Coronavirus - Part Two.

[onewheeldave]

9 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

If they overreact like this every time a "new variant" is discovered we'll be in this nightmare forever.

ENOUGH !

Oh, we'll be in this forever- it will be stretched out as long as it possibly can be.

Also, bear in mind that at any point, a REAL pandemic [i.e. with consequences like the Spanish flu or black death] could occur. Pretty much all efforts during covid have been focused on getting the public to jump through one ridiculous hoop after another, as a consequnce, very little has been done to tackle the actual causes [animal agriculture abuses, dire public health, disease issues arising from travel etc].

 

So when [not if, when] that REAL pandemic occurs, humanity is likely going down the toilet.

 

Equally, as things are going, we could well be in a global totalitarian state anyway.

 

 

[Carbuncle]

8 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Personally I don't think there is some shadowy conspiracy group behind this public fear campaign [rather that it is a natural consequence of the huge over growth of bureaucracy combined with a public eager to believe any old crap passed on to them by authorities and media], but, if there were, they couldn't be playing this one any better than they are

Go on ... so do you believe the figures from national and international statistical offices (eg UK ONS) are genuine or manipulated? And what about the vast acreage of research publication ... genuine or manipulated?

[Chekhov]

11 minutes ago, RJRB said:

On the one hand we have the scientists who are involved in their daily work of identifying and studying the virus and it’s apparent mutations and effects.

On the other  we have numerous commentators,media and internet users who use the information as they see fit.

I have read the above mentioned article and confess that there is detail that I don’t understand.

Neither do I understand why you underline the “horrific” reference having read the twitter comments.

I am sure that the scientists will row back  on some of their previous findings as we progress but that is how science evolves I need any of its branches.

I highlighted "horrific" because it was high lighted in the BBC News reports, which 1000s of time more people will read than some technical tweet from a "scientist".

 

>>I am sure that the scientists will row back on some of their previous findings as we progress but that is how science evolves I need any of its branches.<<

We will have to disagree there. What happens is people go off alarming "we can't be too careful", then slowly realise they have over egged that particular omelette and you never hear anything about it any more. But we CAN be too careful, that's the point. We will never get back to normal if the default position is we will always "be too careful".

Do you remember Prof Pantsdown in March 2020 saying there could be "half a million [UK] deaths from Covid".

He also said last summer :

 

It is going to be a "difficult summer" with Covid cases in the UK possibly reaching 200,000 a day : Neil Ferguson - 18 Jul 21 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57877033

 

Yet these people are never held to account for their inaccuracies.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Chekhov

[top4718]

7 minutes ago, RJRB said:

On the one hand we have the scientists who are involved in their daily work of identifying and studying the virus and it’s apparent mutations and effects.

On the other  we have numerous commentators,media and internet users who use the information as they see fit.

I have read the above mentioned article and confess that there is detail that I don’t understand.

Neither do I understand why you underline the “horrific” reference having read the twitter comments.

I am sure that the scientists will row back  on some of their previous findings as we progress but that is how science evolves in any of its branches.

 

Chekhov says ENOUGH. 

Presumably enough uninformed and irresponsible comments from so many factions 

 

 

 

You have to remember though that scientists  rely heavily on grants and funding, they can be seen to be finding whatever the person who pays the bills wants them to find, be careful who you put your faith in.

[onewheeldave]

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Go on ... so do you believe the figures from national and international statistical offices (eg UK ONS) are genuine or manipulated? And what about the vast acreage of research publication ... genuine or manipulated?

Some of them aren't genuine [for example, deaths with covid being logged as deaths from covid].

But 'not genuine' does not necessarily equate to 'manipulated' as that carries the connotation of intention. Error/mistaken is just as likely.

[Annie Bynnol]

4 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Yes that works but is it being done as standard with every PCR test, be a needle in a haystack if not.

Another source are  the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative (HGI)s, where anonymous data is from academic laboratories and private firms such as the US companies 23andMe and AncestryDNA.

Following where on the gene the changes are taking place allows researchers to narrow down where on the gene to look for significant variation.

 

Regarding random sampling, some people will have been asked/randomly selected through the NHS to take part in a variety of long term screening research on a whole range of Covid matters. You are told that samples(in my case DIY blood samples post covid infection) may also analysed for antibodies and organ function as well as other research.

[Chekhov]

6 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Oh, we'll be in this forever- it will be stretched out as long as it possibly can be.

Also, bear in mind that at any point, a REAL pandemic [i.e. with consequences like the Spanish flu or black death] could occur. Pretty much all efforts during covid have been focused on getting the public to jump through one ridiculous hoop after another, as a consequnce, very little has been done to tackle the actual causes [animal agriculture abuses, dire public health, disease issues arising from travel etc].

So when [not if, when] that REAL pandemic occurs, humanity is likely going down the toilet.

Equally, as things are going, we could well be in a global totalitarian state anyway.

You are spot on with that. I have been saying that from the beginning when we were closing down society for a virus with death rate of 1 in 100 which overwhelmingly affected only the old. If we were doing that for Covid, society would breakdown completely for a virus which killed, say, 1 in 20 and, just as significantly, it really was indiscriminate.

Basically society has lost all of its resilience, it is fragile to the point of paralysis.

[hackey lad]

23 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Rightly so, they are quite advanced in SA with regards to sequencing so they are one of the places where new variants are highly likely to be discovered, that doesn't mean it originated there just that it's been found, so to punish them is very unfair and could lead to them not sharing data in the future.

For anyone that would only be able to claim SSP if they "have" it, then yes, it most certainly will have.

So you have found the cure . Put everyone on SSP , easy as that . Well  done 

[Chekhov]

7 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Go on ... so do you believe the figures from national and international statistical offices (eg UK ONS) are genuine or manipulated? And what about the vast acreage of research publication ... genuine or manipulated?

I do not think the government has lied, but I KNOW it has always presented the "facts" in such a way as to promote its scaremongering agenda, do you remember "this virus is indiscriminate" ?

And the Government radio advert in Jan 2021 : "That person passing you in the park is highly likely to have Covid"
(at the time it was about 1 in 50, which is not highly likely by any reasonable definition of the word)

[Carbuncle]

1 minute ago, onewheeldave said:

Some of them aren't genuine [for example, deaths with covid being logged as deaths from covid].

But 'not genuine' does not necessarily equate to 'manipulated' as that carries the connotation of intention. Error/mistaken is just as likely.

I meant genuine in the sense of honest/ not manipulated so I would count deaths with covid as genuine assuming the deaths with covid is as claimed.

 

So under my definition of genuine would you say the statistics are genuine?