Covid-19 response

One may wonder, if they could of instead just advised people who are sick to stay home as a means to reduce transmission to help the nhs, then why did they lockdown, turf the elderly out, close businesses, impose social distancing, masks, furlough, business loans, ruin the nhs for everyone, cancel essential hospital appointments, close schools, testing, covid passports, test and trace, put the country into billions of debt? And ignore natural immunity?

The answer provided by fauci was

"Lockdowns are to get people vaccinated"
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
One may wonder, if they could of instead just advised people who are sick to stay home as a means to reduce transmission to help the nhs, then why did they lockdown, turf the elderly out, close businesses, impose social distancing, masks, furlough, business loans, ruin the nhs for everyone, cancel essential hospital appointments, close schools, testing, covid passports, test and trace, put the country into billions of debt? And ignore natural immunity?
Click to expand...
They didn't know. And to begin with, we know they didn't want to do anything, so by the time they did do so they were forced to do more. And "more" means much more because that's the nature of exponential growth: they thought the doubling time was about 7 days and it was more like 3 days, and the main measure they had was hospital admissions which was (and is) a lagging measure.
Amity Island said:
The answer provided by fauci was

"Lockdowns are to get people vaccinated"
Click to expand...
In what context did he say that? As I understand it there was significant uncertainty in early 2020 that vaccines could be available quickly enough or would work effectively enough to be useful; among the Oxford group (and the mRNA people) there was more confidence (the Oxford group had SARS and MERS vaccines and the mRNA people had experimental flu vaccines that had tested well) but I don't think anyone had confidence in manufacturing.

In retrospect I think the NZ government can be happy about their choice since it did allow the population to be vaccinated before exposure but even in that case I think the initial decision was mostly about delaying in the hope that something would happen rather than specifically about a vaccine (though a vaccine was always one of the hopes).
 
Satan’s little helper said:
Hello,

On this point. My feelings on that matter go a little further back than 2020?
My view is it’s probably been a “baton” passed on from a government long since, gone..?

Click to expand...
I agree, it was actually a GP that told me long before 2020, that there was a deliberate and concerted effort to damage the nhs, probably with the view of trying to bring in a private healthcare system (at least for those that could afford it)
 
Bruce Stephens said:
They didn't know. And to begin with, we know they didn't want to do anything, so by the time they did do so they were forced to do more. And "more" means much more because that's the nature of exponential growth: they thought the doubling time was about 7 days and it was more like 3 days, and the main measure they had was hospital admissions which was (and is) a lagging measure.

In what context did he say that? As I understand it there was significant uncertainty in early 2020 that vaccines could be available quickly enough or would work effectively enough to be useful; among the Oxford group (and the mRNA people) there was more confidence (the Oxford group had SARS and MERS vaccines and the mRNA people had experimental flu vaccines that had tested well) but I don't think anyone had confidence in manufacturing.

In retrospect I think the NZ government can be happy about their choice since it did allow the population to be vaccinated before exposure but even in that case I think the initial decision was mostly about delaying in the hope that something would happen rather than specifically about a vaccine (though a vaccine was always one of the hopes).
Click to expand...
I had more trust in the protect the elderly/vulnerable (those in their 80's and 90's not so much the under 65's) strategy which is what the Great Barrington Declaration was about. Some say, ah but people of all ages can die of it, but to put things into context a little bit, humans get sick all the time, it's part of being human and as Chris Whitty explained many people will never even catch the virus, won't even get any symptoms. The average age of death is 82. Life is a risk. We can't expect to eliminate all risks (at any cost), especially when it means others suffer as a result, like those requiring urgent treatments for other diseases and illnesses.

I think it would be a fair statement to say if we put $11 trillion and such world wide effort and determination into diabetes research, cures and testing more good would of come of it. Do you know how many people are living with undiagnosed and untreated diabetes across the world? how many die of food poisoning every year? and yet, it is claimed that it was about saving lives, yet beer and fags are still readily available in the shops. Very little has been done about people driving whilst using their mobile phones. There are all sorts of ways lives can be saved without destroying everything and leaving us huge debts.

Chris Whitty At Government Daily Briefing 11/05/2020.

“A significant proportion of people will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all- asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens.

Of those that get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease,-might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have go to the doctor.

An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen, and will then will leave hospital, and then a minority of those will end up have to go to severe and critical care, and some of those sadly will die, but that’s a minority, it’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall, and even in the higher risk group..Uh..this will be significantly less than 20% i.e. the great majority, even the very highest groups, if they catch the virus will not die”
 
Bruce Stephens said:
In the situation then? Stay at home. We'd seen the videos from northern Italy, and that could have been much worse in the UK and there was too much uncertainty to risk doing too little.
Click to expand...
You do realise that there are more people dying now, week after week (non covid excess deaths), after the pandemic.

What are they doing about it? Where's the global response?
 
Amity Island said:
You do realise that there are more people dying now, week after week (non covid excess deaths), after the pandemic.

What are they doing about it? Where's the global response?
Click to expand...
You do understand that there's a difference between a rapidly increasing illness caused by an infectious agent and a kind of chronic number of excess deaths likely caused by a variety of things (including, probably, damage caused by repeated infections).

The two probably justify different levels of urgency, and even if they don't in some greater ethical sense, politically they certainly do. Governments are going to react with more urgency when they can see things are getting quickly worse than when it's less obvious what's happening (and where it might not become obvious until after the next election).

I suspect there'd be a significant improvement in overall health by changing people's diets and physical environment (encouraging more exercise as a normal part of living), but that involves addressing food supply, income inequality, perhaps also work practices (when I was young my mother either didn't work or worked part time, allowing her time to cook from scratch most days).

Those just seem politically impractical. Even the rather modest idea of 15 minute cities, where it's practical for most people, most of the time, to walk or cycle to do their everyday tasks seems politically controversial.
 
bulkbiker said:
And maybe, just maybe, repeated injections?
Click to expand...
The evidence so far seems to be it's not that. The ASMR of vaccinated people is lower than unvaccinated in all countries looked at, though I'm sure there are countries where the relevant data isn't available or isn't that certain.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
You do understand that there's a difference between a rapidly increasing illness caused by an infectious agent and a kind of chronic number of excess deaths likely caused by a variety of things.

Governments are going to react with more urgency when they can see things are getting quickly worse
Click to expand...
Can you point me to where the signs are of this "rapidly increasing illness" and things "getting quickly worse" before they made the decision to lockdown, tell everyone to stay at home and turf out the elderly?

Where is the UK evidence for using a lockdown? They were specifically told the days before, this is not a high consequence infectious disease.
 

Attachments

  • No excess deaths until after lockdowns and elderly moved out of hospitals March 20th 2020.png
    No excess deaths until after lockdowns and elderly moved out of hospitals March 20th 2020.png
    173 KB · Views: 1
@Bruce Stephens they used the same strategy for the masks, no evidence they worked but mandated them anyway, then again for covid19, if no evidence of any illness, they used testing to show you definitely had covid 19.

Absolutely ludicrous. You have no symptoms, so you must have covid19!

On Masks:

3 April 2020: England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van Tam tells a televised briefing: “we do not recommend face masks for general wearing.”

3 April 2020: Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) makes an unequivocal statement that, “The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work.”

16 April 2020: Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tells ITV wearing masks would be “counterproductive… the suggestions people would make their own masks; whether it’s clothing and that sort of thing which doesn’t really provide that much protection. Secondly, the way people take it off can sometimes do the reinfection. Thirdly it can provide a false sense of security.”

23 April 2020: UK Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance tells televised briefing, “the evidence on masks has always been quite weak, quite variable… there’s no real trials on it.”

24 April 2020: Health Secretary Matt Hancock tells LBC, “the evidence for the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”
 
Amity Island said:
Like lockdowns; harmful.
Click to expand...

New Zealand’s all cause mortality was lower during the lockdowns than it was in the years before the pandemic.

www.thelancet.com

Reduced mortality in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic

New Zealand has had low case rates, hospital admissions, and deaths from COVID-19.1 Stringent public health interventions (eg, compulsory self-isolation following travel, early border closure, nationwide lockdown, and isolation of cases and close contacts) were instituted in week 12 of 2020 (ie...
www.thelancet.com
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
New Zealand’s all cause mortality was lower during the lockdowns than it was in the years before the pandemic.

www.thelancet.com

Reduced mortality in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic

New Zealand has had low case rates, hospital admissions, and deaths from COVID-19.1 Stringent public health interventions (eg, compulsory self-isolation following travel, early border closure, nationwide lockdown, and isolation of cases and close contacts) were instituted in week 12 of 2020 (ie...
www.thelancet.com
Click to expand...
And now it has spiked rather worryingly?
Wonder what that could be.. lockdown induced deaths or the jibby jabby.. ?

Screenshot 2023-04-13 at 09.00.02.png
 
bulkbiker said:
lockdown induced deaths or the jibby jabby.. ?
Click to expand...

CLAIM: New Zealand is seeing its biggest increase in deaths in a century because of the coronavirus vaccine.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Government officials and experts in New Zealand say the rise in deaths last year is the result of the country’s first true wave of COVID-19 infections, which follow the lifting of the strict lockdown policy maintained during the first two years of the pandemic. They also say the country’s aging population is playing a role.

apnews.com

Deaths rise in New Zealand due to COVID, demographic shifts

CLAIM: New Zealand is seeing its biggest increase in deaths in a century because of the coronavirus vaccine. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Government officials and experts in New Zealand say the rise in deaths last year is the result of the country’s first true wave of COVID-19 infections, which...
apnews.com apnews.com
 
" Government officials and experts in New Zealand"

Exactly the people who were coercing people to get jabbed...

somehow I would not be inclined to believe them.

And AP "factcheckers" who pays their wages?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top