onewheeldave

4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Then give us your accurate figures.

 

And your evidence base.

 

 

Are you talking about the NHS figures that do not include care home deaths [they just count deaths in hospitals]?

13 minutes ago, butlers said:

 

If covid played no part then why were excess deaths in April about 2 times the long term average,just when coincidentally a new virus was making merry

Given the NHS stats for the period were around 350 max/day, and they did not include care homes, and, with the elderly being most susceptible to COVID mortality, perhaps the extra deaths from other sources can be accounted for mainly by the deaths of the elderly? It seems to me that discharging elderly COVID infected into care homes full of COVID could cause a very large amount of deaths.

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Do tell what this "other information" is.

 

 

The stuff I've been posting on this thread that you dismiss.

11 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

 

 

Several if us have linked to figures of 1400+ deaths per day. That’s pretty widely accepted. If you know differently, let’s see the basis for that. Otherwise accept the huge damage that this virus can cause if it is unchecked 

It may be widely accepted in the circles you approve of, but most of those involved in the civil liberty/anti-compulsory masking communities consider them to be grossly innacurate.

4 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Those stats don't exist - contact ONS if you think it's a big deal. I don't think the medical profession do,

 

 

To make the judgements I need to make requires some reasonably accurate statistics for deaths caused by COVID, not deaths that may or may not have been caused by COVID. I've been aware form the start that the stats were dodgy- too many organisations with a vested interest in positions to manipulate them.

If, as you say, the stats don't exist, then that's that- I make up my mind using other information, of which there is plenty.

10 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Then get in touch with ONS because they have the stats.

 

What if - as happened in many cases - covid causes kidney failure? Cause of death, covid or kidney failure or both?

 

Covid was a big killer (and may well be again) - you appear to have underestimated it by a quite a large factor.

 

 

I was looking at the NHS figures. They of course don't include deaths in care homes, but, then again, in terms of future possible death rates, that's not necessarily a bad thing as presumably, next time round the authorities won't do anything so stupid as discharge elderly [the most vulnerabe to COVID] into care homes full of other elderly, making infections and deaths inevitable.

And I'm not going along with the stats in the document you posted, as they clearly are not accurate in representing actual deaths caused by COVID.

10 minutes ago, Longcol said:

 

 

What if - as happened in many cases - covid causes kidney failure? Cause of death, covid or kidney failure or both?

 

 

 

 

If the COVID caused the kidney failure and the kidney failure would not have occurred without the COVID, then cause of death is COVID.

14 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I think you missed this post.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/473199-coronavirus-part-two/page/116/?tab=comments#comment-8369029

 

I'm a bit wary of the phrase "Deaths involving COVID" in that document [as opposed to 'deaths caused by COVID'.

The phrase "Deaths involving COVID" appears 32 times in that somewhat convoluted and long document, but I'm struggling to find a definition of what it means, in the document itself- the closest I can see is-

"The doctor certifying a death can list all causes in the chain of events that led to the death and pre-existing conditions that may have contributed to the death. Using this information, we determine an underlying cause of death. More information on this process can be found in our user guide. In the following analysis, we look at where COVID-19 was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate as opposed to where COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death."

I think we need a document listing 'deaths caused by COVID', otherwise we're getting into the 'died with COVID' vs 'died of COVID' issue.

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Although way behind April when we were averaging nearly 20 times that amount for covid related deaths- then lockdown kicked in and reduced the rate.

20x 41 deaths a day in the UK? That would be over 800/day.

I was under the impression that they reached around 320/day in April- do you have a link showing which date it reached 800?

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

NO!

 

the whole protest was billed as a protest against control, which when you watch and read what David icke is saying, i posted the interview video a few days ago, it IS a conspiracy theory, ie:- the governments and elites are conspiring to "scare" people into submission

 

and when you see the whole range of banners and placards in the crowd with various conspiracy theories on, tart it up if you like, they ARE conspiracy theorists

It was actually billed as 'We Do Not Consent'. Yes, David Icke is a prominent spokesperson against the lockdown and compulsory masking, and, there are conspiracy theorists in the community, that doesn't mean the majority are conspiracy theorists, anymore than the presence of socialist workers at an anti fascist march means that everyone who is against fascism is a socialist worker.

3 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

Even if you don’t believe in the health benefits for others of you wearing a mask, what about others mental health?

If you wearing a mask makes that little old lady also in Tesco’s feel a bit safer and more confident surely it’s worth it?

It would be to me anyway.

Fair point- personally I do go out of my way to keep a good distance from elderly people as I pass, for that very reason- they are more vulnerable and, many are very frightened.

It is a shame that those pushing compulsory masking and more extreme lockdowns don't take into account the mental health of those who those things badly effect.

14 minutes ago, melthebell said:

I have absolutely no idea why you keep posting the number 38, yesterday you posted (and i quoted the number 34) so i used your number, 34. now you keep banging on about 38, so either you were wrong in your original post, or youre trying to say im wrong (when i quoted you means youre wrong as well)

It's very simple- you asked how much the death rate could rise without another lockdown [or words to that effect]; you probably expected answers like '1,200 deaths a day'; I gave '38?'- as an answer.

I stand by the original 34 as being the number of deaths on the day in question [today it is still at 34 by the way].

'38?' was my reply to your question of deaths in the future [without lockdown]- I posted it to counter the potential guesses in the hundreds and thousands that others on this thread would likely to estimate it to be [with no evidence].

I'm hardly going to get confused over the numbers given that I'm the one who posted the link to them in the first place, am I?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.236249604.408135901.1600762121-201961966.1585217610

6 minutes ago, Easy livin said:

Welcome to the Sheffield Forum, where any views that dont agree with the inhouse forum bullies  gets  dismissed as idiotic.


 

I can asure you, I am VERY familiar with how the majority on Sheffield forum deal with anyone with differing views

By the way- good to have a couple of others on here who can see through the mass hysteria currently happening- we need more non-compliers to stand up and object.

So, as expected, label them as idiots, lunatics, conspiracy theorists and then blame them for any increase in covid. 

As opposed to listening to their views, which would reveal that most are not conspiracy theorists, not unintelligent and can articulate their legitimate concerns with how lockdowns are damaging their children's mental health/education and their fears of the consequences for their families when unemployment rises to levels not seen since the eighties.

I guess it's just so much easier to mis-represent and scapegoat isn't it?

1 hour ago, Becky B said:

 

 

I saw some of the dance routines you mention.  I also saw may posts from doctors, staff nurses and AHPs showing the pressure damage on their faces from wearing full PPE all day, the blog posts detailing how mentally and physically exhausted they were from trying to save lives and watching people die when they couldn't save them.   Social media doesn't always give a balanced view - the algorithms tend to amplify things you already see or your friends are sharing.

I know- I saw the scenes of despair and exhaustion from those staff dealing with the actual coronavirus patients.

Nevertheless, other staff, not treating covid patients, sat in empty wards while cancer patients were blocked from accessing hospitals, were making dance videos to relief their boredom.

And I disagree about the balance, because the media was plastered with horror stories and photos of said despairing and exhausted medical staff treating hopitalised covid patients- I got no social media notifications from social media about dancing nurses, I heard about it from a friend and went looking on youtube to see if it was true.

I'm actually very grateful for social media and the internet, because they reflect a diversity of opinion and sources that the mainstream media either supress or ignore.

And that brings me to another worrying trend where civil liberties are concerned- the number of social media channels that have been censored and de-platformed if they question or criticise any aspect of the lockdown measures.

Add in the very large number of calls to the police from people 'grassing' on their neighbours for having the temerity to venture outside their home [I know someone who works for the police, taking calls from the public, and she was 'sickened' [her words] by the sheer volume of it.

Censorship and informants- do not bode well in conjunction with the extreme levels of lockdown and control we're seeing over this; hence why many are concerned about civil liberties and the possibility of a slide towards, or, into, global totalitarianism.

Here is a report on today's 'We Do Not Consent' rally.

You can see the numbers who are concerned about the civil rights issues of lockdown, and, the variety of positions they hold, by reading the various placards. They range from out and out covid deniers, to those with reasoned and legitimate concerns about aspects of the lockdown. There are a llot more of them than people realise.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-anti-lockdown-protesters-chant-22746234

25 minutes ago, Becky B said:

 

 

We can't overcome years of social attitudes, individual beliefs, education and lack of motivation in a few short months.

"Eat better and exercise more, reverse your type II diabetes, and you'll be at less risk from Covid-19!!!!"  If it was that simple, they wouldn't have the disease in the first place.  I may be over simplifying somewhat, but...

 

 

I know it's not that simple. It will require extracting the talons of the various vested financial interests of food and pharaceutical coporations from the health services so that switch from a chronic disease management methodology to one of preventative health; and, many other equally difficult tasks.

But none of that will happen until we acknowledge that the majority of serious disease in the west is optional and due primarily to diet and lifestyle.

We need to acknowledge that that health situation is a prime driver of covid mortality [along with our extreme animal agriculture], we need to public to be aware of the science showing that much of the current crisis is not the fault of a scapegoated minority who object to lockdowns and masks, but that the main cause is those 2 factors. That is a necessary precursor to starting the process of substantial reform of healthcare and animal agriculture necessary to ensure that more serious pandemics are less likely to arise, and, if they do, will kill less people.

.

37 minutes ago, Becky B said:

 

 

I think modern healthcare and better sanitation may have some influence on the difference in death figures between Spanish flu  and this virus, but what do I know?

 

 

I doubt it had that much effect. Obviously around that period [of inferior sanitation/healthcare] there would have been other virus  outbreaks, but nothing had the consequences of the Spanish flu.

2 hours ago, Becky B said:

 

 

Don't forget that this virus doesn't just affect  people with underlying conditions, the frail and elderly.  It has serious effects on otherwise fit and healthy people, and also causes significant long-term consequences to health.  Some services have already diverted resources to rehabilitate people who have survived the virus, which again has knock on effects on their ability to see their usual patients.

 

 

I can't say much about that, because we don't know what proportion of otherwise fit and healthy people, who get serious long-term consequences on health. I'm pretty sure it's fairly low, as so many otherwise fit and healthy [and young] people have reported having had covid and suffering minimal, or no, conequences.

Obviously some  otherwise fit and healthy [and young] people will get long term consequences, but, if it's no higher than the portion who experience the same with, say, flu, bee stings, vaccination reactions etc, then it's not really a factor.

2 hours ago, Becky B said:

Whilst I agree with you about tackling the long term health of the nation (which is a discussion for another place, I think), we are currently trying to manage a crisis, and the resources are needed for that.  Long term changes to the general health of the nation aren't something that's going to happen in the next few weeks or months and the resources can't be spared at the moment.

 

 

I'd say, given it is a prime cause of covid deaths [obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes etc are very significant risk factors for dying of covid] this is as good a place as any to discuss it?

What really strikes my about the current hysteria is how there seems to be so little discussion of the actual causes of the pandemic. The science is clear on the role of chronic long term preventable illness; the science is clear on the actual origins of this and other pandemic viruses- extreme animal agriculture where large numbers of ill and ill treated animals are packed in close proximity, creating an ideal environment for novel viruses to take hold and mutate to the extent that they can cross into and infect other species [humans]. Pollution is another.

Yet all the media and authorites are talking about is more ways to control an unwilling population and create more industries to innovate and police lockdown measures.

This pandemic has killed, 0.06% of the global pandemic. Spanish flu is estimated to have killed between 3% and 10% of the population. Make no mistake, covid is trivial in comparison to a real pandemic.

By not addressing the actual causes of the pandemics, we guarantee they will continue to appear, and when we get one as bad, or worse, than the Spanish flu, no amount of masking & locking people down is going to help.

I can't remember the name of the book I read several years ago, but I remember the quote from a senior specialist in pandemics stating, in connection with a pandemic that wipes out a serious percentage of humanity, that, unless the actual causes are addressed [animal agriculture] that 'it is not a matter of if, but of when' i.e. it's virtually certain to occur.

2 hours ago, Becky B said:

 

 

 

Currently people are getting essential treatment, but if wards and ITUs are full of Covid-19 cases, that reduces availability for other services and therefore affects the ability to offer those essential treatments.

 

 

Some might be [getting essential treatment], but many aren't, and won't be for quite a while- there are huge backlogs due to the hopsitals being locked down and empty during the first lockdown.

During the first lockdown hospitals came nowhere near to being overwhelmed and sat empty, occupied by nurses creating complex dance routines and posting them on Youtube. Patients were barred from hospitals and the majority of appointments became phone consultations. What a tragic waste.

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

 

Please don’t stand near to me, unmasked in any shops them. You can be as individual as you like, but don’t you go putting my health at risk

I'd ask the same of you, please cease to perpetuate fear and hysteria amongst the public and defend harmful lockdowns while neglecting to acknowledge the serious consequences of said lockdowns on the economy and access to medical care- you are putting my life, and the lives of many others, at risk.

I'm self employed and autistic- it was hard enough getting sufficient work before all this; my industry is one of those that have been totally crippled by the covid measures. We've had the last of the [partially] compensatory grants, from now on the future is very worrying.

And there are many in a worse position than me. 

24 minutes ago, butlers said:

The numbers don't really say that if you read the full article.

The expectation is covid deaths will be at 100 a day in a couple if weeks,was in radio4 this morning

I didn't read the full article, I responded to the figures quoted in the post.

I don't pay much attention to 'expectations' having waitnessed the farcical computer predictions put out at the start of this, and other 'pandemics'.

If covid deaths do go up to 100/day, then if you read my post above [#1400] you will see that in the grand scheme of daily deaths from many other conditions, it really isn't significant. The resources being used for the lockdowns could, IMO, be more useful if applied to tackling the preventable amongst those conditions which would ultimately, overall, being down the UKs total daily death rate i.e save more lives.

17 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

A story in the Mail today says 75,000 lockdown deaths over the next 5 years.  Current Covid deaths are 42,000.  If you stuck to that you’d have support.

 

 

75,000/5=15,000/year

/52=288/week

/7=41/day

Which coincidentally is pretty much the current uk daily death rate from covid

6 hours ago, petemcewan said:

PettyTom

 

As a starting point, I think it’s widely agreed amongst the morally alert in society. That there is a duty to be a minimally decent Samaritan, that is, one should go out of one’s way to help another if it entails little cost to oneself.

Wearing a face covering, and socially distancing are of little cost to oneself-it's not a great deal to ask. And by doing so we are helping one another get on with life.

Consequently ,we will beat it together.

We are not 'in this together'. Many of us are not on board with a lot of the lockdown measures; we are horrified at what is being done to the economy; at the absolute lack of acknowledgement that thousands are being harmed by losing their jobs, being refused access to essential medical care, dismayed at how much of the public have not only rolled over in the face of serious assault on their civil liberty, but, are actually crying out for more lockdown, more fines, more punishment of a scapegoated minority whose only crime is to think for themselves, make up their own minds, and, act accordingly.

10 hours ago, Pettytom said:

 

 

Without our current measures, Covid would be out of control. We could easily be seeing several hundred deaths per day again. Maybe more.

 

 

And? Several hundred people, in normal times, die of cancer each day in the UK [450]- very likely going to be higher due to the numbers not getting treatment due to the lockdown.

Add in heart attacks, those dying from obesity/type 2 diabetes etc etc- nothing unusual about many hundreds dying per day.

Most deaths from obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and the other chronic illnesses plaguing advanced western nations wouldn't exist if their diet/lifestyle didn't cause them- they are, in the main, preventable.

People ask 'why are covid deaths in the UK so high?'- IMO, almost certainly due to our very ill population; in the UK it is now 'normal' to be overweight, type 2 diabetic or pre diabetic, to have some degree of coronary heart disease.

If 1/10th of the resources currently being put into locking the population down were put into tackling that health issue, then not only would many hundreds/day [thousands?] of lives be saved in the long term, it would likely mean that the UK would be far less affected by covid and the other pandemic viruses that are going to be appearing with regularity in the future, some of which may make covid look like a mild cold [remember the Spanish flu?}

10 hours ago, Pettytom said:

 

 

 

 

Stop agitating against reasonable measures.

I'm not agitating- I'm stating my reasoned opinions. You can disagree with me, but you can't censor me.

10 hours ago, Pettytom said:

 

 

Stop agitating against reasonable measures. Wear a face covering. Keep your distance. Wash your hands. Don’t be an idiot.

 

Beat it together.

Stay safe. Don't be blindly complient. Stand up against bullying authority. Don't wear a mask unless you want to. Value freedom.

We are not 'in this together'.

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

Your post said 34 so I used that, stop moving things once people pull you up on it, you was doing it before With longcol saying what he quoted wasn't right

You've misunderstood, I've moved nothing- the number dead in the UK with coronavirus was 34.

But you asked-

11 hours ago, melthebell said:

and why is it only 34?

because we had a lockdown march to july?

people wearing masks?

handwashing?

social distancing?

 

what would deaths be like without all those?

38? 

was my answer. 

Which will no doubt be seen as facetious, but, as far as I know, deaths could be in the thousands, or, may barely rise- no one knows what effect the lockdown had on covid deaths as the 'research' is so contaminated by vested interests, fearmongering, propaganda etc.

What I do know is

1. that the deaths caused by the economic effects of lockdowns will be extremely high

2. the majority of the public whose voices are being heard, and,  the majority of the media, and,  the authorities putting these lockdowns in place are not taking those deaths into account

3. if people do not wake up from this hysteria and stand up for their rights, we are at serious risk of an irreversible slide into global totalitarianism

2 minutes ago, melthebell said:

and why is it only 34?

because we had a lockdown march to july?

people wearing masks?

handwashing?

social distancing?

 

what would deaths be like without all those?

38?

33 minutes ago, davyboy said:

Can someone tell tell me the consequences of just letting this virus rip through the population and allowing people take their chances,

All this faffing about the Govt is getting nowhere and destroying th economy and peoples lives

According to the link posted below, covid has killed, in the UK, 0.06% of the population. Conclude from that what you will. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Current daily death rate in the UK is 34 [for context 450 die of cancer/day in the UK].

As I suspect you are somewhat aware of, the deaths caused by the lockdown, through ruined lives, mass unemployment, suicides and lack of access to medical treatment are going to be considerable but currently there seems to be close to zero interest or acknowledgement of those deaths- I'll leave to you to decide whether you think they could grossly outweigh the damage of the actual virus.

4 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

 

If they object to it so much then they can go and find another job where they work alone and don't have to wear such protection.  

Could we then say the same about you- if you don't like being around people who refuse to wear masks, you could perhaps go and find a country where you'd fit in better- perhaps China would be suitable?

23 minutes ago, butlers said:

For what it's worth ,I am near a very busy taxi drop off point .

The drivers were noticably wearing masks very early,likely picking up from the overseas students who lead the way.

 

I get a lot of taxis and have done so throughout covid. Of course many drivers have the same enthusiasm for masking that much of the rest of the public does.

Equally, there are many drivers who are against compulsory masking, consider the lockdown measures to be excessive/counter-productive, are concerned about the erosion of civil liberties etc, etc.

According to said drivers, they've given rides to NHS staff who are against compulsory masks, who are horrified at what they have seen the lockdown do to NHS services, who nevertheless mask up as they will lose their jobs if they don't.

I have no doubt that from this point on, the vast majority of taxi drivers will be masked- just don't go along under the delusion that they agree all with masks- in many cases they mask soley because they will be fined or lose their jobs if they don't.

36 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

Are they wearing seatbelts against their will?

I don't know- you'd have to ask them. I have asked several about the masks, and they said they didn't want to wear them, and were doing so only because they would get fined or lose their job otherwise.