CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)
Discussion
basherX said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/29/hospit...
Javid finally catching up on dodgy hospitalisation stats.
So it seems that all the young unvaccinated aren’t in ICU dying of Wuhan flu. Whodathunkit?Javid finally catching up on dodgy hospitalisation stats.
In other news our poster child for national IDs isn’t as clever as nick thinks they are.
https://news.err.ee/1608291072/hacker-downloads-cl...
PurplePangolin said:
johnboy1975 said:
Sounds like Biden is in the process of jumping the shark. (I'm only half listening....)
Things like "the primary goal of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms" (fair enough) followed by basically enticing / begging/ forcing people who wouldn't get ill (statistically) to take said vaccine.
So, the covid vaccine is not really performing like a vaccine…Things like "the primary goal of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms" (fair enough) followed by basically enticing / begging/ forcing people who wouldn't get ill (statistically) to take said vaccine.
$100 reward if you get double jabbed
And
Federal employees need twice weekly tests if unjabbed. Vaccinated are fine (obviously
)Doesn't he talk to Fauci? The info coming out of each camp seem at odds.....
There's a feed here...
https://youtu.be/7P1jg22oZmk
Andy888 said:
Also, hadn't realised France had gone just this far:
"Macron announced that from 21 July, anyone visiting a theatre, cinema, sports venue or festival with an audience of more than 50 people would need a health pass proving they were either fully vaccinated, had tested negative or were immune.
The same requirement will be extended to bars, cafes, restaurants, shopping centres (though not supermarkets), hospitals, long-distance trains, coaches and planes from 1 August, he said – including for children aged between 12 and 17 from 1 September.
People unable to present a valid health pass risk up to six months in prison and a fine of up to €10,000 (£8,500), according to the draft text of the law, while owners of “establishments welcoming the public” who fail to check patrons’ passes could go to jail for a year and be hit with a €45,000 fine."
The last paragraph is a bit extreme.
I'm genuinely gobsmacked the French people are allowing this to happen? Why isn't the country shutting down with strike action until this crazyness is scrapped?"Macron announced that from 21 July, anyone visiting a theatre, cinema, sports venue or festival with an audience of more than 50 people would need a health pass proving they were either fully vaccinated, had tested negative or were immune.
The same requirement will be extended to bars, cafes, restaurants, shopping centres (though not supermarkets), hospitals, long-distance trains, coaches and planes from 1 August, he said – including for children aged between 12 and 17 from 1 September.
People unable to present a valid health pass risk up to six months in prison and a fine of up to €10,000 (£8,500), according to the draft text of the law, while owners of “establishments welcoming the public” who fail to check patrons’ passes could go to jail for a year and be hit with a €45,000 fine."
The last paragraph is a bit extreme.
If it's goes ahead in France, it'll happen in the whole western world...people laughed just last year at the great reset idea, yet, here we are!
Covid passports, China style social credit system, Digital IDs etc etc. It's all coming our way. And you know what...most people couldn't care less. Sad times. The majority have been turned into compliant sheep.
Edited by 404 Page not found on Thursday 29th July 22:19
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. 
Venturist said:
basherX said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/29/hospit...
Javid finally catching up on dodgy hospitalisation stats.
fJavid finally catching up on dodgy hospitalisation stats.
k me, I’ve been saying this for a year and I’m just some random tt on a car forum. If you’re making policy decisions and trying to help people this is key info, why on earth wouldn’t you gather this data? If it wasn’t already being gathered, why wouldn’t you demand it as a priority?
It’s in the same sector as “how many people are we currently treating for covid symptoms” to which the answer, 14 months in, is still “dunno”
Edited by Venturist on Thursday 29th July 21:52
HMG needed the numbers up. Their process delivered that.
Now that the vaccine program is well underway. they need to demonstrate success. So change the criteria to bring the numbers down. Bingo! HMG are wondeful!
Plus, bought time to bring the public round to a covid pass/ id card.
A master class in manipulation.
monkfish1 said:
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. k all. johnboy1975 said:
Sounds like Biden is in the process of jumping the shark. (I'm only half listening....)
Things like "the primary goal of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms" (fair enough) followed by basically enticing / begging/ forcing people who wouldn't get ill (statistically) to take said vaccine.
America jumped the shark along time ago. I don’t like to play the “x country had it worse than us” game, but some of the language and rhetoric in the US is shocking. Look at this article from the LA Times RE: the segregation of the NFLThings like "the primary goal of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms" (fair enough) followed by basically enticing / begging/ forcing people who wouldn't get ill (statistically) to take said vaccine.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/story/2021-07-...
“ Hopkins was saying he doesn’t want to partake in a potentially life-saving medical procedure that would safeguard his family, teammates and community? Fine. His future belongs somewhere else other than in the NFL.”
“ Teammates who don’t get the COVID-19 vaccine aren’t just bad, they’re selfish and misguided and dangerous.”
“ Also don’t feel bad for the players, even as Las Vegas running back Jalen Richard is tweeting, “We playing in jail this year.”
No, it’s not jail, it’s a lingering pandemic fueled by the Delta variant, and if they’re not going to protect themselves with the science, then they’re a threat to themselves and a potential health hazard to everyone else.”
Boringvolvodriver said:
Venturist said:
basherX said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/29/hospit...
Javid finally catching up on dodgy hospitalisation stats.
fJavid finally catching up on dodgy hospitalisation stats.
k me, I’ve been saying this for a year and I’m just some random tt on a car forum. If you’re making policy decisions and trying to help people this is key info, why on earth wouldn’t you gather this data? If it wasn’t already being gathered, why wouldn’t you demand it as a priority?
It’s in the same sector as “how many people are we currently treating for covid symptoms” to which the answer, 14 months in, is still “dunno”
Edited by Venturist on Thursday 29th July 21:52
Or they knew or suspected what it might show and didn’t want that to come out.
Whatever, it is incompetence of the highest order.
The ONS prevalence survey gives a pretty decent gauge of what one might expect the the average number of people in hospital to be if it were simply 'randoms' seeking treatment for other issues. Previously when covid was being flagged as a serious NHS capacity issue, numbers in hospital with covid were so much higher than general prevalence it was pretty reasonable to assume most of them were there for covid related issues. ~100k people in hospital beds, whatever number of average new daily admissions would be 'normal' (give or take some long haulers stuck in hospital for extended periods) and compare that to ONS numbers.
It was very clear in late autumn/winter the idea suggested by some that most people in hospitals were simply randoms being treated for non covid reasons was not a reasonable assumption and it would be a (government-esque) use of exceptionally lousy statstics to attempt to claim current numbers of 25% non covid patients is necessarily applicable to the NHS hospital numbers back in Jan.
V1nce Fox said:
monkfish1 said:
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. k all. isaldiri said:
Because it's a simple issue of numbers.
The ONS prevalence survey gives a pretty decent gauge of what one might expect the the average number of people in hospital to be if it were simply 'randoms' seeking treatment for other issues. Previously when covid was being flagged as a serious NHS capacity issue, numbers in hospital with covid were so much higher than general prevalence it was pretty reasonable to assume most of them were there for covid related issues. ~100k people in hospital beds, whatever number of average new daily admissions would be 'normal' (give or take some long haulers stuck in hospital for extended periods) and compare that to ONS numbers.
It was very clear in late autumn/winter the idea suggested by some that most people in hospitals were simply randoms being treated for non covid reasons was not a reasonable assumption and it would be a (government-esque) use of exceptionally lousy statstics to attempt to claim current numbers of 25% non covid patients is necessarily applicable to the NHS hospital numbers back in Jan.
The word that I take issue with in what you say, is “assume” - you really would hope that people making decisions are doing more than assuming. As I was once told “assume makes an ass of you and me”The ONS prevalence survey gives a pretty decent gauge of what one might expect the the average number of people in hospital to be if it were simply 'randoms' seeking treatment for other issues. Previously when covid was being flagged as a serious NHS capacity issue, numbers in hospital with covid were so much higher than general prevalence it was pretty reasonable to assume most of them were there for covid related issues. ~100k people in hospital beds, whatever number of average new daily admissions would be 'normal' (give or take some long haulers stuck in hospital for extended periods) and compare that to ONS numbers.
It was very clear in late autumn/winter the idea suggested by some that most people in hospitals were simply randoms being treated for non covid reasons was not a reasonable assumption and it would be a (government-esque) use of exceptionally lousy statstics to attempt to claim current numbers of 25% non covid patients is necessarily applicable to the NHS hospital numbers back in Jan.
At the peak, there will have been a high number in hospital with direct covid issues although there will have been a percentage that weren’t. It would have been pretty beneficial for those making the decisions to have known what the true position was and not make assumptions.
monkfish1 said:
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Have you not thought about where it could lead to? Yet again, the I’m alright Jack mentality takes over.It is not about night clubs and if people can’t see the bigger picture of what starts off as a Covid Passport then they will deserve all that may come to pass.
Unless you are a selfish OAP with not long left on this earth who doesn’t care about the potential loss of freedoms for the younger generations of course.
Don’t post very often here but just posted the following in the “mask” thread and thought since I’ve gone as far as typing something a cut and paste into this thread might be worth the bother!
“For context I visit residential property for a living. Spend an average of 2 hours inside each home. Almost always with the client in attendance. I am effectively a stranger to these people and they will know that I attend multiple addresses every day. Over the last 18 months I have encountered very very few clients who have behaved measurably different to how I expect they would have done pre-COVID. Maybe 5 have been evidently COVID-cautious. That’s out of around 1800. I might see one client a week in a mask. It appears to me that the great unwashed feel very secure in their own homes but appear to feel, or at least behave as if they feel, very differently in public settings outside of their home.”
Being out and about all day every day I really have found the messaging I’ve been seeing in the media (and am told appears on social media) so vastly different to the behaviour of the public I meet in their own homes. I can’t square the circle at all.
TLDR; in my experience very few people give a st about the virus “at home”.
Carry on.
“For context I visit residential property for a living. Spend an average of 2 hours inside each home. Almost always with the client in attendance. I am effectively a stranger to these people and they will know that I attend multiple addresses every day. Over the last 18 months I have encountered very very few clients who have behaved measurably different to how I expect they would have done pre-COVID. Maybe 5 have been evidently COVID-cautious. That’s out of around 1800. I might see one client a week in a mask. It appears to me that the great unwashed feel very secure in their own homes but appear to feel, or at least behave as if they feel, very differently in public settings outside of their home.”
Being out and about all day every day I really have found the messaging I’ve been seeing in the media (and am told appears on social media) so vastly different to the behaviour of the public I meet in their own homes. I can’t square the circle at all.
TLDR; in my experience very few people give a s
t about the virus “at home”.Carry on.
Alucidnation said:
monkfish1 said:
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
Alucidnation said:
monkfish1 said:
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. But from this article..
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58015800
A "domestic" pass option on the app explains there are four ways to get an NHS Covid pass - through "testing, full vaccination, natural immunity, or an exemption".
Seems fair, and no need for 'forced' vaccinations.
Boringvolvodriver said:
isaldiri said:
Because it's a simple issue of numbers.
The ONS prevalence survey gives a pretty decent gauge of what one might expect the the average number of people in hospital to be if it were simply 'randoms' seeking treatment for other issues. Previously when covid was being flagged as a serious NHS capacity issue, numbers in hospital with covid were so much higher than general prevalence it was pretty reasonable to assume most of them were there for covid related issues. ~100k people in hospital beds, whatever number of average new daily admissions would be 'normal' (give or take some long haulers stuck in hospital for extended periods) and compare that to ONS numbers.
It was very clear in late autumn/winter the idea suggested by some that most people in hospitals were simply randoms being treated for non covid reasons was not a reasonable assumption and it would be a (government-esque) use of exceptionally lousy statstics to attempt to claim current numbers of 25% non covid patients is necessarily applicable to the NHS hospital numbers back in Jan.
The word that I take issue with in what you say, is “assume” - you really would hope that people making decisions are doing more than assuming. As I was once told “assume makes an ass of you and me”The ONS prevalence survey gives a pretty decent gauge of what one might expect the the average number of people in hospital to be if it were simply 'randoms' seeking treatment for other issues. Previously when covid was being flagged as a serious NHS capacity issue, numbers in hospital with covid were so much higher than general prevalence it was pretty reasonable to assume most of them were there for covid related issues. ~100k people in hospital beds, whatever number of average new daily admissions would be 'normal' (give or take some long haulers stuck in hospital for extended periods) and compare that to ONS numbers.
It was very clear in late autumn/winter the idea suggested by some that most people in hospitals were simply randoms being treated for non covid reasons was not a reasonable assumption and it would be a (government-esque) use of exceptionally lousy statstics to attempt to claim current numbers of 25% non covid patients is necessarily applicable to the NHS hospital numbers back in Jan.
At the peak, there will have been a high number in hospital with direct covid issues although there will have been a percentage that weren’t. It would have been pretty beneficial for those making the decisions to have known what the true position was and not make assumptions.
That link has broken down now so that differentation in information is far more valuable and it matters now a great deal more than before. I'm not entirely certain it's worth flogging a dead horse wrt to 'with/for' covid in hospitals as far as the prior waves were concerned as there would have been very little meaningful difference either way given a quick comparison of ONS to hospitalised numbers as a rough sensibility check.
Alucidnation said:
monkfish1 said:
V1nce Fox said:
grumbledoak said:
If there’s anyone here who was in any doubt until now, there’s the final proof. There’s no denying what this is really about at this point and anyone who says otherwise can go f**k themselves. It was YOU that said it would never happen, that they could never organise it.
But they have, here it is.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff