Grassing up a Covid **** taker.

[Phil.]

Evanivitch said:

Phil. said:

In case you continue to think lockdowns are effective at stopping COVID then watch this and let’s see if you can continue to tell me why you believe we should be extending lockdowns at the moment across the UK:

https://youtu.be/PRu6Mgb49Uk

Because despite the lack of public events, despite the reduced household mixing, despite the controls already in place, we are seeing (in the case this video of Ireland) real growth in Covid cases week on week in the UK.

What we saw back in March last year was a result of large public events still being allowed, hence why we saw the massive numbers of infections. But what we're seeing now is a growth despite the controls that are currently in place, which shows the controls are not being correctly followed.

If we want to return to a time where mass events are possible (and they're not in Sweden), then we need to be in a position where infection rates are incredibly low and the tracking of infection is suitably fast and effective.

Serious response assuming you have watched the video which evidences most my points below. Other evidence exists to support the reminder of the points I make below. And hoping you will enter in to a serious debate.

1. It’s not about case numbers it’s about hospitalisations and deaths. The reason for this is the massive inaccuracies and inflation involved in case diagnosis and reporting in the UK.

2. By the time of the lockdown in March we had already reached the peak of infections. The lockdown only delayed the spread of COVID during its epidemic phase to enable hospitals to cope.

3. The number of deaths and the rise in death rates presently do not represent the beginning of another epidemic phase, hence the term casedemic.

4. Lockdowns are more damaging to the health of people overall and the economy than the benefits derived from them. For example, I reported in the past 24 hrs that excess deaths at home as measured by the ONS now exceed 100 per day. That’s the same ish as COVID deaths for which we are locking down again. Then take in to account all the undiagnosed and delayed treatment of cancers and the other illnessss that kill c.1400 people daily in the UK. Besides the WHO have always said that lockdowns should not be used in the way that we are using them. I’ve provided evidence of that too in this thread.

5. What we should be doing is adopting sensible flu like precautions to protect vulnerable people who are mainly the over 75’s and some younger I’ll people. The average age of a COVID death in the UK remains at 84 whereas the average lifespan is 81 meaning people dying of COVID are living 3 years longer then the average person. As someone said recently there have been no deaths for old age since February!

Most of all we should be giving people sensible and measured advice and then supporting them to follow it. If we do this then peer pressure would have much more impact than it is now because the government has created a them against us (divisive) situation that for some reason meets their agenda. I’ve provided my opinion on what the government might be up to several times previously.

[witko999]

Evanivitch said:

What we saw back in March last year was a result of large public events still being allowed, hence why we saw the massive numbers of infections. But what we're seeing now is a growth despite the controls that are currently in place, which shows the controls are not being correctly followed.

I see people writing this a lot, but it's based on the extremely flawed logic that the restrictive measures put in place will definitely succeed, if only we follow them correctly.

Yet we can see around us that regardless of the measures put in place, the totally irrelevant metric of 'cases' continues to rise.

[Evanivitch]

witko999 said:

Evanivitch said:

What we saw back in March last year was a result of large public events still being allowed, hence why we saw the massive numbers of infections. But what we're seeing now is a growth despite the controls that are currently in place, which shows the controls are not being correctly followed.

I see people writing this a lot, but it's based on the extremely flawed logic that the restrictive measures put in place will definitely succeed, if only we follow them correctly.

Yet we can see around us that regardless of the measures put in place, the totally irrelevant metric of 'cases' continues to rise.

Not at all. All the measures currently in place are risk reduction measures. Even a vaccine is a risk reduction measure. There's no absolute in any of this, and I've made no effort to say there is.

A lot of the outbreaks locally have been attributed to specific events or locations that have failed to follow the rules, and this is openly reported.

[Killboy]

Phil. said:

2. By the time of the lockdown in March we had already reached the peak of infections.

Any data for this?

[Jasandjules]

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-40?fb...

[otolith]

Phil. said:

otolith said:

They did ask people to do the same things we asked (or forced) people to do - socially distance, avoid gatherings, wash hands, avoid crowds and public transport, work from home if possible, etc - and people generally complied. Bluntly, I think you and others like you are the reason that wouldn't have worked here. You would have just ignored it.

How despicable and desperate of you to begin throwing around false and personally damaging allegations about someone you have never met. I have never broken the rules and have never put anyone at risk even though I disagree with much of the draconian and controlling laws that have been introduced.

I didn't say you would ignore laws. I said you would ignore advice.

Phil. said:

Just what have I done to deserve the statement above? Either tell me or apologise for your deformation of my character! Are you man enough apologise I wonder?

You've made it very clear that you don't agree with the laws. If you would have followed the advice even had it not been the law, what on earth are you moaning about?

[Phil.]

Killboy said:

Phil. said:

2. By the time of the lockdown in March we had already reached the peak of infections.

Any data for this?

I’ve seen it but don’t have it to hand. When I come across it again I’ll post it for your review. Even without an immediate source this sentence does not detract from the remainder of the post,

[Evanivitch]

Phil. said:

Serious response assuming you have watched the video which evidences most my points below. Other evidence exists to support the reminder of the points I make below. And hoping you will enter in to a serious debate.

1. It’s not about case numbers it’s about hospitalisations and deaths. The reason for this is the massive inaccuracies and inflation involved in case diagnosis and reporting in the UK.

As I've also said repeatedly, it's not. Allowing the virus to run uncontrolled through the low risk population leaves the at-risk population no where to hide. Who cares for them? Who delivers food? Who carries out the medical interventions YOU say have been neglected because of the Covid focus?

Not only does it mean anyone that is at risk (aged, overweight, BAME, pre-existing) has to withdraw from the economy, but it means organisations like schools will cease to operate.

Phil. said:

2. By the time of the lockdown in March we had already reached the peak of infections. The lockdown only delayed the spread of COVID during its epidemic phase to enable hospitals to cope.

Agreed it was only intended to allow hospitals to cope.

Phil. said:

3. The number of deaths and the rise in death rates presently do not represent the beginning of another epidemic phase, hence the term casedemic.

If we continue to protect the vulnerable then yes, we would keep number of deaths down.

Phil. said:

4. Lockdowns are more damaging to the health of people overall and the economy than the benefits derived from them.

That's a very broad statement that ignores the deaths of individuals, ignores the impact of deaths on others around them, ignores the economic value of those at-risk, and ignores the psychological impact of knowing you can't see your vulnerable relatives because you have no way of knowing if you're infected.

Phil. said:

For example, I reported in the past 24 hrs that excess deaths at home as measured by the ONS now exceed 100 per day.

You didn't report it, the Telegraph did. But without actually seeing the data it's impossible to see if that's any different to people that would have died in hospital, whether they are receiving end of life care at home instead, or whether it's a case of lack of care.

Phil. said:

That’s the same ish as COVID deaths for which we are locking down again. Then take in to account all the undiagnosed and delayed treatment of cancers and the other illnessss that kill c.1400 people daily in the UK. Besides the WHO have always said that lockdowns should not be used in the way that we are using them. I’ve provided evidence of that too in this thread.

And those people can still go to hospital and still be treated because we are working to ensure the hospital workforce isn't widely infected with Covid and that the hospitals aren't full of Covid patients instead. Like they were in many parts of the country in April.

The WHO guidelines to reduce lockdowns are based on 6 factors. One of which is having a robust test, trace and quarantine facility. Much of England doesn't have that. Welsh system is getting there. Korea and other less-privacy minded states have been doing it well from the beginning

Phil. said:

5. What we should be doing is adopting sensible flu like precautions to protect vulnerable people who are mainly the over 75’s and some younger I’ll people. The average age of a COVID death in the UK remains at 84 whereas the average lifespan is 81 meaning people dying of COVID are living 3 years longer then the average person. As someone said recently there have been no deaths for old age since February!

Care to point out where that Flu vaccine is? You yourself will gladly point out that we have had some flu seasons with deaths at 30,000+, but that's with a flu vaccine in circulation.

[BrundanBianchi]

I’m still regularly encountering people taking no notice of control measures. The thing is, that now we know much more about the coof than we did in March, I’m confident that by taking sensible precautions ( hands, face, space and bumpsy daisy etc) it won’t be me that cops for it’s far more likely to be an own goal from the piss takers, they’re welcome to it.

[Phil.]

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

They did ask people to do the same things we asked (or forced) people to do - socially distance, avoid gatherings, wash hands, avoid crowds and public transport, work from home if possible, etc - and people generally complied. Bluntly, I think you and others like you are the reason that wouldn't have worked here. You would have just ignored it.

How despicable and desperate of you to begin throwing around false and personally damaging allegations about someone you have never met. I have never broken the rules and have never put anyone at risk even though I disagree with much of the draconian and controlling laws that have been introduced.

I didn't say you would ignore laws. I said you would ignore advice.

Phil. said:

Just what have I done to deserve the statement above? Either tell me or apologise for your deformation of my character! Are you man enough apologise I wonder?

You've made it very clear that you don't agree with the laws. If you would have followed the advice even had it not been the law, what on earth are you moaning about?

Obviously not man enough to apologise for your obvious slur on my character. Laws/advice what bks. I wash my hands regularly, socially distance, avoid gathering, avoid crowds and work from home. All the things you said above that I don’t do! And none of which are law. They are the sensible measures which I abide by. I don’t ignore them as you explicitly said in your winging blaming post! And you only did that because you lost your argument. You’re just trying to wheedle out of your direct slur on me. Stand up and evidence what you said about me or withdraw it!

[anonymous-user]

BrundanBianchi said:

I’m still regularly encountering people taking no notice of control measures. The thing is, that now we know much more about the coof than we did in March, I’m confident that by taking sensible precautions ( hands, face, space and bumpsy daisy etc) it won’t be me that cops for it’s far more likely to be an own goal from the piss takers, they’re welcome to it.

I wish that was true.
However the ‘healthy’ looking maskless person,
in my local coop today, was far more likely to be passing it on to the considerate types . Than vice versa.
I wish the police were out there, dishing out £200 fines to the selfish bar stewards.
However I haven’t seen a bobby for years..

[otolith]

Phil. said:

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

They did ask people to do the same things we asked (or forced) people to do - socially distance, avoid gatherings, wash hands, avoid crowds and public transport, work from home if possible, etc - and people generally complied. Bluntly, I think you and others like you are the reason that wouldn't have worked here. You would have just ignored it.

How despicable and desperate of you to begin throwing around false and personally damaging allegations about someone you have never met. I have never broken the rules and have never put anyone at risk even though I disagree with much of the draconian and controlling laws that have been introduced.

I didn't say you would ignore laws. I said you would ignore advice.

Phil. said:

Just what have I done to deserve the statement above? Either tell me or apologise for your deformation of my character! Are you man enough apologise I wonder?

You've made it very clear that you don't agree with the laws. If you would have followed the advice even had it not been the law, what on earth are you moaning about?

Obviously not man enough to apologise for your obvious slur on my character. Laws/advice what bks. I wash my hands regularly, socially distance, avoid gathering, avoid crowds and work from home. All the things you said above that I don’t do! And none of which are law. They are the sensible measures which I abide by. I don’t ignore them as you explicitly said in your winging blaming other post! And you only did that because you lost your argument. You’re just trying to wheedle out of your direct slur on me. Stand up and evidence what you said about me or withdraw it!

I'm not the one wriggling. You say you want a Swedish situation. The Swedish situation is very much the same as ours, except that some things which are law here are advice there. Why, other than being able to ignore them with impunity, do you want our laws to be advice instead? If your behaviour would be exactly the same in Sweden as it is here, why do you care either way? If you have a satisfactory explanation for that, I will happily change my belief that you wish to be able to ignore them and retract my statement.

[Phil.]

Evanivitch said:

Phil. said:

Serious response assuming you have watched the video which evidences most my points below. Other evidence exists to support the reminder of the points I make below. And hoping you will enter in to a serious debate.

1. It’s not about case numbers it’s about hospitalisations and deaths. The reason for this is the massive inaccuracies and inflation involved in case diagnosis and reporting in the UK.

As I've also said repeatedly, it's not. Allowing the virus to run uncontrolled through the low risk population leaves the at-risk population no where to hide. Who cares for them? Who delivers food? Who carries out the medical interventions YOU say have been neglected because of the Covid focus?

Not only does it mean anyone that is at risk (aged, overweight, BAME, pre-existing) has to withdraw from the economy, but it means organisations like schools will cease to operate.

Phil. said:

2. By the time of the lockdown in March we had already reached the peak of infections. The lockdown only delayed the spread of COVID during its epidemic phase to enable hospitals to cope.

Agreed it was only intended to allow hospitals to cope.

Phil. said:

3. The number of deaths and the rise in death rates presently do not represent the beginning of another epidemic phase, hence the term casedemic.

If we continue to protect the vulnerable then yes, we would keep number of deaths down.

Phil. said:

4. Lockdowns are more damaging to the health of people overall and the economy than the benefits derived from them.

That's a very broad statement that ignores the deaths of individuals, ignores the impact of deaths on others around them, ignores the economic value of those at-risk, and ignores the psychological impact of knowing you can't see your vulnerable relatives because you have no way of knowing if you're infected.

Phil. said:

For example, I reported in the past 24 hrs that excess deaths at home as measured by the ONS now exceed 100 per day.

You didn't report it, the Telegraph did. But without actually seeing the data it's impossible to see if that's any different to people that would have died in hospital, whether they are receiving end of life care at home instead, or whether it's a case of lack of care.

Phil. said:

That’s the same ish as COVID deaths for which we are locking down again. Then take in to account all the undiagnosed and delayed treatment of cancers and the other illnessss that kill c.1400 people daily in the UK. Besides the WHO have always said that lockdowns should not be used in the way that we are using them. I’ve provided evidence of that too in this thread.

And those people can still go to hospital and still be treated because we are working to ensure the hospital workforce isn't widely infected with Covid and that the hospitals aren't full of Covid patients instead. Like they were in many parts of the country in April.

The WHO guidelines to reduce lockdowns are based on 6 factors. One of which is having a robust test, trace and quarantine facility. Much of England doesn't have that. Welsh system is getting there. Korea and other less-privacy minded states have been doing it well from the beginning

Phil. said:

5. What we should be doing is adopting sensible flu like precautions to protect vulnerable people who are mainly the over 75’s and some younger I’ll people. The average age of a COVID death in the UK remains at 84 whereas the average lifespan is 81 meaning people dying of COVID are living 3 years longer then the average person. As someone said recently there have been no deaths for old age since February!

Care to point out where that Flu vaccine is? You yourself will gladly point out that we have had some flu seasons with deaths at 30,000+, but that's with a flu vaccine in circulation.

I’m happy to agree to disagree on some matters but since it appears I’m pretty much a lone voice on this thread with my anti-lockdown views, why don’t you test some of your theories on this thread where there are far more better informed people than me. I doubt you will

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[NGee]

Evanivitch said:

Because despite the lack of public events, despite the reduced household mixing, despite the controls already in place, we are seeing (in the case this video of Ireland) real growth in Covid cases week on week in the UK.

What we saw back in March last year was a result of large public events still being allowed, hence why we saw the massive numbers of infections. But what we're seeing now is a growth despite the controls that are currently in place, which shows the controls are not being correctly followed. making any difference.

If we want to return to a time where mass events are possible (and they're not in Sweden), then we need to be in a position where infection rates are incredibly low and the tracking of infection is suitably fast and effective.

FTFY

[Phil.]

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

They did ask people to do the same things we asked (or forced) people to do - socially distance, avoid gatherings, wash hands, avoid crowds and public transport, work from home if possible, etc - and people generally complied. Bluntly, I think you and others like you are the reason that wouldn't have worked here. You would have just ignored it.

How despicable and desperate of you to begin throwing around false and personally damaging allegations about someone you have never met. I have never broken the rules and have never put anyone at risk even though I disagree with much of the draconian and controlling laws that have been introduced.

I didn't say you would ignore laws. I said you would ignore advice.

Phil. said:

Just what have I done to deserve the statement above? Either tell me or apologise for your deformation of my character! Are you man enough apologise I wonder?

You've made it very clear that you don't agree with the laws. If you would have followed the advice even had it not been the law, what on earth are you moaning about?

Obviously not man enough to apologise for your obvious slur on my character. Laws/advice what bks. I wash my hands regularly, socially distance, avoid gathering, avoid crowds and work from home. All the things you said above that I don’t do! And none of which are law. They are the sensible measures which I abide by. I don’t ignore them as you explicitly said in your winging blaming other post! And you only did that because you lost your argument. You’re just trying to wheedle out of your direct slur on me. Stand up and evidence what you said about me or withdraw it!

I'm not the one wriggling. You say you want a Swedish situation. The Swedish situation is very much the same as ours, except that some things which are law here are advice there. Why, other than being able to ignore them with impunity, do you want our laws to be advice instead? If your behaviour would be exactly the same in Sweden as it is here, why do you care either way? If you have a satisfactory explanation for that, I will happily change my belief that you wish to be able to ignore them and retract my statement.

Big wriggling this time. You now want switch back to the original topic which you had progressed in to an attack on my character! How about first responding to my points about your direct slur on me?! Your libelous statement is above if your memory isn’t so good.

[otolith]

Phil. said:

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

They did ask people to do the same things we asked (or forced) people to do - socially distance, avoid gatherings, wash hands, avoid crowds and public transport, work from home if possible, etc - and people generally complied. Bluntly, I think you and others like you are the reason that wouldn't have worked here. You would have just ignored it.

How despicable and desperate of you to begin throwing around false and personally damaging allegations about someone you have never met. I have never broken the rules and have never put anyone at risk even though I disagree with much of the draconian and controlling laws that have been introduced.

I didn't say you would ignore laws. I said you would ignore advice.

Phil. said:

Just what have I done to deserve the statement above? Either tell me or apologise for your deformation of my character! Are you man enough apologise I wonder?

You've made it very clear that you don't agree with the laws. If you would have followed the advice even had it not been the law, what on earth are you moaning about?

Obviously not man enough to apologise for your obvious slur on my character. Laws/advice what bks. I wash my hands regularly, socially distance, avoid gathering, avoid crowds and work from home. All the things you said above that I don’t do! And none of which are law. They are the sensible measures which I abide by. I don’t ignore them as you explicitly said in your winging blaming other post! And you only did that because you lost your argument. You’re just trying to wheedle out of your direct slur on me. Stand up and evidence what you said about me or withdraw it!

I'm not the one wriggling. You say you want a Swedish situation. The Swedish situation is very much the same as ours, except that some things which are law here are advice there. Why, other than being able to ignore them with impunity, do you want our laws to be advice instead? If your behaviour would be exactly the same in Sweden as it is here, why do you care either way? If you have a satisfactory explanation for that, I will happily change my belief that you wish to be able to ignore them and retract my statement.

Big wriggling this time. You now want switch back to the original topic which you had progressed in to an attack on my character! How about first responding to my points about your direct slur on me?! Your libelous statement is above if your memory isn’t so good.

Libellous?

I don't think you can libel someone based on what you think they would do in a hypothetical situation.

If you insist so, though, I am perfectly happy to accept that you have absolutely no reason for wanting Sweden's system rather than ours, and that you have no valid complaints about what is recommended in Sweden being mandated here.

[Phil.]

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

Phil. said:

otolith said:

They did ask people to do the same things we asked (or forced) people to do - socially distance, avoid gatherings, wash hands, avoid crowds and public transport, work from home if possible, etc - and people generally complied. Bluntly, I think you and others like you are the reason that wouldn't have worked here. You would have just ignored it.

How despicable and desperate of you to begin throwing around false and personally damaging allegations about someone you have never met. I have never broken the rules and have never put anyone at risk even though I disagree with much of the draconian and controlling laws that have been introduced.

I didn't say you would ignore laws. I said you would ignore advice.

Phil. said:

Just what have I done to deserve the statement above? Either tell me or apologise for your deformation of my character! Are you man enough apologise I wonder?

You've made it very clear that you don't agree with the laws. If you would have followed the advice even had it not been the law, what on earth are you moaning about?

Obviously not man enough to apologise for your obvious slur on my character. Laws/advice what bks. I wash my hands regularly, socially distance, avoid gathering, avoid crowds and work from home. All the things you said above that I don’t do! And none of which are law. They are the sensible measures which I abide by. I don’t ignore them as you explicitly said in your winging blaming other post! And you only did that because you lost your argument. You’re just trying to wheedle out of your direct slur on me. Stand up and evidence what you said about me or withdraw it!

I'm not the one wriggling. You say you want a Swedish situation. The Swedish situation is very much the same as ours, except that some things which are law here are advice there. Why, other than being able to ignore them with impunity, do you want our laws to be advice instead? If your behaviour would be exactly the same in Sweden as it is here, why do you care either way? If you have a satisfactory explanation for that, I will happily change my belief that you wish to be able to ignore them and retract my statement.

Big wriggling this time. You now want switch back to the original topic which you had progressed in to an attack on my character! How about first responding to my points about your direct slur on me?! Your libelous statement is above if your memory isn’t so good.

Libellous?

I don't think you can libel someone based on what you think they would do in a hypothetical situation.

If you insist so, though, I am perfectly happy to accept that you have absolutely no reason for wanting Sweden's system rather than ours, and that you have no valid complaints about what is recommended in Sweden being mandated here.

Go away you ignorant vile person. So full of bullst and no trousers

[Phil.]

The reality....nothing exponential or epidemic like now.

[otolith]

Phil. said:

Go away you ignorant vile person. So full of bullst and no trousers

Oh dear. The lady doth protest too much.

[Phil.]

otolith said:

Phil. said:

Go away you ignorant vile person. So full of bullst and no trousers

Oh dear. The lady doth protest too much.

You are so full of st about Sweden when you know cock all about the situation, never provide any evidence, slur those with a better argument and just repeat the same link with no explanation. Class 1 idiot!

Anders Tegnell, Sweden's State Epidemiologist, says his country will continue avoiding lockdown & he's in favour of relaxing more, telling elderly people "you don't need to completely isolate anymore...just avoid big gatherings, keep a distance"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-5456120...