M
Member496333
Guest
excess mortality
This is really the one thing that tells the true story.
excess mortality
This is really the one thing that tells the true story.
https://gbdeclaration.org/#read
This is the petition signed by many doctors and created by 3 reputable epidimilogists/virologists.
It gives the lie to the idea that 'the science' is fixed upon our current Covid suppression strategy. It truly isn't.
It advocates protection of those elderly or very vulnerable that wish to be protected whilst allowing others to carry on as normal.
It seems to have fallen foul of Google's algorithmn so I've linked it here in case anyone wants to read it.
Odd that they don't start the graph from the start of the year where deaths were about 5k down on the average pre COVID in the first 11 weeks.Yes and (strangely) no. The eventual total excess deaths will also show collateral damage.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3348
I’m not an epidemiologist, nor an expert on transmission of infectious diseases. At the weekend I read about the GB Declaration and was intrigued, especially when it appeared to ‘disappear’ from google for a while. Why I asked? Presumably google thought this was false news? It’s returned now, so people can have a reasoned debate.
Then I listened to an infectious diseases podcast condemn the Declaration, saying it is based on the assumption that if we let COVID-19 run, that we will reach herd immunity, and warned that this premise was a fallacy. It is not certain that we would reach herd immunity, she reasoned, and on the way there would be a massive explosion in deaths, let alone the miseries of long COVID (60000 people in the UK may have had or have got long COVID). Another problem is that other coronaviruses don’t confer immunity for very long, meaning the disease can potentially be caught again, and we have already seen a few confirmed cases of that.
As I say I’m not an expert, but I think we have to be very careful about reasoning that we should let such a terrible disease run. I cant remember where to find the podcast that I mentioned, but here is the gist of the counter argument. It’s good to debate. I just don’t think we know enough about the disease yet. A few days ago Time magazine were highly critical of Sweden’s attempt at herd immunity and called it a disaster.
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/experts-forcefully-push-back-on-barrington-declaration
https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...toms-that-move-around-the-body-study-12104010
Not an expert either and it is hard in a climate of ongoing fear to know which narrative to believe though I am inclined towards the data based approach rather than the bad models (Ferguson as out by a factor of 12) .Still there seems to be a concerted effort to set up a straw man around the Great Barrington 1) that this is a 'let it rip' approach but its not 2) That herd immunity is impossible when only 10% population are anti body positive (takes no account of t cell immunity which is believed to be much more prevalent 3) that suppression of the virus is the only way pending pharmaceutical immunity - in order to believe this you have to contend with the Swedes who merely followed the existing 2019 WHO guidance on pandemic management but did admit to seeding the infection into their care large care homes just like we did. Sweden has ended up very much mid table in the deaths per million but without the massive collateral damage so it is a good 'control' for the space and hands interventions .I’m not an epidemiologist, nor an expert on transmission of infectious diseases. At the weekend I read about the GB Declaration and was intrigued, especially when it appeared to ‘disappear’ from google for a while. Why I asked? Presumably google thought this was false news? It’s returned now, so people can have a reasoned debate.
Then I listened to an infectious diseases podcast condemn the Declaration, saying it is based on the assumption that if we let COVID-19 run, that we will reach herd immunity, and warned that this premise was a fallacy. It is not certain that we would reach herd immunity, she reasoned, and on the way there would be a massive explosion in deaths, let alone the miseries of long COVID (60000 people in the UK may have had or have got long COVID). Another problem is that other coronaviruses don’t confer immunity for very long, meaning the disease can potentially be caught again, and we have already seen a few confirmed cases of that.
As I say I’m not an expert, but I think we have to be very careful about reasoning that we should let such a terrible disease run. I cant remember where to find the podcast that I mentioned, but here is the gist of the counter argument. It’s good to debate. I just don’t think we know enough about the disease yet. A few days ago Time magazine were highly critical of Sweden’s attempt at herd immunity and called it a disaster.
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/experts-forcefully-push-back-on-barrington-declaration
https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...toms-that-move-around-the-body-study-12104010
What you have read about long covid is what I am experiencing. It is much worse than ME as it affects me in so many ways just as you say in your post.@NicoleC1971
From what I’ve read, long COVID overlaps in some ways with ME, but potentially with additional damage to the lungs, heart etc, with more serious physical, psychological and neurological consequences. Not that ME is a picnic either, as Jennifer Brea fabulously explained
https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_..._a_disease_doctors_can_t_diagnose?language=en
Yes me too. I was saying we should lockdown back then. However I can see now that this would not have worked. People would have disregarded it and done as they pleased just as they are now, with cries of lack of civil liberties etc. I am not proud to be British and be part of such a selfish nation.I knew in January about the virus and how bad it was!
I have kept to the all the rules throughout. Being retired, having an adequate pension and a large garden it has only been a inconvenience not really difficult. It is different for the young, for those struggling financially or for those with limited outside space. If, like me, you don't know anyone who has had the virus, let alone died from it then I can have sympathy with those that think they are missing out on life and have had enough. There seems to be the same feeling, particularly amongst the young in many other European countries not just the UK. Maybe it is selfish of the old and vulnerable to expect the rest of the population to make sacrifices on their behalf.Yes me too. I was saying we should lockdown back then. However I can see now that this would not have worked. People would have disregarded it and done as they pleased just as they are now, with cries of lack of civil liberties etc. I am not proud to be British and be part of such a selfish nation.
Yes and (strangely) no. The eventual total excess deaths will also show collateral damage.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3348
I have kept to the all the rules throughout. Being retired, having an adequate pension and a large garden it has only been a inconvenience not really difficult. It is different for the young, for those struggling financially or for those with limited outside space. If, like me, you don't know anyone who has had the virus, let alone died from it then I can have sympathy with those that think they are missing out on life and have had enough. There seems to be the same feeling, particularly amongst the young in many other European countries not just the UK. Maybe it is selfish of the old and vulnerable to expect the rest of the population to make sacrifices on their behalf.
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I meant that excess mortality is the acid test, whatever the numbers may be. That is to say that if the numbers of excess deaths from all causes is markedly higher over a 12 month period than normal, then there is a case to be made for the 'rona being super serious. Otherwise not so much.
In my opinion.
New Zealand went into lockdown on the 25th March about the same time as the UK.If we had locked down early (ie Mid January), (like New Zealand) then we could have remained locked down until there were no cases and then opened up fully
I don't understand how or why you would consider all causes if the numbers include people who haven't been infected but died from (say) cancer simply because they couldn't get treatment.
For me, it muddies the waters somewhat.
Oh for goodness sake. Yes I know that. I meant early on in the epidemic, NZ's epidemic started after ours, so they locked down earlier than us relatively speaking. I tried to make this clear my putting 2 sets of parentheses, not just one. OK so I expressed myself badly, but do you know what? If you had had the virus maybe you would be struggling with communication too. I spent a few weeks not being able to respond coherently to loved ones. I could speak OK, but my brain and mouth didn't work well together. As another poster said recently... 'You know what, I give up. I keep making stupid mistakes anyway, it seems.'New Zealand went into lockdown on the 25th March about the same time as the UK.
They have done very well but they do have the advantage of being 2,500 miles from their nearest neighbour, and having a population density of 15 per sq km rather than the UK's 275.
And of course have built up precisely zero immunity.. if it ever gets a hold there (as it has been endemic here in the UK since late 2019) then they will be very seriously impacted indeed. See if Jacinda is quite so smug then..New Zealand went into lockdown on the 25th March about the same time as the UK.
They have done very well but they do have the advantage of being 2,500 miles from their nearest neighbour, and having a population density of 15 per sq km rather than the UK's 275.