything at a billion replications. This is hardly following the science. The lower the cycles, the more reliable the test. Cycles of around 20 are much more reliable. In the UK 45 cycles was typical.

 

[Amity Island]

Some of your other replies are really good so please try and tackle this obsession!

Hi MikeyBikey,

Yes, some of my replies are good, because I am conscientious and I care about people and things.

You and others may think I have an obsession with all this, but I can assure you, it is more of a gut feeling I've had from the very first day. It's the same feeling one gets when you've been short changed over and over again. One can't prove anything but you just get this feeling that something ain't quite right with it all. You don't need to be long in the tooth either to know deep down when things aren't quite as you are being led to believe.

It's not one thing either, its many things.

To this day, we still don't know when or where it started, and governments have showed little to no interest in finding out.

Right at the beginning, from reclassifying the virus from a hcid high consequence infectious disease to one that isn't, then the day after, shutting the country down. That isn't science.

From 60 independent sovereign countries simultaneously locking down (using an identical strategy) at the very same time.

Not telling those that are sick and coughing to stay at home to help reduce (flatten the curve) transmission, instead locking all the healthy people in at home instead and absolutely destroying the country. That isn't science.

Limiting peoples outdoor time. That isn't science.

Throwing the elderly out of hospital only to leave their beds empty for months cos they scared the pants off the public, too scared to go to hospital.

Locking down to "protect" the NHS when in reality causing more deaths from people too scared to attend and putting backlogs on peoples appointments resulting in more harms and deaths. That isn't science.

Then to the mask mandates when they had no evidence they worked and according to the Cochrane review never worked for the public. That isn't science.

Telling the public you have a 99% survival rate and that the vast majority will never know they have or ever catch it, then "scare the pants" off everyone. That isn't science.

Closing schools. That isn't science.

The pcr tests set at such ridiculous repetitions anything can be found. That isn't science

Counting every death within 28 days of a positive (billion cycles) test as a covid death, regardless of what someone died of. That isn't science.

Mandating vaccines that didn't provide sterilising immunity. That isn't science nor is it ethical.

From the first man in the world to get the vaccine called William Shakespeare to the first known transmission being in the very same place (haslemere) as the BBC fake pandemic trial a few years earlier. That isn't science.

Having the people advising everyone to stay at home ignore their own advice. That isn't science.

Recommending vaccination for those that have had and recovered from covid. That isn't science.

Ignoring natural immunity. That isn't science.

Without natural immunity, how can vaccines work?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Everyone that died within 28 days (no matter what they died of, sepsis, heart failure, road traffic accident, drowning etc) of a positive test was then classed as a covid19 death.

It was a proxy measure wasn't it, and one which was defined and revised to reduce the risk of underestimating (or overestimating) the impact of Covid-19. I think that's why we were constantly reminded of the basis of how the information was derived on the news announcements.

28 days was a compromise to give a good estimate of a likelihood that Covid-19 was an underlying cause (initially it was having ever had a positive test, then 60 days I think). And of course some people who died directly from Covid-19 never had a positive lab test.

There's an interesting page here on the complexities of counting Covid-19 deaths here:

Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths – UK Health Security Agency

The official blog of the UK Health Security Agency, providing expert insight on the organisation's work and all aspects of health security

ukhsa.blog.gov.uk

And the ONS has a different way of counting which you may prefer

ONS and PHE COVID-19 deaths data are produced in different ways and have different purposes:​

• The daily COVID deaths counts reported on the government's COVID-19 dashboard (produced by PHE) shows deaths within 28 days of a first positive laboratory-confirmed test. .
• ONS weekly death registrations data for England and Wales relate to the week that ended 11 days prior and are based on the cause of death reported on the death certificate, thereby not restricted to only deaths that showed a positive test.

Deaths solely from COVID-19 rather than deaths within 28-days of a positive test - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

And also from the ONS

Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[Amity Island]

It was a proxy measure wasn't it, and one which was defined and revised to reduce the risk of underestimating (or overestimating) the impact of Covid-19. I think that's why we were constantly reminded of the basis of how the information was derived on the news announcements.

28 days was a compromise to give a good estimate of a likelihood that Covid-19 was an underlying cause (initially it was having ever had a positive test, then 60 days I think). And of course some people who died directly from Covid-19 never had a positive lab test.

There's an interesting page here on the complexities of counting Covid-19 deaths here:

Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths – UK Health Security Agency

The official blog of the UK Health Security Agency, providing expert insight on the organisation's work and all aspects of health security

ukhsa.blog.gov.uk

And the ONS has a different way of counting which you may prefer

ONS and PHE COVID-19 deaths data are produced in different ways and have different purposes:​

• The daily COVID deaths counts reported on the government's COVID-19 dashboard (produced by PHE) shows deaths within 28 days of a first positive laboratory-confirmed test. .
• ONS weekly death registrations data for England and Wales relate to the week that ended 11 days prior and are based on the cause of death reported on the death certificate, thereby not restricted to only deaths that showed a positive test.

Deaths solely from COVID-19 rather than deaths within 28-days of a positive test - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

And also from the ONS

Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

Which advice would you expect to see rolled out to the public in a deadly and infectious world wide respiratory pandemic, A or B?

A. Stay at home if you are well.

B. Stay at home if you are sick.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Which advice would you expect to see rolled out to the public in a deadly and infectious world wide respiratory pandemic, A or B?

A. Stay at home if you are well.

B. Stay at home if you are sick.

Someone can feel well but be infectious (for at least some infectious diseases), so it seems reasonable for governments to restrict people who "are well" sometimes. Obviously one hopes that forced isolation isn't required often, but I think it will be sometimes. A classic example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

 

[Amity Island]

Someone can feel well but be infectious (for at least some infectious diseases), so it seems reasonable for governments to restrict people who "are well" sometimes. Obviously one hopes that forced isolation isn't required often, but I think it will be sometimes. A classic example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

I'm asking about a public health message. One that provides a satisfactory way to control the spread without absolutely destroying the country for us all and the generations to come.

A or B?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

A or B?

I think it depends. If B still leads to significant harm, I think some of A might also be justified. Obviously I'm in favour of trying to ensure that B is practical for everyone (which it isn't, now). I fear on its own it would not have been sufficient in the UK.

 

[Amity Island]

I think it depends. If B still leads to significant harm, I think some of A might also be justified. Obviously I'm in favour of trying to ensure that B is practical for everyone (which it isn't, now). I fear on its own it would not have been sufficient in the UK.

So your public health message for a new respiratory pandemic would of been the same as the governments?
Stay at home -- regardless of whether you are well or sick.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

So your public health message for a new respiratory pandemic would of been the same as the governments?

As I said, it would depend.