Covid-19 response

Amity Island said:
The point he was making as head of CDC is that masks protect the wearer.

This is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
why not? Lots of studies show they do protect the wearer (as well as those around them) if they are the right ones, worn right etc. Which is why some places mandated ffp2 minimum masks

The basic blue/thin cloth ones probably don’t do a lot other than reduce droplets expelled at speed from, in either direction. Aerosols will more easily cloud around the person and circumvent the lower quality/poorly sealed fabrics
 
HSSS said:
why not? Lots of studies show they do protect the wearer (as well as those around them) if they are the right ones, worn right etc. Which is why some places mandated ffp2 minimum masks

The basic blue/thin cloth ones probably don’t do a lot other than reduce droplets expelled at speed from, in either direction. Aerosols will more easily cloud around the person and circumvent the lower quality/poorly sealed fabrics
Click to expand...
I was on the understanding masks were mandated to try and protect others.

Researchers found there was no statistically significant difference in the number of people who contacted the virus in a group wearing masks in public compared to a group that did not do so.

The team, from Copenhagen University Hospital says the findings should not be used to argue against their widespread use because masks prevent people infecting others.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Face masks do NOT protect wearer from coronavirus, Danish study finds

A new study from Denmark found, after one month, 1.8% of a group wearing masks had been infected with the virus and 2.1% in the unmasked group had tested positive for COVID-19.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:
It is obvious there is a lot of misinformation around Covid, just like there has always been around diabetes.

Going against the narrative will cause huge cognitive dissonance, again, just like with diabetes.
 
Amity Island said:
I was on the understanding masks were mandated to try and protect others.

Researchers found there was no statistically significant difference in the number of people who contacted the virus in a group wearing masks in public compared to a group that did not do so.

The team, from Copenhagen University Hospital says the findings should not be used to argue against their widespread use because masks prevent people infecting others.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Face masks do NOT protect wearer from coronavirus, Danish study finds

A new study from Denmark found, after one month, 1.8% of a group wearing masks had been infected with the virus and 2.1% in the unmasked group had tested positive for COVID-19.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
They were. Doesn’t mean they don’t protect the wearer too though.

Re that study : Blue masks which aren’t great, compliance not ascertained

Their own comments list state “Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others”.

Also despite these serious flaws it did show some reduction (just not the goal 50%) even in a community with low rates (which always makes it harder to show effectiveness of any intervention “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.”
 
HSSS said:
They were. Doesn’t mean they don’t protect the wearer too though.

Re that study : Blue masks which aren’t great, compliance not ascertained

Their own comments list state “Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others”.

Also despite these serious flaws it did show some reduction (just not the goal 50%) even in a community with low rates (which always makes it harder to show effectiveness of any intervention “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.”
Click to expand...
This is my conclusion on masks which is in another thread here.

 
Amity Island said:
This is my conclusion on masks which is in another thread here.

Click to expand...
The cochrane statement is widely misquoted and taken out of context. It doesn’t say masks were ineffective but that masking programs were inconclusive in their effectiveness (ie the advice and the way it was done not the mask itself) and I’ve pointed this out to you before but you insist on misrepresenting it again. Why? You need to update your library of attachments to ones that say what you claim they do.

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid-19-response.105518/page-5#post-1257369 to
 
HSSS said:
The cochrane statement is widely misquoted and taken out of context. It doesn’t say masks were ineffective but that masking programs were inconclusive in their effectiveness (ie the advice and the way it was done not the mask itself) and I’ve pointed this out to you before but you insist on misrepresenting it again. Why? You need to update your library of attachments to ones that say what you claim they do.

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid-19-response.105518/page-5#post-1257369 to
Click to expand...
I can only show you what was stated by the w.h.o. in their pandemic preparedness document. These are not my words or advice and I am not misrepresenting anything as they are direct quotes from their own publication. They are relating to, as was the cochrane review about the use of masks "in the population" (real world use) not laboratory tests. The surgical type masks worn by the public are normally used only as spatter masks in a surgical setting.

"Face masks worn by asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended in severe epidemics or pandemics, to reduce transmission in the community. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure."

"A disposable surgical mask is recommended to be worn at all times by symptomatic individuals when in contact with other individuals. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure."
 
Amity Island said:
"That culture has been totally replaced by top-down protocols and bureaucratic policy driven healthcare. An eminent retired surgeon in the room was stunned following the revelations and was moved to remind everyone that they have a duty to raise concerns. He was appalled to hear that the GMC had suspended colleagues simply for questioning the prevailing covid narrative."

@bulkbiker this sums up one of the hundreds of examples I felt showed something ain't right with it all. I've mentioned some of these before about many of the worlds most eminient scientists, doctors and experts being deplatformed, wiped from search engines, ridiculed, ignored, etc who had concerns about the way the pandemic was being dealt with.

During a pandemic, isn't this the time you'd seek opinion and advice from the worlds experts, not ignore and discredit them?
Click to expand...
@bulkbiker

A bit more about it here today, that anything but the official truth will likely be banned in the near future and will result in fines etc for those saying anything but the official story, regardless of it's reliability.

 
Bruce Stephens said:
"truth" indeed. Here's a thread showing Campbell's recent (presumably pretend) astonishment that a phase 1 trial only had 50 participants, followed by a whole lot back in 2020 when he understood that phase 1 trials only involved small numbers of healthy participants:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660693608943751168
Click to expand...
Shooting the messenger, instead of listening to the message. What Professor Fenton says in the interview is the truth, that he is no longer permitted to publish any of his work as result of him showing other data to the official narrative during the pandemic.

When it comes to science, you might not want to hear alternative data and views but I certainly do. I would also want to know both relative risk and absolute risk for a new drug before giving informed consent. That is the right thing to do, it's the moral and proper way to do things.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
"truth" indeed. Here's a thread showing Campbell's recent (presumably pretend) astonishment that a phase 1 trial only had 50 participants, followed by a whole lot back in 2020 when he understood that phase 1 trials only involved small numbers of healthy participants:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660693608943751168
Click to expand...
Here is an alternative view to the narrative. Lancet claimed that “estimated that vaccinations prevented 14.4 million deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020 and Dec 8, 2021."

This article below shows this figure is impossible.'

First, the WHO reports that as of Feb 17, 2023 there were “756.5 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 including 6.84 million deaths.” This gives an overall case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.9%. At this rate, had the Covid vaccines prevented 14.4 million deaths in the space of one year, then they would also have needed to prevent 1.59 billion confirmed cases in that same year. But this is more than twice the total number of cases in three years, meaning it would require a six-fold increase in the number of confirmed cases since the beginning of the Covid era. Therefore, based on the overall CFR it is impossible that the vaccines saved 14.4 million deaths.

pandata.org

False Covid-19 Vaccine Claims by Lancet: A Call for Retraction

Due to the importance of the issue of Covid-19 vaccinations to society at large, PANDA calls on Lancet to retract a seminal paper that is demonstrably incorrect in its assumptions.
pandata.org pandata.org
 
Let's not forget, there were no excess death signals of a deadly pandemic until the day lockdowns and other strategies were brought in.

Early in the Covid pandemic concerns were raised that lockdown and other non-pharmaceutical interventions would cause significant multidimensional harm to society. This paper comprehensively evaluates the global state of knowledge on these adverse social impacts, with an emphasis on their type and magnitude during 2020 and 2021. A harm framework was developed spanning 10 categories: health, economy, income, food security, education, lifestyle, intimate relationships, community, environment and governance. The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead.

papers.ssrn.com

How Did the COVID Pandemic Response Harm Society? A Global Evaluation and State of Knowledge Review (2020-21)

Early in the Covid pandemic concerns were raised that lockdown and other non-pharmaceutical interventions would cause significant multidimensional harm to socie
papers.ssrn.com
 
Amity Island said:
Let's not forget, there were no excess death signals of a deadly pandemic until the day lockdowns and other strategies were brought in.
Click to expand...

I know you have made this assertion in the past.

But it simply does not tie-in to my recollection of events at the time, the early covid deaths, the more damaging early strains of infection, the numbers of people needing intensive care and so on. The ever-filling hospitals…

My problem is that all of this has now become politicised. And that there is a whole industry of people trying to repaint and reframe events to suit their own political view and agenda, and so articles and analyses become available to prove that red was blue, black was white, and up was down. When that just isn’t what I remember happening at the time either here... in nearby Europe, or further afield.

I know this government has a decent track record of self sabotage - but for me the question becomes why would they have undertaken such expensive and economically difficult measures if they had not been seen to be absolutely necessary? If there were no evidence to back these measures up - What could possibly have been the reasoning if (as you seem to be suggesting) nothing was happening and everything was hunky-dory.
 
Quite right @everydayupsanddowns. Once the forum gets off diabetes there seems to be an increasing tendency to generate threads like this one - long, rambling and going absolutely nowhere.

The whole thing is not helped by endless tit for tat references to youtube videos - whatever point of view you want to promote can be readily supported by any number of URLs. They are mostly clickbait and sorting out anything of value is a bit like finding a date by picking a telephone number from the lavatory wall and choosing one because you liked the colour of the ink that was used to write it. Not a good way to choose a date or further understanding.

I also have to say that the few members who persist in these long rambling, going nowhere, threads actually do not seem to have any expertise in the areas under discussion and so cannot help the rest of us to get a perspective on the issues. It is why the threads ramble on. I think they should reflect on this and ask themselves why so few others, especially those with some knowledge of the subject or expertise in dealing with complicated technical issues drop out of the conversation early or do not join in at all. Don't know about the others, but for me its because I've got better things to do than get involved in discussion with those with narrow and unchangeable views. Delving into obscure computer systems is much more rewarding.
 
Docb said:
Quite right @everydayupsanddowns. Once the forum gets off diabetes there seems to be an increasing tendency to generate threads like this one - long, rambling and going absolutely nowhere.

I also have to say that the few members who persist in these long rambling, going nowhere, threads actually do not seem to have any expertise in the areas under discussion and so cannot help the rest of us to get a perspective on the issues. It is why the threads ramble on.
Click to expand...
Hi Docb,

Well docb; put an end to all these ramblings, show us all the evidence for locking us all in and destroying the country, the nhs and the economy.

Where were all the recorded excess deaths (for this deadly pandemic) in the UK prior to locking us all down (and emptying the elderly out of hospitals and telling us all to stay at home) on 21 March 2020? See graph attached. Do you have contrary uk data showing why they locked the country down?
 

Attachments

  • UK_spike_chart.png
    UK_spike_chart.png
    218.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
Hi Docb,

Well docb; put an end to all these ramblings, show us all the evidence for locking us all in and destroying the country, the nhs and the economy.

Where were all the recorded excess deaths (for this deadly pandemic) in the UK prior to locking us all down (and emptying the elderly out of hospitals and telling us all to stay at home) on 21 March 2020? See graph attached. Do you have contrary uk data showing why they locked the country down?
Click to expand...

You’ll be aware of Covid lag of course. That it takes some time between increased sars cov 2 infection rates, to manifest into cases, some of which tragically result in severe illness… and then ultimately some of those people will die.

And rather like the member here who uses an image of an overflowing sink when talking about blood glucose control…

If you, as the Government, can see that case rates are rising rapidly… and they know that they have a finite intensive care resource - it becomes imperative to slow the flow of cases so that the proportion of those which may tragically ultimately result in severe cases, respiratory failure, intensove care and death or life changing disability is limited to some degree.

Don’t you think? Again I will say that your (apparently sarcastic?) references to the ‘deadly pandemic’ are in very poor taste for anyone who has indeed lost a loved, one friend, or family relative to a pandemic which was deadly in a very real way, and which demanded unprecedented public health measures which you seem to disagree with.

I believe the lag between sars cov 2 infection and possible death from covid can be at least 4-8 weeks, and quite possibly much longer.

Please, please, stop.
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
Where were all the recorded excess deaths (for this deadly pandemic) in the UK prior to locking us all down (and emptying the elderly out of hospitals and telling us all to stay at home) on 21 March 2020?
Click to expand...
There weren't a significant number in the UK. But (as you know) there were deaths in northern Italy and elsewhere, and even our incompetent government at the time could see where things were likely to be going here. As you also know, the nature of exponential growth is that things look just fine until (apparently suddenly) they're very much not, especially when you've got essentially no testing (or any information, really, outside the numbers who ended up in hospital).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top