CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[Elysium]

I just watched this fantastic piece from Unherd about the “disinformation movement”

https://youtu.be/4dmzmJMb0fw?si=k7UZmRTkhPmz7qqZ

Sort of fits with discussion here from posters who have reached the point where they don’t believe anything.

[r3g]

Elysium said:

I just watched this fantastic piece from Unherd about the “disinformation movement”

https://youtu.be/4dmzmJMb0fw?si=k7UZmRTkhPmz7qqZ

Sort of fits with discussion here from posters who have reached the point where they don’t believe anything other than the government's fabricated numbers and official state approved narrative.

EFA.

[jameswills]

Elysium said:

This is a belief system. You have decided to reject evidence that contradicts your belief. The only facts you will accept are the ones that fit your preconceived ideas.

This is a bit ironic as you keep rearranging my words to fit your own preconceived idea of what I think and do.

I will spell it out again so there is no confusion, I used to have preconceived beliefs in many parts of our system, but the last few years have made me question these beliefs and I began to really look into what we have been told and made to believe was “fact” or “truth” as blatantly what I was seeing and hearing in the media bared zero resemblance to what I was seeing with my own eyes.

If everyone turned off any media source in 2020 I’m absolutely convinced we’d have known nothing about any “virus”. That’s my honest and simple conclusion to it all. Is that now a belief? Yes. Is it based on previously held ideas that I’ve used to concoct a narrative that fits, no. It’s the complete opposite. I’ve had to pretty much unwind anything I used to believe in, and I didn’t do that lightly.

[Elysium]

jameswills said:

Elysium said:

This is a belief system. You have decided to reject evidence that contradicts your belief. The only facts you will accept are the ones that fit your preconceived ideas.

This is a bit ironic as you keep rearranging my words to fit your own preconceived idea of what I think and do.

I will spell it out again so there is no confusion, I used to have preconceived beliefs in many parts of our system, but the last few years have made me question these beliefs and I began to really look into what we have been told and made to believe was “fact” or “truth” as blatantly what I was seeing and hearing in the media bared zero resemblance to what I was seeing with my own eyes.

If everyone turned off any media source in 2020 I’m absolutely convinced we’d have known nothing about any “virus”. That’s my honest and simple conclusion to it all. Is that now a belief? Yes. Is it based on previously held ideas that I’ve used to concoct a narrative that fits, no. It’s the complete opposite. I’ve had to pretty much unwind anything I used to believe in, and I didn’t do that lightly.

I do understand and I am not trying to attack you. However, you said stated that existence of the COVID virus had not been substantiated. To reach that conclusion you need to reject an overwhelming body of evidence. There isn’t a rational train of thought that gets you there.

The truth is that you have decided this, because it is what you have chosen to believe. Blind faith.

[r3g]

jameswills said:

Elysium said:

This is a belief system. You have decided to reject evidence that contradicts your belief. The only facts you will accept are the ones that fit your preconceived ideas.

This is a bit ironic as you keep rearranging my words to fit your own preconceived idea of what I think and do.

The comedy of his/her comment was not lost on me either. As you say, the irony of them prattling on about having preconceived ideas when THEY have refused to and continue to refuse any evidence that contradicts the government's "single source of truth" is beyond funny.

[r3g]

Elysium said:

jameswills said:

Elysium said:

This is a belief system. You have decided to reject evidence that contradicts your belief. The only facts you will accept are the ones that fit your preconceived ideas.

This is a bit ironic as you keep rearranging my words to fit your own preconceived idea of what I think and do.

I will spell it out again so there is no confusion, I used to have preconceived beliefs in many parts of our system, but the last few years have made me question these beliefs and I began to really look into what we have been told and made to believe was “fact” or “truth” as blatantly what I was seeing and hearing in the media bared zero resemblance to what I was seeing with my own eyes.

If everyone turned off any media source in 2020 I’m absolutely convinced we’d have known nothing about any “virus”. That’s my honest and simple conclusion to it all. Is that now a belief? Yes. Is it based on previously held ideas that I’ve used to concoct a narrative that fits, no. It’s the complete opposite. I’ve had to pretty much unwind anything I used to believe in, and I didn’t do that lightly.

I do understand and I am not trying to attack you. However, you said stated that existence of the COVID virus had not been substantiated. To reach that conclusion you need to reject an overwhelming body of evidence. There isn’t a rational train of thought that gets you there.

The truth is that you have decided this, because it is what you have chosen to believe. Blind faith.

Is this the official government "evidence" that has long since been found to have more holes in it than your average kitchen colander, or some other body of evidence?

[BigMon]

Elysium said:

I just watched this fantastic piece from Unherd about the “disinformation movement”

https://youtu.be/4dmzmJMb0fw?si=k7UZmRTkhPmz7qqZ

Sort of fits with discussion here from posters who have reached the point where they don’t believe anything.

I shall watch it later.

As I've said before, it's very much like engaging with Jehovahs Witnesses. It doesn't matter what you reply with, unless it's in the watchtower or their version of the bible they will refute all evidence placed in front of them.

As such, best to just politely nod with a fixed smile on your face whilst (metaphorically as this is a forum) slowly closing the door.

[Hants PHer]

BigMon said:

As I've said before, it's very much like engaging with Jehovahs Witnesses. It doesn't matter what you reply with, unless it's in the watchtower or their version of the bible they will refute all evidence placed in front of them.

As such, best to just politely nod with a fixed smile on your face whilst (metaphorically as this is a forum) slowly closing the door.

Spot on. It's what I'm doing with jameswillis and r3g (close the metaphorical door, that is): when presented with data that they don't like, because it shows the absurdity of their positions, they just say "Nah, that ONS data is manipulated to show what they want you to see." Or some other denialist foolishness.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, fact. The covid vaccines caused some harms, but there's no statistical evidence to prove large scale deaths among the vaccinated, fact. There's no point in attempting a discussion with a person who denies facts.

[alangla]

andyA700 said:

What you have just posted is absolute BS. This is urban mythology territory. "a bloke down the pub told me that his 102 year old gran fell over and hit her head, and they put Covid death on the certificate".
Why do you repeat utter BS such as this?
I have lost a sister and a father since 2022 and Covid wasn't mentioned on their death certificates, despite the fact that they had both contracted it about a month before they died. One died from Pulmonary Thrombosis/Morbid Obesity and the other General Frailty/Heart Failure/Dementia.

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

[grumbledoak]

alangla said:

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

One of a number of questionable decisions, including stopping publishing data by vaccination status, and most recently the redefinition of excess deaths.

Still, you know, trust the government and do what you're told.

[RustyMX5]

alangla said:

andyA700 said:

What you have just posted is absolute BS. This is urban mythology territory. "a bloke down the pub told me that his 102 year old gran fell over and hit her head, and they put Covid death on the certificate".
Why do you repeat utter BS such as this?
I have lost a sister and a father since 2022 and Covid wasn't mentioned on their death certificates, despite the fact that they had both contracted it about a month before they died. One died from Pulmonary Thrombosis/Morbid Obesity and the other General Frailty/Heart Failure/Dementia.

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

My father's Death Certificate (2023) included Covid as one of multiple factors. I should point out that it was at the bottom of the list of factors though.

[g3org3y]

Hants PHer said:

BigMon said:

As I've said before, it's very much like engaging with Jehovahs Witnesses. It doesn't matter what you reply with, unless it's in the watchtower or their version of the bible they will refute all evidence placed in front of them.

As such, best to just politely nod with a fixed smile on your face whilst (metaphorically as this is a forum) slowly closing the door.

Spot on. It's what I'm doing with jameswillis and r3g (close the metaphorical door, that is): when presented with data that they don't like, because it shows the absurdity of their positions, they just say "Nah, that ONS data is manipulated to show what they want you to see." Or some other denialist foolishness.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, fact. The covid vaccines caused some harms, but there's no statistical evidence to prove large scale deaths among the vaccinated, fact. There's no point in attempting a discussion with a person who denies facts.

I think another issue with distrust of the stats is that the government didn't exactly shower themselves with glory when it came to the reporting of covid hospital admissions, in particular 'admissions because' vs 'admissions with' Covid.

That really only came about after Omicron and South Africa where although admission numbers were going up in SA, it was highlighted that in fact all patients were being tested at the front door and many positive tests was incidental findings rather than the hospitals being swamped with unwell Covid patients.

It took a long time for the government to acknowledge that was a legitimate thing and that the daily reported headline figures potentially could be 'misleading' as to the severity of the situation.

[isaldiri]

alangla said:

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

Only up till around July/August when that was changed to the 28 day thing I believe. It definitely wasn't something applied all through 2020. and if it was indeed people being wrongly classified as covid deaths wholesale (no doubt it did happen in some cases) up till then, it doesn't then explain why after the big spring wave subsided there would have been so few covid deaths in late May/June when deaths were below average for a short period.

g3org3y said:

I think another issue with distrust of the stats is that the government didn't exactly shower themselves with glory when it came to the reporting of covid hospital admissions, in particular 'admissions because' vs 'admissions with' Covid.

While that certainly was true, I don't think it was necessarily quite as different as sometimes suggested. it wouldn't really meaningfully have changed things overall across the pandemic period I think. Neither the issue of deaths 'with' or 'of' and again for hospitalisations or even the 28 day test bit really would have substantially changed anything overall as infection levels were the big determinant of excess deaths up till perhaps ealy/mid 2021 after spring 2020. It did far more damage to the perception of how things were being presented obviously which was wholly self inflicted but not in terms of changing 'true' hospitalisation/death numbers very much.

Edited by isaldiri on Monday 29th April 13:34

[andyA700]

RustyMX5 said:

alangla said:

andyA700 said:

What you have just posted is absolute BS. This is urban mythology territory. "a bloke down the pub told me that his 102 year old gran fell over and hit her head, and they put Covid death on the certificate".
Why do you repeat utter BS such as this?
I have lost a sister and a father since 2022 and Covid wasn't mentioned on their death certificates, despite the fact that they had both contracted it about a month before they died. One died from Pulmonary Thrombosis/Morbid Obesity and the other General Frailty/Heart Failure/Dementia.

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

My father's Death Certificate (2023) included Covid as one of multiple factors. I should point out that it was at the bottom of the list of factors though.

I was surprised that my dad's didn't mention Covid, but they probably put enough stuff on there already.

[RustyMX5]

andyA700 said:

RustyMX5 said:

alangla said:

andyA700 said:

What you have just posted is absolute BS. This is urban mythology territory. "a bloke down the pub told me that his 102 year old gran fell over and hit her head, and they put Covid death on the certificate".
Why do you repeat utter BS such as this?
I have lost a sister and a father since 2022 and Covid wasn't mentioned on their death certificates, despite the fact that they had both contracted it about a month before they died. One died from Pulmonary Thrombosis/Morbid Obesity and the other General Frailty/Heart Failure/Dementia.

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

My father's Death Certificate (2023) included Covid as one of multiple factors. I should point out that it was at the bottom of the list of factors though.

I was surprised that my dad's didn't mention Covid, but they probably put enough stuff on there already.

Mine had 3 major factors (mainly heart) and one minor (Covid) but he contracted Covid in hospital just over a week before he died. Although he'd been filled with antivirals and had tested negative a couple of days before his death, it was obvious from my visits that 'Before Covid Father' and 'Post Covid father' were in two very different states of health.

[TheJimi]

I'm wading back into this thread to support both Elysium and isaldiri.

r3g - you're very much barking up the wrong tree with your accusations levelled at the above posters.

These guys represent, imo, a fairly sane middle ground which is a problematic place to inhabit, because you get aimed at from those at the extremities of both ends of the spectrum. I know this coz I've experienced it myself.

Sorry to get personal, but your entrenched, blinkered attitude, is a case in point. You're so far down the rabbit hole that you can't even recognise that in many ways, the people you're aiming at, actually have some common viewpoints with you.

Edited by TheJimi on Monday 29th April 15:50

[g3org3y]

isaldiri said:

alangla said:

I thought the ONS were, in 2020 at least, recording every death of every individual who had ever tested positive as a Covid death and it was pressure from Heneghan etc that got the methodology changed to exclude the “tested positive, hit by a bus 6 months later” type deaths?

Only up till around July/August when that was changed to the 28 day thing I believe. It definitely wasn't something applied all through 2020. and if it was indeed people being wrongly classified as covid deaths wholesale (no doubt it did happen in some cases) up till then, it doesn't then explain why after the big spring wave subsided there would have been so few covid deaths in late May/June when deaths were below average for a short period.

g3org3y said:

I think another issue with distrust of the stats is that the government didn't exactly shower themselves with glory when it came to the reporting of covid hospital admissions, in particular 'admissions because' vs 'admissions with' Covid.

While that certainly was true, I don't think it was necessarily quite as different as sometimes suggested. it wouldn't really meaningfully have changed things overall across the pandemic period I think. Neither the issue of deaths 'with' or 'of' and again for hospitalisations or even the 28 day test bit really would have substantially changed anything overall as infection levels were the big determinant of excess deaths up till perhaps ealy/mid 2021 after spring 2020. It did far more damage to the perception of how things were being presented obviously which was wholly self inflicted but not in terms of changing 'true' hospitalisation/death numbers very much.

It is all about perception.

If your daily admission/hospitalisation data is the big number quoted on the news every night, the cynic in me says that it's not a bad thing to present it as 'worse' if you want to 'facilitate' public behaviour change.

Once it came to Omicron, the with/of difference was much more stark (because Omicron was more widespread, transmissible and milder). All the evidence coming out of SA said this was the case. When the Omicron/SA situation was presented to the public by Witty it was claimed: "All the things we do know [about Omicron] are bad"...which wasn't true.

Same accusations can be levelled at the US with the 'Winter of Unvaccinated'.

Biden said:

For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you're unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they'll soon overwhelm. But there's good news: If you're vaccinated and you had your booster shot, you're protected from severe illness and death — period

It should be no surprise that confidence in Public Health has been knocked. But people have short memories...

[Hants PHer]

TheJimi said:

I'm wading back into this thread to support both Elysium and isaldiri.

r3g - you're very much barking up the wrong tree with your accusations levelled at the above posters.

These guys represent, imo, a fairly sane middle ground which is a problematic place to inhabit, because you get aimed at from those at the extremities of both ends of the spectrum. I know this coz I've experienced it myself.

Sorry to get personal, but your entrenched, blinkered attitude is a case in point. You're so far down the rabbit hole that you can't even recognise that in many ways, the people you're aiming at, actually have some common viewpoints with you.

[Unreal]

Hants PHer said:

BigMon said:

As I've said before, it's very much like engaging with Jehovahs Witnesses. It doesn't matter what you reply with, unless it's in the watchtower or their version of the bible they will refute all evidence placed in front of them.

As such, best to just politely nod with a fixed smile on your face whilst (metaphorically as this is a forum) slowly closing the door.

Spot on. It's what I'm doing with jameswillis and r3g (close the metaphorical door, that is): when presented with data that they don't like, because it shows the absurdity of their positions, they just say "Nah, that ONS data is manipulated to show what they want you to see." Or some other denialist foolishness.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, fact. The covid vaccines caused some harms, but there's no statistical evidence to prove large scale deaths among the vaccinated, fact. There's no point in attempting a discussion with a person who denies facts.

At least we now have an acceptance that the vaccines have killed and injured people. That's at least a step in the right direction from safe and effective, stop you dying from covid, prevent transmission and an epidemic of the unvaccinated.

I accept all drugs come with risks, but that's not how the covid vaccines were presented and the greatest tragedy is that they killed and injured people who had a far greater risk of dying from a cold than covid. The evidence that mortality was age related is overwhelming.

[BigMon]

Unreal said:

At least we now have an acceptance that the vaccines have killed and injured people. That's at least a step in the right direction from safe and effective, stop you dying from covid, prevent transmission and an epidemic of the unvaccinated.

I accept all drugs come with risks, but that's not how the covid vaccines were presented and the greatest tragedy is that they killed and injured people who had a far greater risk of dying from a cold than covid. The evidence that mortality was age related is overwhelming.

I don't think any of us 'moderates' will argue with any of that. Where perhaps views differ is whether it's perceived as a malevolent action or not.