Cookie Monster Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 New variant. Two runny noses instead of one. Hankies at the ready And stay in.So it will just infect the two faced cnuts. [emoji849] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted December 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 8 hours ago, bazil85 said: You’re right, they will be flawed. On 17th November the excessive deaths during the pandemic was circa 70,000. The death within 28 days stat isn’t perfect but it definitely shows the deadly impact of Covid19, there will be people dying with Covid19 as a major contributing factor outside of that parameter as well as people where it hasn’t been a major contributing factor within that parameter. my view of 80,000 deaths by mid January was using the four week reporting method. It’s seemingly beyond doubt looking at excessive deaths, the actual numbers (which we’ll likely never know) will be considerably higher than that. I'll let you figure that out. I refer you to Slarti's post, pointing out the unlikely case that he numbers that are published actually KILLED people. 6 hours ago, Slarti said: No, you never. Would it be classed as covid or non-covid? Also, SHOULD it be classed as covid or non-covid. The fact that I haven't seen the death certificates is totally irrelevant. Nobody is saying that anybody is lying about what is on the death certificates. I don't know why you have to keep repeating that bit in bold, nobody is disputing that is what happens. It's the correct figure for what? Those who have covid mentioned on their death certificate? Nobody is disputing that, either. Those who have contracted covid and also died? Again, nobody is disputing that. The point is that it is extremely likely that not everybody who has covid on their death certificate will have died of covid and that covid would not have been a contributing factor in the deaths of everyone who has it mentioned on their death certificate. If you think that is wrong or unlikely, then we will just need to agree that you have the right to hold whatever opinion you like, no matter how wrong or unlikely that opinion is. For sake of clarity, I accept that all the death certificates mention covid and I accept that all those people contracted covid. I accept that the ONS is counting them accurately and that neither they, nor the GPS, are lying about anything. Now please stop trying to construct a strawman of my position, I won't indulge it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, faraway saint said: I'll let you figure that out. I refer you to Slarti's post, pointing out the unlikely case that he numbers that are published actually KILLED people. Doesn't seem overlay relevant. I know that not everyone who has covid on their death certificate will mean it's a contributing factor and I know not everyone in the 64,000+ noted covid19 death stats would have died due to covid19 factors. The point is it's beyond reasonable doubt, there will be many others not in that 64,000 statistic that would still be alive right now if they never contracted covid19. In a year where we are pushing a six figure excessive death (may have already exceeded, I haven't looked) and a year where a new pandemic has taken hold, it's obviously not coincidental. A little bit of common sense will tell someone there is a massive correlation. Edited December 15, 2020 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 9 hours ago, Slarti said: No, you never. Would it be classed as covid or non-covid? Also, SHOULD it be classed as covid or non-covid. The fact that I haven't seen the death certificates is totally irrelevant. Nobody is saying that anybody is lying about what is on the death certificates. I don't know why you have to keep repeating that bit in bold, nobody is disputing that is what happens. It's the correct figure for what? Those who have covid mentioned on their death certificate? Nobody is disputing that, either. Those who have contracted covid and also died? Again, nobody is disputing that. The point is that it is extremely likely that not everybody who has covid on their death certificate will have died of covid and that covid would not have been a contributing factor in the deaths of everyone who has it mentioned on their death certificate. If you think that is wrong or unlikely, then we will just need to agree that you have the right to hold whatever opinion you like, no matter how wrong or unlikely that opinion is. For sake of clarity, I accept that all the death certificates mention covid and I accept that all those people contracted covid. I accept that the ONS is counting them accurately and that neither they, nor the GPS, are lying about anything. Now please stop trying to construct a strawman of my position, I won't indulge it. You won't indulge it - you're fucking mental! Anyway if you're that bothered take it up wi Gabe,,, Prof Gabriel Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine, said the government’s figures, while not giving the complete picture of deaths, acted as a “sentinel system” for the impact of the disease. “The purpose of it is to act as a sort of monitoring tool so you can see trends against exactly the same data which is very easily computed data,” he said. “It gives you a number where you can watch it speeding up, slowing down, so it’s very good for monitoring trends. “If you want to know the actual number of deaths, well then you have to go to death certification, which is really the best data.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 On 12/13/2020 at 10:25 PM, faraway saint said: Listen Bazil, stupid name for starters, it's not about right or wrong, it's shown you have no clue on how to read the trend and probability of where things will go. It's not a science, despite the numerous absolute twats who call themselves "scientists" have fed us utter shite since day one. There's been some classic numbers produced, dimwits like Oaky have regurgitated them, along with his now famous graph, with NO IDEA on how likely they are to materialise. Then he hides behind the classic, "It wasn't me that said it" line. Quite why you choose 80,000 as likely, or whatever other vague support you gave it, is beyond me. Yeah, you throw in "relieved" as some sort of safety valve, usual tactic many use to cover their arse. You've shown on various threads on this forum you are a one trick pony, unswerving and follow an idea, no matter the opinions of the majority, with no ability to understand or accept things might be different to your "view". In fact, the type pf person I couldn't "stick" for more than 10 minutes. Incorrect, at the time of my prediction and for some time after the "trend" in deaths was increasing at a worrying rate. I wasn't the only one to make this prediction, including many publications of people that likely know far more on trend analysis than you or I. We are now in a situation where the likeliness is we will either be over or very close to my prediction by the point I mentioned. To claim that shows I don't know how to read trends is ridiculous. I don't generally like to resort to name calling but "dim-witted" might be a good way to describe someone that thought deaths hitting anything like 80,000 was the prediction of a "simpleton" given how close it'll likely be to correct now. I chose it as likely because of my trend analysis at that time and guess what? It's looking like that has been a very good guess. As for "relieved" comment again you are wrong, I have said consistently I hope to be wrong on this and it is nothing more than a prediction. You were the one (along with Oakster) that attached a want to me. You did it as a coping mechanism and we are in another position I predicted. Instead of you saying "hands up, I was wrong, 80,000 has turned out to be a pretty reasonable guess by mid-January" You have gotten upset and lash out with utter nonsense to protect your ego. Your second to last sentence, is just simply wrong and it has been shown to be wrong multiple times. I have no issue with people having a different view to mine. In fact if you had simply went "I disagree, I feel the deaths will be a lot less because I think we'll average out then go down" there would be no issue from me. The reason we are where we are is because of your words linked to my prediction "simpleton" "fool" You've brought this criticism on yourself and as mentioned, instead of being a bigger person and admitting my prediction has turned out quite reasonable, you double down on a lie regarding my views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) It just goes on and on... Quote WHERE ARE THE VAX STATS? Matt Hancock is under pressure from other government ministers to publish more detailed data on how many Britons have received the coronavirus vaccine. The department of health when asked last night if it had the number — the best it could do was give a “ballpark” figure of “tens of thousands so far,” which is the same as what Hancock said last Thursday. A minister said “We should be publishing daily numbers for vaccinations like we did for tests.” But there are whispers in Whitehall that department of health officials are struggling to keep track of how many people have been vaccinated, where they are and what age or vulnerability group they are in, raising questions as to how they can effectively roll the vaccine out to the right people at the right time. The current situation is that the department cannot give anything approaching a definitive answer as to how many people have had the jab. You suspect this is going to become a major theme in the next few weeks. Edited December 15, 2020 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slarti Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: You won't indulge it - you're fucking mental! Anyway if you're that bothered take it up wi Gabe,,, Prof Gabriel Scally, president of epidemiology and public health at the Royal Society of Medicine, said the government’s figures, while not giving the complete picture of deaths, acted as a “sentinel system” for the impact of the disease. “The purpose of it is to act as a sort of monitoring tool so you can see trends against exactly the same data which is very easily computed data,” he said. “It gives you a number where you can watch it speeding up, slowing down, so it’s very good for monitoring trends. “If you want to know the actual number of deaths, well then you have to go to death certification, which is really the best data.” I definitely won't indulge your creation of a strawman of my position and I won't be drawn into arguing about points that were not part of what I was saying. I'm not bothered in the slightest, I made my point (again, if you think my point is wrong, say why and we can discuss it) and it was you that jumped on it trying to make out that I was saying things that I wasn't saying. I wholeheartedly agree, death certificates are definitely the best way to count the number of deaths that occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said: WHERE ARE THE VAX STATS? Matt Hancock is under pressure from other government ministers to publish more detailed data on how many Britons have received the coronavirus vaccine. The department of health when asked last night if it had the number — the best it could do was give a “ballpark” figure of “tens of thousands so far,” which is the same as what Hancock said last Thursday. A minister said “We should be publishing daily numbers for vaccinations like we did for tests.” But there are whispers in Whitehall that department of health officials are struggling to keep track of how many people have been vaccinated, where they are and what age or vulnerability group they are in, raising questions as to how they can effectively roll the vaccine out to the right people at the right time. The current situation is that the department cannot give anything approaching a definitive answer as to how many people have had the jab. You suspect this is going to become a major theme in the next few weeks. Translates as "the Xcel spreadsheets are broken". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slarti Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, antrin said: Translates as "the Xcel spreadsheets are broken". They definitely are if they've lost their leading "e". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, Slarti said: They definitely are if they've lost their leading "e". You stupid boy! Didn't you know that the job of collating that data was outsourced to a Cabinet Office member's cousin who owns THIS place? Elmbridge Xcel Leisure Complex| Walton on Thames – Places Leisure It's being done in Xcel's membership office using their spare spreadsheets.... Honest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) btw... I am sure this will not add fuel to your fires either way... ...but have you seen this? High death rate 'may be starting to fall' - BBC News Edited December 15, 2020 by antrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slarti Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, antrin said: btw... I am sure this will not add fuel to your fires either way... ...but have you seen this? High death rate 'may be starting to fall' - BBC News Aye, at some times more people die than at other times. It has always been so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 Never mind Tier 4. A new Tier 5 on the way. [emoji38] Tier 4? What does that entail? Is it a Magna Carta/Common Law kinda thing? [emoji848][emoji848][emoji848] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 ONS stats out today Number of non Covid deaths per million of population over the last 12 weeks is 321 Number of covid deaths per million of population over the last 12 weeks is 304 The number of covid deaths basically covers the decrease in non covid deaths pseudo second wave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 Impact of lockdown will cause 200,000 extra deaths according to a government report. How many has it saved @bazil85? The rule of Medicine is “first do no harm”. As it’s killing 200,000 people, lockdowns should never have happened https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/impact-uk-coronavirus-lockdown-cause-22382184 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 819,000 jobs lost since the start of lockdown https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55313752 but as long as the woke middle class left still have their jobs and their virtue, who cares about the poor and the working class, eh @bazil85 @Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 How the PCR test led to a pseudo epidemic in 2007 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html Roll forward to 2020 to see how this can happen on a massive worldwide scale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Sue Denim said: 819,000 jobs lost since the start of lockdown https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55313752 but as long as the woke middle class left still have their jobs and their virtue, who cares about the poor and the working class, eh @bazil85 @Bud the Baker Who cares - certainly not you Cap'n, your faux outrage fools no-one. The economic fallout from the pandemic will only get worse especially when Austerity2 kicks in, it's not news to me I pointed this out back in April/May. Few of the options are palatable economically, neither Independence under Sturgeon or Starmer's Labour party options - sadly it looks like the Oligarchy has won for the moment. Edited December 15, 2020 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 4 hours ago, Slarti said: I definitely won't indulge your creation of a strawman of my position and I won't be drawn into arguing about points that were not part of what I was saying. I'm not bothered in the slightest, I made my point (again, if you think my point is wrong, say why and we can discuss it) and it was you that jumped on it trying to make out that I was saying things that I wasn't saying. I wholeheartedly agree, death certificates are definitely the best way to count the number of deaths that occur. A totally bogus point - at the start of the pandemic the government said a "successful" pandemic would be keeping the death toll under 20,000 - well they now have 61,000 (and rising) reasons to stick to their phoney figures! Quote The UK-wide coronavirus death toll has passed 81,000. The total number of Covid-related deaths across the UK as per the three statistical agencies, the ONS, National Records for Scotland and NISRA, which count all deaths where Covid is mentioned on the death certificate, now stands at 78,256. A further 3,031 deaths have occurred since these agencies last reported, bringing the overall Covid death toll across the UK since the pandemic began to 81,287. The figure is higher than the government’s Covid death toll of 64,908. The latter figure only covers people who have died within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. Open your eyes, the truth is out there Sculler, it's being provided by people who can afford to be neutral over the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sue Denim said: Impact of lockdown will cause 200,000 extra deaths according to a government report. How many has it saved @bazil85? The rule of Medicine is “first do no harm”. As it’s killing 200,000 people, lockdowns should never have happened https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/impact-uk-coronavirus-lockdown-cause-22382184 Still up to your old tricks eh? "will" replaces "may" and "could" an article from July that isn't really coming to pass, is it? The issue you have is the same one as I quoted in the last post, these WOULD NOT be cases that can be blamed on a lockdown. If the political choices are made not to invest in health to meet more of the requirement and vulnerable people are not supported because of the financial fallout of a recession, these are political issues NOT the lockdown. There is more than enough money to support the UK public far, far more than we currently are across all nations. 58 minutes ago, Sue Denim said: 819,000 jobs lost since the start of lockdown https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55313752 but as long as the woke middle class left still have their jobs and their virtue, who cares about the poor and the working class, eh @bazil85 @Bud the Baker It's a shame the job impacts from this virus, there should be far more done on a political level to support. But people's lives remain a priority. You being unable to see beyond your own pocket regarding saving lives is your choice, please don't bring me down to your very immoral level. Edited December 15, 2020 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted December 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said: A totally bogus point - at the start of the pandemic the government said a "successful" pandemic would be keeping the death toll under 20,000 - well they now have 61,000 (and rising) reasons to stick to their phoney figures! Open your eyes, the truth is out there Sculler, it's being provided by people who can afford to be neutral over the issue. Different methods of measuring do not equate to phoney figures. I'm pretty sure you'd be swayed to ANY set of figures that were higher to feed your ever growing frenzy to have a pop at the Government. Oh, dragging up the 20,000 figure is a cheap shot, NO ONE had any idea what was coming. Anyhow, the number of deaths are still staying quite stubbornly high. The number of deaths below, closer to the truth but undoubtedly higher than the reality, not matching the drop in cases from a couple of weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, faraway saint said: Different methods of measuring do not equate to phoney figures. Take it up wi Gabe - 61,000 (and rising) reasons... Edited December 15, 2020 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted December 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said: Take it up wi Gabe - 61,000 (and rising) reasons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted December 15, 2020 Report Share Posted December 15, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, faraway saint said: Different methods of measuring do not equate to phoney figures. I'm pretty sure you'd be swayed to ANY set of figures that were higher to feed your ever growing frenzy to have a pop at the Government. Oh, dragging up the 20,000 figure is a cheap shot, NO ONE had any idea what was coming. Anyhow, the number of deaths are still staying quite stubbornly high. The number of deaths below, closer to the truth but undoubtedly higher than the reality, not matching the drop in cases from a couple of weeks ago. This is not "undoubted higher than the reality" given the excess death stats, it's probably the opposite. It seems likely that this parameter of measuring covid19 deaths is considerably underestimating the number of people that have died directly linked to Covid19. Excessive death stats seem to suggest there is still a likeliness that some people are still dying linked to covid but it is not being noted on the death certificate. Possibly because it wasn't diagnosed or there wasn't further checking after death. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55316924 Edited December 15, 2020 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.