Covid-19 response

Bruce Stephens said:
I doubt that very much. I also doubt he'd tell us the truth even if he knew it unless it benefitted him personally. I suspect he's going with the lab leak story because he knows it'll do well in The Mail, Telegraph, and other publications likely to buy articles from him.
Click to expand...
If not the P.M who do you suggest was informed about the virus?
 
Amity Island said:
If not the P.M who do you suggest was informed about the virus?
Click to expand...
Chris Whitty would be a possibility. Three examples would be Kristian G Andersen, Eddie Holmes, and Michael Worobey, who were each involved in examining the question early on (Andersen thought originally that the virus might well be engineered). There's a (long, well, over 2 hours which isn't that long for that podcast) discussion with the three of them:
 
Bruce Stephens said:
Chris Whitty would be a possibility. Three examples would be Kristian G Andersen, Eddie Holmes, and Michael Worobey, who were each involved in examining the question early on (Andersen thought originally that the virus might well be engineered). There's a (long, well, over 2 hours which isn't that long for that podcast) discussion with the three of them:
Click to expand...
Given it was largely the response that did the harm to the entire country, did they say if they recommended lockdowns?
 
Bruce Stephens said:
Have you watched Prof Kevin Fong's testimony to the Inquiry?
Click to expand...
Yes I've watched it.

It's from the perspective of someone on the front line, a worst case scenario (like asking a fire fighter what it's like tackling a fire). I.C.U is not a place for the faint hearted or those who don't have the right kind of personality or skill set. I didn't think his comparison of Covid19 with World War 2 and the London attacks were an appropriate comparison for someone in icu with pneumonia and breathing difficulties. I found that really odd actually.

There was no balance in the questions, no qualifiers or other questions about how Great Britain experienced the pandemic for the everyday person (70million people on 95,000 square miles of land). He wasn't asked about the abandonment of the elderly in the care homes, the turfing out of the elderly from the hospitals to clear spaces for all the people that never came after being told to stay home. No questions about Nightingale Hospitals. None about scandalous wastes of money, furlough and eat out to help scheme. No mention of the average age of those dying from covid was the same as the average of death at 82 yrs.

No mention that no teachers, shop workers, care workers, police officers died of Covid from March to October 2020 see attached.

No mention that there was only a marginal increase in all cause age standardised death rates in 2020 compared to say 2018, with the average rate being around 1000 per 100,000 population and actually, historically, far less deaths than since records began from year on year.
 

Attachments

  • covid deaths .png
    covid deaths .png
    149.1 KB · Views: 0
  • all cause mortality 2000-2020.png
    all cause mortality 2000-2020.png
    164.6 KB · Views: 0
  • COVID STATS (1).pdf
    COVID STATS (1).pdf
    361.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
There was no balance in the questions, no qualifiers or other questions about how Great Britain experienced the pandemic for the everyday person (70million people on 95,000 square miles of land). He wasn't asked about the abandonment of the elderly in the care homes, the turfing out of the elderly from the hospitals to clear spaces for all the people that never came after being told to stay home. No questions about Nightingale Hospitals. None about scandalous wastes of money, furlough and eat out to help scheme. No mention of the average age of those dying from covid was the same as the average of death at 82 yrs.
Click to expand...
Such questions would have been rejected as not being relevant to Module 3 of the Inquiry, I think. If they'd been allowed I suspect he'd have replied that he had no relevant expertise. (Maybe questions on the Nightingale hospitals would be relevant but I'd guess he doesn't know anything about them. It looks like they might be discussed in Module 5. Care homes are clearly Module 6.)

He was talking about the impact on ICU (and to a lesser extent other parts of the hospitals) because that's what Module 3 is about and that's what he has knowledge of.

His account seems to me to persuasively support the view that there was an emergency in intensive care, and emergency actions were necessary or things would have been much worse. As he explained, we just have fewer ICU resources (and hospital beds generally) than most other countries we'd like to consider similar.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
I presume the decision wasn't made lightly.
Click to expand...
Lightly? Sounds like quite the opposite. Hell bent on the jab seems the way. The solicitor asked same question, but can't seem to get to the bottom of why they are so hell bent on jabbing this chap (and the entire population no matter what their age or risk) who doesn't want it. You never know what people's motives or reasons are.

I remember people saying the non-jabbed shouldn't be given hospital care. No scientific reason behind it. They were saying it as if the jabbed won't get COVID or won't transmit it.
 
Amity Island said:
The solicitor asked same question, but can't seem to get to the bottom of why they are so hell bent on jabbing this chap (and the entire population no matter what their age or risk) who doesn't want it.
Click to expand...
The story says
Known as Adam (a pseudonym), he is under Court of Protection orders because he cannot make decisions for himself. In 2021, the care board obtained a court order allowing the sedative method, deemed necessary due to Adam’s risk factors, including Down’s syndrome, autism, and obesity.​

Maybe they desperately want to force vaccination on him for some underhand reason. Or maybe they care about his well-being and genuinely feel that vaccination is in his interests.

You can certainly believe that the risks are lower in 2024 than in 2021. It's true for most of the rest of us largely because of vaccination and/or infection which may not be true for Adam, so vaccination may well still be highly desirable for him. Presumably the court will again make that determination.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
The story says
Known as Adam (a pseudonym), he is under Court of Protection orders because he cannot make decisions for himself. In 2021, the care board obtained a court order allowing the sedative method, deemed necessary due to Adam’s risk factors, including Down’s syndrome, autism, and obesity.​

Maybe they desperately want to force vaccination on him for some underhand reason. Or maybe they care about his well-being and genuinely feel that vaccination is in his interests.

You can certainly believe that the risks are lower in 2024 than in 2021. It's true for most of the rest of us largely because of vaccination and/or infection which may not be true for Adam, so vaccination may well still be highly desirable for him. Presumably the court will again make that determination.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make much sense given they were handing out dnar on people just because they had downs and other disabilities during COVID.

Also they talk about the vaccines as if they are without risk. The vast numbers of vaccination damage compensation scheme claims suggests otherwise.
www.bbc.co.uk

Covid-19: Concern over 'do not resuscitate' decisions during pandemic

Some people's human rights may have been breached during the pandemic, the care watchdog for England says.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Bruce Stephens said:
The story says
Known as Adam (a pseudonym), he is under Court of Protection orders because he cannot make decisions for himself. In 2021, the care board obtained a court order allowing the sedative method, deemed necessary due to Adam’s risk factors, including Down’s syndrome, autism, and obesity.​

Maybe they desperately want to force vaccination on him for some underhand reason. Or maybe they care about his well-being and genuinely feel that vaccination is in his interests.

You can certainly believe that the risks are lower in 2024 than in 2021. It's true for most of the rest of us largely because of vaccination and/or infection which may not be true for Adam, so vaccination may well still be highly desirable for him. Presumably the court will again make that determination.
Click to expand...
I know nothing about this particular case (and I have no desire to find out). However, I've had many dealings with the Court of Protection - although not in relation to COVID. Covert administration of medication isn't that unusual when someone's deemed to lack capacity to make an informed decision whether or not to take the medication. A guiding principle of such decisions is that it has to be in the person's Best Interest. Insulin is covered similarly - and in fact there was an interesting paper not that long ago examining the issue of mental capacity with regards to diabetes.
 
Amity Island said:
Doesn't make much sense given they were handing out dnar on people just because they had downs and other disabilities during COVID.
Click to expand...
I think it's possible that there were both people being "encouraged" inappropriately to sign DNRs and for some places wanting to vaccinate people they had responsibility for.
Amity Island said:
Also they talk about the vaccines as if they are without risk.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they did. I think the accepted view is that (like everything) they have risk, but that generally the risks are lower than the benefits they offer. Perhaps if large numbers of compensation claims are actually awarded that might need to be reassessed, but for the moment given that billions of doses have been given (worldwide, obviously) I think they have a good safety profile.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
I think it's possible that there were both people being "encouraged" inappropriately to sign DNRs and for some places wanting to vaccinate people they had responsibility for.
Click to expand...
Not encouraged. It was done without their knowledge or agreement.

"Some 508 'do not attempt resuscitation' (DNAR) decisions made since March 2020 were not agreed in discussion with the person or their family, a report found."

My point being on one hand they claim it's in the persons best interest to force a vaccination on someone who doesn't have a particular risk to COVID (and likely has already had COVID) but on the other hand are slapping on dnars without consent. Are we trying to save people or not? What is the aim?
 
Amity Island said:
My point being on one hand they claim it's in the persons best interest to force a vaccination on someone who doesn't have a particular risk to COVID (and likely has already had COVID) but on the other hand are slapping on dnars without consent.
Click to expand...
I don't see how DNARs are relevant. We all agree they should not have been imposed on people and shouldn't have been suggested for groups of people. I'm not sure whether they're an issue at all in this case.

The court decided that vaccination would be in Adam's best interests in 2021. Perhaps the court will decide things are different now. I doubt we have enough information to make a judgement (and I'm pretty sure we shouldn't have): perhaps he's managed to avoid infection even now, or perhaps vaccination will be decided to offer sufficiently valuable additional protection. COVID's not over, after all. So far this year it's killed ~7000 people in the England.
 
Amity Island said:
How does that compare to 2020?
Click to expand...
Lower, of course.
Amity Island said:
Of those 7,000 how many were vaccinated against death and hospitalisation?
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware that's not known (or not reported). I suspect it's just not known because UKHSA isn't that interested in tracking COVID any more. (We don't do wastewater analysis, for example, which would be pretty cheap and would allow us to compare with a bunch of other countries which have continued that analysis.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top