CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 10)
Discussion
johnboy1975 said:
Can you test for covid post death? I would have thought so, blood sample or nasal swab (not to mention the 'Chinese method' 
)
So you've got a body, you suspect covid, why no test? (Ignoring the fact I thought you got tested on admission to hospital, so presumably these are 'at home' deaths- if you are in a bad way from covid, surely you ring 999?)
Like I said, I don’t understand why they are doing that. As you say, surely they would be tested on admission and on a regular basis whilst in hospital.)So you've got a body, you suspect covid, why no test? (Ignoring the fact I thought you got tested on admission to hospital, so presumably these are 'at home' deaths- if you are in a bad way from covid, surely you ring 999?)
Can someone give an explanation as to how someone dying in hospital can die of covid without having a positive test at some stage?
Graveworm said:
Which is not the measure for how interventions work. It's about by how much they reduce transmission. Putting a road safety measure in place that means one countries death rate, that was previously higher than the other fell to half of the other would not be measured by the area under the curve prior to it levelling off.
However if you want to compare directly. Overall North Dakota has a 10% lower death rate than the South.
Well you've just made a great pitch for much less restrictions. Historically we haven't given a damn about 20k plus excess deaths over winter. If lots of restrictions only reduces the deaths by 10% then for 10-15k extra deaths it's pretty bloody clear we shouldn't have bothered given the costs involved with said restrictions.However if you want to compare directly. Overall North Dakota has a 10% lower death rate than the South.
isaldiri said:
oyster said:
The NHS would have collapsed. The death toll would be nearer 250k, mostly younger than those you propose isolating.
Define collapse. They would simply have triaged people exactly like what was done in Jan2021 anyway. Hospitalisation rate of under 50s is at minimum half of the over 65 group. You would need infection levels of at least double what we had at end of dec/early jan to merely reach the same hospitalisation numbers. Mortality of that group is a lot lower than merely half the over 60s as well, you're going to have to be a bit more precise how you manage to magic up 250k dead younger people once you remove or even merely reduce the say over 65/70 group by a decent proportion.
We were told collapse was close in Spring 20. Whatever "collapse" meant then. Oh, look it managed to take double the number of COVID patients in the second wave ... WITHOUT .. the dramatic fall in non COVID treatment.
One of my stock questions ... how many COVID patients died in the care of the NHS who would have lived had the health service not been under such stress?
Because if it really was touch and go in the greatest health crisis ever, we might have expected just the odd resort to triage?
johnboy1975 said:
Can you test for covid post death? I would have thought so, blood sample or nasal swab (not to mention the 'Chinese method' )
So you've got a body, you suspect covid, why no test? (Ignoring the fact I thought you got tested on admission to hospital, so presumably these are 'at home' deaths- if you are in a bad way from covid, surely you ring 999?)
If you look at the link it is not no test it's no "Positive test at time of death". So a test could have been done before death but the result wasn't back or a test could have been done post mortem. In the case of the older cases, it will almost certainly be that a PM was required that found Covid. In the others the guidelines, say if they are satisfied it's Covid they can say so on the death certificate and there is a section on the reverse that is ticked to say the result will follow. )So you've got a body, you suspect covid, why no test? (Ignoring the fact I thought you got tested on admission to hospital, so presumably these are 'at home' deaths- if you are in a bad way from covid, surely you ring 999?)
Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
So North Dakota going from 15% more cases than South, to half is not significant? Correlation wise that's not a win for the South. 
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/22/n...
N.D. House votes to ban mask mandates: 'Diabolical silliness'
The North Dakota House of Representatives, on a 50-44 vote, passed a bill Monday that would ban any future mask-wearing mandates.
State Rep. Jeff Hoverson, Minot Republican, called all mask mandates “diabolical silliness” and the conspiracy of “unelected, wealthy bureaucrats who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies,” “Our state is not a prison camp,” he said.
isaldiri said:
Well you've just made a great pitch for much less restrictions. Historically we haven't given a damn about 20k plus excess deaths over winter. If lots of restrictions only reduces the deaths by 10% then for 10-15k extra deaths it's pretty bloody clear we shouldn't have bothered given the costs involved with said restrictions.
The only differences were North Dakota mandated masks, and South Dakota tested fewer people. Plenty in South Dakota actually wore masks but not as many as North. So if more widespread mask wearing saved 10 percent was it worth it? R-t6t6s said:
CrutyRammers said:
That's right. A general election which elected a party which promised a public vote on an issue, which was then taken, on the explicit terms that the result would be implemented, which was then voted through by a massive majority in parliament, and which then was confirmed again by voting in a government which promised to implement it, is exactly comparable with what's gone on over the last year.
It was clearly a throw away line, but surely the point is that it appears a majority support lockdown, and the basis of democracy is that the majority rule. Personally I dont support the lockdown either, but I do support democracy, and so if the majority feel its in their interests it is fair to go along with it.
Clearly they need educating, but then that argument didn't go well for Brexit really either....
I mean, the "majority" thought Trump would lose (the first time around), Brexit would definitely never happen and Corbyn would be PM right now (gawd help us)...
Boringvolvodriver said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I find it really hard to understand how come their reporting is so poor that 34 deaths reported occurred more than a week ago and that of the 50 deaths with no test, a few of those were several weeks ago.If one wanted to be cynical one would be tempted to think that they are trying to keep the numbers up.
foreright said:
R-t6t6s said:
CrutyRammers said:
That's right. A general election which elected a party which promised a public vote on an issue, which was then taken, on the explicit terms that the result would be implemented, which was then voted through by a massive majority in parliament, and which then was confirmed again by voting in a government which promised to implement it, is exactly comparable with what's gone on over the last year.
It was clearly a throw away line, but surely the point is that it appears a majority support lockdown, and the basis of democracy is that the majority rule. Personally I dont support the lockdown either, but I do support democracy, and so if the majority feel its in their interests it is fair to go along with it.
Clearly they need educating, but then that argument didn't go well for Brexit really either....
I mean, the "majority" thought Trump would lose (the first time around), Brexit would definitely never happen and Corbyn would be PM right now (gawd help us)...
Anecdotally I would certainly agree that feeling seems to be turning against them, so hopefully if the stats for deaths etc keep dropping as they are, we might see the evidence turning the other way.
Graveworm said:
isaldiri said:
Well you've just made a great pitch for much less restrictions. Historically we haven't given a damn about 20k plus excess deaths over winter. If lots of restrictions only reduces the deaths by 10% then for 10-15k extra deaths it's pretty bloody clear we shouldn't have bothered given the costs involved with said restrictions.
The only differences were North Dakota mandated masks, and South Dakota tested fewer people. Plenty in South Dakota actually wore masks but not as many as North. So if more widespread mask wearing saved 10 percent was it worth it? And North Dakota also restricted capacity in hospitality to a far greater degree than south Dakota.
This is interesting:
Ian Brown steps down from festival over vaccine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-5627...
Nice to see someone taking a stand against the stupidity of vaccine passports, but this caught my eye:
"This week, Reading and Leeds organiser Melvin Benn told The Telegraph that ticket holders for the late August bank holiday event who have not received a Covid-19 vaccine are likely to be required to take a coronavirus test at home prior to leaving for the events, and will need to show a health passport to gain entry once they arrive."
So if transmission is still going to be a problem post June 21, how does that square up with no pre-gig tests for vaccinated people even though they can still be infected and pass on the virus?
Ian Brown steps down from festival over vaccine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-5627...
Nice to see someone taking a stand against the stupidity of vaccine passports, but this caught my eye:
"This week, Reading and Leeds organiser Melvin Benn told The Telegraph that ticket holders for the late August bank holiday event who have not received a Covid-19 vaccine are likely to be required to take a coronavirus test at home prior to leaving for the events, and will need to show a health passport to gain entry once they arrive."
So if transmission is still going to be a problem post June 21, how does that square up with no pre-gig tests for vaccinated people even though they can still be infected and pass on the virus?
Twinfan said:
This is interesting:
Ian Brown steps down from festival over vaccine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-5627...
Nice to see someone taking a stand against the stupidity of vaccine passports, but this caught my eye:
"This week, Reading and Leeds organiser Melvin Benn told The Telegraph that ticket holders for the late August bank holiday event who have not received a Covid-19 vaccine are likely to be required to take a coronavirus test at home prior to leaving for the events, and will need to show a health passport to gain entry once they arrive."
So if transmission is still going to be a problem post June 21, how does that square up with no pre-gig tests for vaccinated people even though they can still be infected and pass on the virus?
That is why the whole vaccine passport idea is a load of bIan Brown steps down from festival over vaccine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-5627...
Nice to see someone taking a stand against the stupidity of vaccine passports, but this caught my eye:
"This week, Reading and Leeds organiser Melvin Benn told The Telegraph that ticket holders for the late August bank holiday event who have not received a Covid-19 vaccine are likely to be required to take a coronavirus test at home prior to leaving for the events, and will need to show a health passport to gain entry once they arrive."
So if transmission is still going to be a problem post June 21, how does that square up with no pre-gig tests for vaccinated people even though they can still be infected and pass on the virus?
ks. And yet it is still on the agenda.soofsayer said:
That is why the whole vaccine passport idea is a load of bks. And yet it is still on the agenda.
Not just the UK though, Greece and Austria want to bring it in for the tourism season. Vaccine passport = no pre-flight or entry tests required. No vaccine = pre-flight tests and it's an entry requirement to the country.ks. And yet it is still on the agenda.It's absolute bobbins.
R-t6t6s said:
danllama said:
R-t6t6s said:
Surely if 52% of the population want something, then they have to get it and we don't worry about the minority as they are moaners? That's what I heard anyway, or was that another topic....
Have we had a vote on lockdowns and restrictions? I must have missed it. ks. If we had a nationwide referendum on this issue beforehand it would never have happened. Who the hell would vote for stripping away rights and livelihoods? That's why this appalling government have had to coerce and legislate us into submission. It's not a suggestion that lockdowns are anti democratic, they intrinsically are! At the heart of democracy is freedom.Edited by danllama on Thursday 4th March 16:30
Twinfan said:
soofsayer said:
That is why the whole vaccine passport idea is a load of bks. And yet it is still on the agenda.
Not just the UK though, Greece and Austria want to bring it in for the tourism season. Vaccine passport = no pre-flight or entry tests required. No vaccine = pre-flight tests and it's an entry requirement to the country.ks. And yet it is still on the agenda.It's absolute bobbins.
R-t6t6s said:
CrutyRammers said:
That's right. A general election which elected a party which promised a public vote on an issue, which was then taken, on the explicit terms that the result would be implemented, which was then voted through by a massive majority in parliament, and which then was confirmed again by voting in a government which promised to implement it, is exactly comparable with what's gone on over the last year.
It was clearly a throw away line, but surely the point is that it appears a majority support lockdown, and the basis of democracy is that the majority rule. Personally I dont support the lockdown either, but I do support democracy, and so if the majority feel its in their interests it is fair to go along with it.
Clearly they need educating, but then that argument didn't go well for Brexit really either....
That aside, the point is, that you determine what the majority wants with votes. Not polls. It "appeared" that a majority would vote remain. And vote for Corbyn. And Clinton. But when it came to the actual meaningful vote, they didn't.
We should not be basing policy on polls.
Graveworm said:
isaldiri said:
Well you've just made a great pitch for much less restrictions. Historically we haven't given a damn about 20k plus excess deaths over winter. If lots of restrictions only reduces the deaths by 10% then for 10-15k extra deaths it's pretty bloody clear we shouldn't have bothered given the costs involved with said restrictions.
The only differences were North Dakota mandated masks, and South Dakota tested fewer people. Plenty in South Dakota actually wore masks but not as many as North. So if more widespread mask wearing saved 10 percent was it worth it? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff