onewheeldave

Didn't someone say earlier that there was to be a vote about the potential lockdown to happen next week before the anouncment? If so, what has happened to that vote now?!

11 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I don’t know, I thought you had the data, because you said a lockdown will kill more than covid.

No, he didn't.

15 minutes ago, MuteWitness said:

Why wood good people want a lockdown which could kill more than covid?

15 minutes ago, MuteWitness said:

Why wood good people want a lockdown which could kill more than covid?

Most harm in this world done by humans to other humans, has/is been done by well intentioned, but, deluded people. That is certainly the case when it comes to Covid.

The authorities and their pet media have scaremongered with the covid statistics, and mainly ignored the equally horrific stats about deaths from mental heath issues, unemployment, destroyed small businesses and denied medical treatment- the public have been denied important facts and important opposing expert viewpoints.

7 minutes ago, Mister M said:

 

There hasn't been suppression or censorship. People of differing viewpoints have put their case forward on a number of programmes. Indeed there's been a youtube link shared on this very thread, today (see #2306), of a scientist explaining a different narrative.

There has been very estensive suppression and censorship, many people have been deplatformed from youtube, facebook and twitter for questioning the official narrative.

But at this point, the most concerning thing is the amount of suppression and censoring of anyone, expert or otherwise, who questions the ongoing covid narrative- the public getting their info from the establishment media have no idea of the volume of opposition to further lockdowns, or, the amount of evidence that contradicts what the governments chosen sources are saying.

There are riots in Europe- more people than you might think are seeing right through this.

17 minutes ago, Mister M said:

As I understand it the Government have access to mathematic models which show the predicted deaths based on the number of people infected with COVID

The previous 'mathematical model' predictions have been totally innacurate- scaremongering.

10 minutes ago, MuteWitness said:

Just listening to Alex belfields live phone in with people saying they have relatives who have died and it was put down as a covid death even though they say there relative didn't have covid.  This must be very upsetting for people but if no autopsy's are done how can they know either way?

I've also heard many accounts from people whose relatives have had covid put on the death certificate when they died of something else.

There are also a lot of people with covid who have no symptoms- it is harmless to them, Yet if they test positive for covid and then die of something else, it is covid that will go on the death certificate.

18 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Schools and universities to stay open. Where's the sense in that?

Kids can catch covid without even knowing it, but still pass it on to their entire families.

There is no sense in a second lockdown- the strange thing isn't that Schools and universities stay open, but that everything else closes, which will turn the current economic disaster into a catastrophe; many business will not open again. 

As for the damage in terms of massive unemployment, mental health consequences, etc, etc.....

Deaths within 28 days of positive test [many of which are not even covid deaths] in the UK [population 67,886,011] today? 

326 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.235857800.844008833.1604141264-201961966.1585217610

[when cancer daily deaths are generally 450/day].

Humanity has completely lost the plot

1 hour ago, MuteWitness said:

Is the YouTube Anne Brees video about the pandemic ending in June wrong then ? 

 

Or are we just not allowed to have debates these days.

 

https://youtu.be/5y51GICqL9E

That video was posted earlier in the thread- it is well worth a watch as it is an interview with an Chief Scientific Officer in Allergy Respiratory Research who very much disagrees with the official narrative on the lockdown/covid.

I'm unable to locate the original post with the video link- has it been removed?

1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

It does. The Covid deaths are largely preventable. Proper distancing/ mask wearing/ local lockdowns are saving lives. If everyone joined in, more would be saved. Organising the health service effectively should mean that cancers etc are treated too.

 

You do lots of moaning, Dave. What is your vision? What are we doing wrong? What should we do instead?

And the lockdown deaths, being caused soley by the lockdown, are also preventable- the study I linked to used the term 'preventable deaths' for the cancer deaths caused by lockdown.

I'm no more moaning thqn you are- we are on opposite sides of the issue- you favour lockdown, I favour reducing the lockdown greatly.

What we should do, IMO is place a great deal more emphasis on acknowledging and enumerating the deaths that are, and will be, caused by the lockdown, so the public, and the decision makers, will be aware that ramping up lockdown is not necessarily saving lives, because lives saved by the lockdown must be balanced against lives taken by the lockdown.

4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

So, that’s 4000 avoidable deaths. Which is very sad.

 

Don’t forget that we are losing 300 people per day to Covid. I’ll leave you to do the rest of the maths.

 

There’s no easy answer to any of this

It's 3291 to 3621 deaths just from that subset of cancers, the numbers will be [considerably] bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

The fact that there is no easy answer just not justify the current huge bias towards putting way more value on the lives of the covid vulnerable than on the lives being taken by the lockdown.

7 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:

I'd ask for another consultant if I were you.

He is a very good consultant, he knows what he is talking about

6 hours ago, ormester said:

The problem is all. This is scaremongering  more people will die from. Cancers not been picked  up

 

Here is a lancet article on a study to establish the effects of the lockdown on cancer deaths-

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext

"We estimated that across the four major tumour types, breast, colorectal, lung, and oesophageal, 3291 to 3621 avoidable deaths and an additional 59 204 to 63 229 YLLs will be attributable to delays in cancer diagnosis alone as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. "

[at 5 years from diagnosis]

YLL stands for total years of life lost.

That's just for a subset of cancers, the numbers will be bigger if you add in the deaths from heart attacks and other conditions, caused by lockdown. Then there's the deaths from unemployment, mental illness etc, etc. 

2 hours ago, nightrider said:

 

I know people following the rules who say the rules are ridiculous.

Me too. I previously mentioned conversations with several taxi drivers who said that it was common when NHS workers were getting their rides, that they would be highly critical of many of the lockdown measures, in that they considered them to be doing more harm than good.

Yesterday I had a consultation at the Northern General and the consultant was telling me how he was painfully aware of the effects the measures were having on mental health, so I asked him what percentage of NHS staff, in his experience, felt the measures could be doing more harm than good- I was quite surprised when he said '100%'.

He also agreed when I spoke about how anyone in the NHS who questioned the measures, was effectively gagged- unable to speak to the press or on social media, as they would lose their job.

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

 

But with businesses struggling, who would turn them away, I assume you didnt.

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

Them no, they were already there, normally yes, we have to, like everything, get caught you get closed down

For the businesses close to failing [due to the lockdown measures] the opposing risk is, by rigidly complying to the guidelines, they risk failing due to lack of customers, so they may tally that against the probably small risk of getting closed down- especially as they will be warnings before closure.

Some may be inspired by the mersyside gym owner who, rather than complying with the 6 armed policepeople in his gym, fining him £1000 and assuring him that he would be fined every few hours if he remained open, created a social media campaign, gathering scientific evidence to show that closing gyms was counter-productive in terms of tackling covid, stood his ground, and forced the authorites to climb down and reverse the closure requirements for gyms.

https://www.healthclubmanagement.co.uk/health-club-management-news/Gyms-Liverpool-tier-3-Nick-Whitcombe-/346465

Great job- not only has he saved his business, but now every gym in Liverpool can continue to do the good work of facilitating health and fitness for their clients, which IMO is one of the most important preventative measures where covid is concerned- it's an absolute disgrace that the authorities tried to shut them down, and shows the quality of some of the 'science' their 'experts' are basing their policies on.

5 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

Talking of which, travelling from a tier 3 area to a tier 2 area - just for a pint - shouldn't happen either.

A married Sheffield couple, both in their early 70's, took a 90+ relative to a Dronfield pub last weekend.

Understand that an contact address was left at the pub, but was it a legitimate one?

2 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

I'm sure you're right, but wouldn't you have thought they were "old enough to know better"?!

 

 

 

From the perspective of a lot of old people, they are actually using their rational judgement. When you are 90, you tend not to be so pre-occupied with clnging to life as the younger ones. You know your time is limited, your days generally contain a fair amount of pain, and you've likely come to see that quality of life is far more important than length of life. 

Having lived through the war and the consequent economic desparation, I expect, for many elderly, covid will not produce the panic that seems to have overtaken most of the rest of the public- they will want to spend their remaining time with their family, doing meaningful and enjoyable stuff.

4 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Pettytom

It's the media that  is pushing the scaremongering agenda.

Declining antibodies to Cov-19 ! OMG the sky is falling ! We're doomed,dooomed,! Everybody is going to die !

 

It's not just antibodies that fight infection. The Adaptive arm of the immune system is becoming of significant interest in the campaign

for treatments against Cov- 19 .

 

There's an almost macabre gleefulness by the media when reporting 

anything that looks like a set back,in the pursuit of  treatments for Cov-19.

 

Below is the source of the quote I put in thread 2227

I've included a link that is informative about the part played by Memory B cells and the like.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02400-7#ref-CR1

 

I recall that back in 1986 there was the doom laden imagery of Tombstones and Icebergs-campaign masterminded by Sammy Harari.

I never bought into that scenario and I'm not buying the wares  being peddled by the 21st century equivalent.

 

So on we go -optimistic  as ever.

 

So I'm going to shut up for a time.

 

To the Forum.Stay safe and get you Flu Vax.

Which is why I was pointing out that the research you posted seems to be suggesting that being infected with covid will likely lead to at least a degree of immunity. Previously one of the doom laden bits of scaremongering was the suggestion that infection might yield no immunity due to the absence or low numbers of antibodies.

5 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

And, presumably, the same will hold true for those who have had covid already- the memory cells formed during the infection will ensure the same robust defence against re-infection?

 

 

18 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Onewheeldave

 

The scientists looking into immunity  have to do more research before that question can be answered with a categorical "Yes".

 

 

 

Just to be clear, it's not a categorical 'yes' to whether the memory cells formed during the infection will ensure the same robust defence against re-infection; is it also not a categorical 'yes' to what the article was saying i.e. 

"The memory cells formed in the process whenever they encounter the same pathogen or the same antigen in the form of a vaccine begin to generate the required amount of antibodies not in two or three weeks' time, but literally within 3-4 days.

"For this reason a decline in the level of antibodies after vaccination is an absolutely normal development, so those who have been vaccinated should feel no worries,"

Because if it's a categorical 'yes' to the latter, but not the former, I'm unclear on why declining antibodies aren't a problem post vaccine, but might be post an actual infection. 

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

PeteMO1

Thank you for directing me to that Article.

I think we will be hearing a lot more about T Cells and Cell Mediated Immunity in respect of Cov-19 .

 

Like the article says,"the media pay scant attention to it".

I've included the following because, I think we need some uplifting  news ;after the announcement that antibody immunity doesn't last that long.
"Two months, sometimes three months after the vaccination the synthesis of antibodies is turned off and their level sometimes drops to zero.

"But that does not mean that the human body is no longer protected against this pathogen.

"The memory cells formed in the process whenever they encounter the same pathogen or the same antigen in the form of a vaccine begin to generate the required amount of antibodies not in two or three weeks' time, but literally within 3-4 days.

"For this reason a decline in the level of antibodies after vaccination is an absolutely normal development, so those who have been vaccinated should feel no worries," Gintsburg said. ■

 

 

CHRISTIAN FERNSBY ▼ | October 27, 2020

And, presumably, the same will hold true for those who have had covid already- the memory cells formed during the infection will ensure the same robust defence against re-infection?

44 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

You clearly didn't.  It is saying autism is not a mental health issue.

 

 

Autism isn't a mental illness, though, due to the stress of living in a society designed by, and for, neurotypicals, who, in the main, are incapable of empathy with any neurotype other than their own, most high functioning autistics will have some degree of co-morbid mental health issues, especially anxiety, and, a 9 times higher rate of suicidality than the national average.

4 hours ago, the_bloke said:

This was discussed before; the Act has sections in it to ensure that the mental health sector can continue to operate with an expected reduction of health care professionals due to a pandemic. You still need a healthcare professional to section someone and they need to provide proof in the report as to why the usual process of having two professionals available to section someone cannot be followed.

 

If things like this weren't in place, you'd be complaining that mental health services were operating too slowly because staff weren't available to process things quick enough.

The point is, prior to the covid Act, 2 doctors were required to section a person, one of whom must know the patient- now, all it takes is one doctor, who doesn't have to know the patient. Yes, there are things in place, and, of course, systems work well, especially the mental health systems, don't they? So no problem, and no chance of anyone being sectioned wrongly, eh?

Please do not presume to judge what I'd be complaining about if "mental health services were operating too slowly". As an autistic person I am painfully aware of the abysmal state of mental health services even when things are running normally, and the fact that for many autistic people, mental health services are used as a weapon against them, to lock them up against their will for months or years, keeping them in institutions which are totally ignorant of the requirements of autistic people.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/03/detaining-autistic-people-prison-like-hospitals-morally-wrong-say-families-9794410/

"

Autism is not a mental health disorder – yet hundreds of autistic people remain trapped inside mental health hospitals across the UK. There, they are often left in seclusion, denied their independence and kept overmedicated, campaigners say. Two families are now fighting to change the Mental Health Act to stop people with autism and learning difficulties from being ‘wrongly’ sectioned. Inder Johar, 56, cares for his autistic son Anmol, 24, along with his wife Rani, 54, and a specialist support worker. He has previously inspected Assessment and Treatment Units (ATUs) with the CQC and described them as being ‘like prisons’"

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/18/mum-hits-inhumane-system-saw-autistic-son-sectioned-abused-12869447/

"

Thousands of people with learning disabilities and autism who are ‘locked away behind closed doors’ in mental health hospitals, are being ‘forgotten’ amid the pandemic, a charity has said. Patients are often stuck on hospital wards in England for years and are often over-medicated and abused, according to campaigners, despite continued NHS promises to move their care into the community.

Mencap said the national ‘human rights scandal’ must come to an end, as it revealed that most patients on wards in England by the end of February had been there at least a year, while almost 200 had been hospitalised for more than a decade. According to the charity, patients were also subject to more than 20,000 restrictive interventions in the six months to February, which included physical restraint, seclusion and drugging.

Mum Leo Andrade, from London, is one of many parents across the country who have fought tirelessly for their children’s release, claiming they have been mistreated, physically abused and neglected on hospital wards. Her son Stephen Andrade-Martinez, who has severe autism, spent six years in different mental health units after he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act aged 18. Leo said Stephen, now 25, suffered from unexplained injuries, was over-medicated, and stuck indoors for months at a time. She feared he wouldn’t make it out alive."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-50252079

"'My autistic daughter was held in a cell for two years'

"They placed her in a seclusion cell and they left her there for two years, alone, 24/7, horrific."

Jeremy says he could only touch his 15-year-old daughter Bethany by kneeling down and reaching into her isolation room through a tiny hatch.

Bethany is severely autistic but had no therapeutic care while detained in hospital, Jeremy told the BBC.

Now MPs and peers say such treatment of young people with learning disabilities or autism breaches their human rights.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights says mental health hospitals can inflict "terrible suffering on those detained... causing anguish to their distraught families".

Its report urges an overhaul of mental health law and hospital inspections in England.

"It must not be allowed to continue," said Harriet Harman, who chairs the committee."

---------------------------------------------------------

I myself, and several other vulnerable people I know, totally refuse to contact any 'help' organisation in the event of feeling suicidal, due to past horrific experiences with 'menatl health crisis teams' and, knowing full well that any professional in any organisation is obliged to pass up the chain information about clients they consider to be at risk of suicide, which leads to said clients door being kicked in, and them dragged away for 'assessment' by a group of people they consider to be utterly inept and want nothing to do with.

1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:

Some people will use any excuse to try and disguise the fact that the simple truth is they don't like wearing a mask.

That's useful, and so insightful.

Do others on this thread concur with these 2 geniuses, that the removal of the requirement for 2 doctors, one of whom must know the patient, to be necessary for sectioning [now replaced by just one, who doesn't need to know the patient], is not a substantial threat to civil liberties?

You're not worried that any authority with a pet doctor can now section anyone they want? Not concerned that, even pre-covid, sectioning was being used as a weapon to imprison autistic people for years at a time?

35 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

 

 

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Health and Social Care Act 2004 might have been a better choice-and less worrisome as far as Liberties and Rights are concerned-for dealing with this emergency.

However,we have the Corona Virus Act 2020.

Whatever Liberties and Rights are infringed by the Act  will have to be restored.

That means one will have to campaign for their restoration .

If HMG won't give them back ,we have to take them back.

 

I brought it up in response to a poster who was implying that civil liberties were not being removed- clearly they very much are.

Do you not think that in any one of the many historical instances where civil liberties started being stripped, leading to cruel state dictatorships and the deaths and misery of millions, that, when it first started, people would comfort themselves with 'they'll be restored when the crisis is over'? Or 'if the govt won't give them back ,we have to take them back'? Look at how actual historical instances turned out.

Fact is that an Act to deal with coronavirus never should have included clauses whereby it is easier to section people, should it?

Almost as disturbing is

a) the the vast majority of the public have got no idea that it has been done,

and

b) as soon as someone mentions the damge done to civil liberties by Covid measures, they are labelled as conspiracy theorists!

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

To stop the NHS being totally overwhelmed by people who need hospitalisation.

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not enough trained intensive care nurses. You can't conjure them up overnight.

2 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Didn't have the staff for the nightingale hospitals.

No- it was not enough patients!

The nightingale hospitals were constructed on the basis of predictions of vastly greater numbers of hospitalisations which turned out to be grossly incorrect- not only were the Nightingale wards not required, neither were most of the standard NHS hospital wards closed necessary. As a result, many people with serious illnesses like cancer, were denied treatment, while the wards were empty and unused.

27 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Onewheeldave. 

The discrimination you describe in the first paragraph (thread 2184)

makes me very sad.

 

 

 

It makes me sad, and angry...

3 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

I personally know of several people [and I'm autistic, classed as socially isolated and so have much less social interaction than average] who are unable to use public transport, despite being mask exempt, due to perceived and/or actual hostility from the public, or who have been denied access to shops, again, despite being mask exempt.

 

 

...and it makes the victims sad, it is especially unfortunate as they face more than enough prejudice at the best of times, and to watch society put the boot in further as soon as there is a crisis, is quite sickening [although absolutely the norm].

Meanwhile the majority of the pro-lockdown public are in complete denial that it is happening.

3 hours ago, andyofborg said:

 

 

what liberties have been reduced?  for the vast majority of the population masks is not even an inconvenience. I appreciate that there are those who find it difficult but there are exemptions. 

 

Which are, for some people, being ignored.

6 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

 

 

what liberties have been reduced?  for the vast majority of the population masks is not even an inconvenience. I appreciate that there are those who find it difficult but there are exemptions. 

 

I personally know of several people [and I'm autistic, classed as socially isolated and so have much less social interaction than average] who are unable to use public transport, despite being mask exempt, due to perceived and/or actual hostility from the public, or who have been denied access to shops, again, despite being mask exempt.

That's just masks, there are many other civil liberty issues, such as the fact that the Coronavirus Act 2020 brought in in March 2020 made changes to the Mental Health Act 1983.

Previously, to section a person, two doctors were required to sign a document, and one of them must be familiar with the patient. The Coronavirus Act altered that so that only one doctor is required to sign the sectioning paper, and there is no requirment for that doctor to know the patient.

Other changes include longer detention periods.

I don't know why I bother posting this stuff, as I can guarantee the response will be apologists rushing in saying 'it'll only be used in emergencies....it's only temporary.... etc, etc.

When it comes to civil libereties it's about what such powers can be used for- in this case, anyone objecting to aspects of the lockdown who is having success at communicating their views to the public, is open to being labelled by an authority as mentally ill and conveniently locked away.

19 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

is it ok for those who lockdown is protecting are less worthy? you seem to be saying they are... 

 

 

 

No, I'm saying that those being damaged by the lockdown are as worthy as those who feel protected by it- every discussion of the protective benefits of the lockdown should therefore refer to those who are/will be damaged by the lockdown, so that the actual pros/cons can be better assessed- currently this is far from the case.

10 hours ago, catmiss said:

Listened to Question Time/Any Answers today. A 78 year old man, supporting the Barrington theory, advocated a return to ‘normal’ with any resultant deaths in the ‘vulnerable group’ of over 65s being collateral damage  and  merely shaving a few months off life expectancy. The obvious flaw in this argument is the significant group of younger people who live with conditions that render them susceptible to Covid but, with ongoing treatment, live a productive life, have jobs, families,   and a future. The contributor, when questioned, stated that some lives are less worthy than others.  A very scary echo of survival of the fittest theory which seems to be gaining support 

And yet the lockdown itself has caused deaths through lack of access to medical treatment and the rise in mental illness/suicidality, and, will cause many more due to the upcoming effects on the economy and rising unemployment- is it OK to judge those lives to be less worthy than the ones saved by the lockdown?

18 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

 

 

what was normal is history, a new future beckons, it can be a good one it can be a bad one - we should embrace the opportunities and make sure it's a good one. 

 

 

While you are correct that feared change can sometimes result in progress, historically, any changes involving reduction in  civil liberties, have rarely, if ever, ended up being positive.

10 minutes ago, Funky_Gibbon said:

Something that people need to realise is that not a single penny of what the Government has spent has come from taxpayers. It's money that the Bank of England has created out of thin air to fund Government spending. Since the Government owns the BoE that is effectively owes money to itself and therefore it's not actually debt that needs to be paid off through taxation, ever. In normal times this might not be a sensible approach (although many argue differently) as it can lead to increased inflation rates but we're not in normal times, the UK rate of inflation is already close to 0% and the economists are actually more worried about inflation going negative, not growing.

 

https://positivemoney.org/2020/04/major-breakthrough-on-public-money-creation-the-bank-of-england-will-directly-finance-government-coronavirus-spending/

 

 

Basically, any arguments being made that claim we can't afford this or that are political arguments, not monetary.

Presumably though, even if that is true, the original argument i.e.

1 hour ago, taxman said:

Yes, taxpayer money is finite, which makes it all the more important not to spaff it up the wall on non-existent PPE,  your mates dodgy track and trace systems or £7000 a day consultants. 

still stands, because even if there is 'free money' available, it can either be spent on health, education, welfare [all currently grossly underfunded], or on 'spaffing it up the wall' on what taxman is referring to.

1 minute ago, avalunche said:

Exciting. I would strongly support everyone responsible in our government facing a trial. 

 

Students bring very few positives to Sheffield and an awful lot of negatives.  Send them home.

They aren't allowed to move from university to home due to the lockdown measures.