|
Post by musik on Jul 16, 2020 10:39:03 GMT
It’s still getting worse, or resurging, in many countries. Is that a sign of things to come here? You’ve got to think there is a good chance. Not a chance. But a risk.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jul 16, 2020 10:52:45 GMT
A law to make masks compulsory in shops is just plain crazy. It's unenforceable and makes a mockery of the law. The only way it can work is if shops decide themselves on whether or not to allow customers in without a mask. They have the right to set their own rules. OS. You could say a lot of laws are unenforceable, I seem to remember seatbelts and drink driving being described in the same way. Laws often compel, they are enforced by society as a whole not by police. If you leave it up to individual shops then you are opening them up to law suits for people who claim to have caught the virus in a shop that doesn't follow the rule. I really don't see the problem with wearing a face covering in a shop. What is your problem with it? I have no problems at all about wearing face masks. I don't go in shops because I'm in the protected group, but if I did go in one for an emergency then I would definitely wear one. (My daughter bought me a pack of 3 and they're in the car for if I ever need one. I did on Monday because I had to attend a blood centre for some blood tests. My point was not about the efficacy of wearing a mask, it was about the enforcement of it being a law that the police don't want to enforce and the inevitable problems that are going to occur when people don't have a mask at hand and they want to go in a shop. I'm a pragmatist and not an idealist, which makes me see things that will occur and not things we want to occur. Imagine someone going into Tesco's without a mask. What will happen? Will someone call the police? Will a customer start shouting and screaming at them? Will a member of staff go to them and tell them to get out? If there was a notice outside saying clearly that nobody is allowed into the shop without a face mask and they won't be served unless they're wearing one, that would be far more effective and people would soon start wearing one before they went into a shop. The comparison between wearing face masks in shops and wearing seat belts is just silly. A far better analogy would be like the sale of cigarettes. You wouldn't go into a shop to buy some unless you looked over whatever is the legal age and you had identification to prove you're old enough to buy some. As I said in my first post, shops setting the rules would be far more effective and far less trouble. Another way of looking at it is that if people don't want to take unneccesary risks then they wouldn't go into shops that allow people to shop in there without a mask. Personally, if I had a choice to go in a shop that makes customers use masks or one that doesn't, I would always use the one that does. OS.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jul 16, 2020 11:02:46 GMT
A law to make masks compulsory in shops is just plain crazy. It's unenforceable and makes a mockery of the law. The only way it can work is if shops decide themselves on whether or not to allow customers in without a mask. They have the right to set their own rules. OS. The death rates from Covid in the US is currently 400 per million and 600 per million in the UK - both have implemented lockdowns and both are ambiguous about face masks. The death rate in Japan - where they haven't implemented a lockdown is 7 per million but everyone wears face mask with very little enforcement. In the US and the UK wearing face masks has become an enforcement and spurious civil liberties issue and most of the argument is about the effectiveness for the person wearing the mask. In Japan and other countries in the east there is more of a respect for the common good, the wearing of a mask is seen as protecting others rather than yourself and they wear them without complaint because they respect their neighbours. We've killed nearly 100 times the numbers of our fellow countrymen than Japan because we're a bunch of selfish bastards living in a society that puts self interest before the common good. To many people outside the western libertarian bubble we look like a bunch of egotistical barbarians prepared to endanger each other rather than do something that is for the most part mildly irritating and inconvenient.
As Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western Civilisation - yes it would be a good idea. The reality is that most people are not like the highlighted part of your post, but many are. And that's the problem. I think there's been a slight miscommunication of my orginal post. I'm not against the wearing of masks in shops. I'm seeing the problems that will arise because some people in our society fit your highlighted description perfectly. Hope that sorts it. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Jul 16, 2020 11:23:36 GMT
You could say a lot of laws are unenforceable, I seem to remember seatbelts and drink driving being described in the same way. Laws often compel, they are enforced by society as a whole not by police. If you leave it up to individual shops then you are opening them up to law suits for people who claim to have caught the virus in a shop that doesn't follow the rule. I really don't see the problem with wearing a face covering in a shop. What is your problem with it? I have no problems at all about wearing face masks. I don't go in shops because I'm in the protected group, but if I did go in one for an emergency then I would definitely wear one. (My daughter bought me a pack of 3 and they're in the car for if I ever need one. I did on Monday because I had to attend a blood centre for some blood tests. My point was not about the efficacy of wearing a mask, it was about the enforcement of it being a law that the police don't want to enforce and the inevitable problems that are going to occur when people don't have a mask at hand and they want to go in a shop. I'm a pragmatist and not an idealist, which makes me see things that will occur and not things we want to occur. Imagine someone going into Tesco's without a mask. What will happen? Will someone call the police? Will a customer start shouting and screaming at them? Will a member of staff go to them and tell them to get out? If there was a notice outside saying clearly that nobody is allowed into the shop without a face mask and they won't be served unless they're wearing one, that would be far more effective and people would soon start wearing one before they went into a shop. The comparison between wearing face masks in shops and wearing seat belts is just silly. A far better analogy would be like the sale of cigarettes. You wouldn't go into a shop to buy some unless you looked over whatever is the legal age and you had identification to prove you're old enough to buy some. As I said in my first post, shops setting the rules would be far more effective and far less trouble. Another way of looking at it is that if people don't want to take unneccesary risks then they wouldn't go into shops that allow people to shop in there without a mask. Personally, if I had a choice to go in a shop that makes customers use masks or one that doesn't, I would always use the one that does. OS. Shops make rules about people entering all the time, no dogs except guide dogs, no muddy boots or in the current climate no more than 3 people in the store at anyone time are obvious examples. I would say these are unenforceable rules but the majority conform as it is the right thing to do. To say that you shouldn't create a rule because some people won't won't adhere to it is plain stupid. You also seem to be obsessing on "masks" when a scarf or bandana etc are perfectly acceptable and are easily available to most. Whilst people create pointless argument's and create endless excuses for what is really a simple and reasonable request then we will all be at a higher risk.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 16, 2020 11:36:32 GMT
A law to make masks compulsory in shops is just plain crazy. It's unenforceable and makes a mockery of the law. The only way it can work is if shops decide themselves on whether or not to allow customers in without a mask. They have the right to set their own rules. OS. We've killed nearly 100 times the numbers of our fellow countrymen than Japan because we're a bunch of selfish bastards. That's bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jul 16, 2020 11:36:34 GMT
If you don’t like wearing a face mask you’ll fucking hate it in a ventilator.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 16, 2020 11:45:23 GMT
The death rates from Covid in the US is currently 400 per million and 600 per million in the UK - both have implemented lockdowns and both are ambiguous about face masks. The death rate in Japan - where they haven't implemented a lockdown is 7 per million but everyone wears face mask with very little enforcement. In the US and the UK wearing face masks has become an enforcement and spurious civil liberties issue and most of the argument is about the effectiveness for the person wearing the mask. In Japan and other countries in the east there is more of a respect for the common good, the wearing of a mask is seen as protecting others rather than yourself and they wear them without complaint because they respect their neighbours. We've killed nearly 100 times the numbers of our fellow countrymen than Japan because we're a bunch of selfish bastards living in a society that puts self interest before the common good. To many people outside the western libertarian bubble we look like a bunch of egotistical barbarians prepared to endanger each other rather than do something that is for the most part mildly irritating and inconvenient.
As Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western Civilisation - yes it would be a good idea. The reality is that most people are not like the highlighted part of your post, but many are. And that's the problem. I think there's been a slight miscommunication of my orginal post. I'm not against the wearing of masks in shops. I'm seeing the problems that will arise because some people in our society fit your highlighted description perfectly. Hope that sorts it. OS. I wasn't having a go at you - from your previous posts I get you've adopted a perfectly reasonable position on things. My post was more out of frustration at the way the debate on the whole mask wearing thing is about "me" rather than "us". Wearing masks - like inoculation - is all about the affect at a global level. It's a virtuous circle - by putting others first we all benefit as individuals. A me first culture has the opposite effect - it ends up making things worse for everybody. When all this blows over there needs to be a thorough study as to what has worked and what hasn't and for us to identify and implement best practice regardless of where it's come from rather than go it alone and define a made in Britain "world beating" solution. And that might mean looking a bit deeper at what we've become as a society.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jul 16, 2020 11:53:36 GMT
I have no problems at all about wearing face masks. I don't go in shops because I'm in the protected group, but if I did go in one for an emergency then I would definitely wear one. (My daughter bought me a pack of 3 and they're in the car for if I ever need one. I did on Monday because I had to attend a blood centre for some blood tests. My point was not about the efficacy of wearing a mask, it was about the enforcement of it being a law that the police don't want to enforce and the inevitable problems that are going to occur when people don't have a mask at hand and they want to go in a shop. I'm a pragmatist and not an idealist, which makes me see things that will occur and not things we want to occur. Imagine someone going into Tesco's without a mask. What will happen? Will someone call the police? Will a customer start shouting and screaming at them? Will a member of staff go to them and tell them to get out? If there was a notice outside saying clearly that nobody is allowed into the shop without a face mask and they won't be served unless they're wearing one, that would be far more effective and people would soon start wearing one before they went into a shop. The comparison between wearing face masks in shops and wearing seat belts is just silly. A far better analogy would be like the sale of cigarettes. You wouldn't go into a shop to buy some unless you looked over whatever is the legal age and you had identification to prove you're old enough to buy some. As I said in my first post, shops setting the rules would be far more effective and far less trouble. Another way of looking at it is that if people don't want to take unneccesary risks then they wouldn't go into shops that allow people to shop in there without a mask. Personally, if I had a choice to go in a shop that makes customers use masks or one that doesn't, I would always use the one that does. OS. Shops make rules about people entering all the time, no dogs except guide dogs, no muddy boots or in the current climate no more than 3 people in the store at anyone time are obvious examples. I would say these are unenforceable rules but the majority conform as it is the right thing to do. To say that you shouldn't create a rule because some people won't won't adhere to it is plain stupid. You also seem to be obsessing on "masks" when a scarf or bandana etc are perfectly acceptable and are easily available to most. Whilst people create pointless argument's and create endless excuses for what is really a simple and reasonable request then we will all be at a higher risk. And I think your ramblings are trying to create a dispute for the sake of it, which is exactly what will happen in shops when they bring out this unenforceable mask law in shops. If we can start a row on a messageboard about facemasks, then just think what it will be like when some burly, heavily tattooed ex-SAS bastard walks into a shop without a mask. I'm old and frail so if it happens to me, send me your phone number and you can come and sort him out. OS.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jul 16, 2020 12:13:56 GMT
I have no problems at all about wearing face masks. I don't go in shops because I'm in the protected group, but if I did go in one for an emergency then I would definitely wear one. (My daughter bought me a pack of 3 and they're in the car for if I ever need one. I did on Monday because I had to attend a blood centre for some blood tests. My point was not about the efficacy of wearing a mask, it was about the enforcement of it being a law that the police don't want to enforce and the inevitable problems that are going to occur when people don't have a mask at hand and they want to go in a shop. I'm a pragmatist and not an idealist, which makes me see things that will occur and not things we want to occur. Imagine someone going into Tesco's without a mask. What will happen? Will someone call the police? Will a customer start shouting and screaming at them? Will a member of staff go to them and tell them to get out? If there was a notice outside saying clearly that nobody is allowed into the shop without a face mask and they won't be served unless they're wearing one, that would be far more effective and people would soon start wearing one before they went into a shop. The comparison between wearing face masks in shops and wearing seat belts is just silly. A far better analogy would be like the sale of cigarettes. You wouldn't go into a shop to buy some unless you looked over whatever is the legal age and you had identification to prove you're old enough to buy some. As I said in my first post, shops setting the rules would be far more effective and far less trouble. Another way of looking at it is that if people don't want to take unneccesary risks then they wouldn't go into shops that allow people to shop in there without a mask. Personally, if I had a choice to go in a shop that makes customers use masks or one that doesn't, I would always use the one that does. OS. Shops make rules about people entering all the time, no dogs except guide dogs, no muddy boots or in the current climate no more than 3 people in the store at anyone time are obvious examples. I would say these are unenforceable rules but the majority conform as it is the right thing to do. To say that you shouldn't create a rule because some people won't won't adhere to it is plain stupid. You also seem to be obsessing on "masks" when a scarf or bandana etc are perfectly acceptable and are easily available to most. Whilst people create pointless argument's and create endless excuses for what is really a simple and reasonable request then we will all be at a higher risk. Whilst most do conform to the rules there are still many that don't. So whilst Bozzo and his chums sit in westminster passing these new rules it's people like my better half on not much more than minimum wage that has to deal face to face with the non facemask wearing customers. That's on top of the customers already moaning about queing to get in, moaning about NHS staff getting straight in, moaning about Betty who's got hand sanitizer in her basket when there's non on the shelves, and that's all before they get to the shoplifters who really don't give a f@*k about any rules. I'm all for face coverings but it should be enforced by the goverments people not businesses and the "Good of the people" because there's simply too much bad in society that means innocent shop floor staff facing the brunt of the d!ckheads amongst us.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jul 16, 2020 12:36:11 GMT
Shops make rules about people entering all the time, no dogs except guide dogs, no muddy boots or in the current climate no more than 3 people in the store at anyone time are obvious examples. I would say these are unenforceable rules but the majority conform as it is the right thing to do. To say that you shouldn't create a rule because some people won't won't adhere to it is plain stupid. You also seem to be obsessing on "masks" when a scarf or bandana etc are perfectly acceptable and are easily available to most. Whilst people create pointless argument's and create endless excuses for what is really a simple and reasonable request then we will all be at a higher risk. Whilst most do conform to the rules there are still many that don't. So whilst Bozzo and his chums sit in westminster passing these new rules it's people like my better half on not much more than minimum wage that has to deal face to face with the non facemask wearing customers. That's on top of the customers already moaning about queing to get in, moaning about NHS staff getting straight in, moaning about Betty who's got hand sanitizer in her basket when there's non on the shelves, and that's all before they get to the shoplifters who really don't give a f@*k about any rules. I'm all for face coverings but it should be enforced by the goverments people not businesses and the "Good of the people" because there's simply too much bad in society that means innocent shop floor staff facing the brunt of the d!ckheads amongst us. That's exactly the point I was making. My eldest grandchild has been working part time at Tesco's in Cardiff for the last 4 years whilst studying for a degree and Masters and has come across all those you describe. During this lockdown she's had customers ignoring all the self-distancing rules and when she's tried to make them adhere to them, she's had loads of dog's abuse for doing so. This is the reality of dealing with people and why the police don't want to get involved. Not only do they not have the manpower, they know full well that it will be like dealing with the shit domestics they have to sort out 24/7. OS.
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Jul 16, 2020 12:53:45 GMT
If New York city can make a "no mask-no entry" policy work it's hardly a stretch to think it will also work in the Potteries. We aren't that different.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 16, 2020 13:37:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 13:51:42 GMT
That's an interesting twist.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2020 14:42:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 16, 2020 15:33:34 GMT
Only 66 deaths reported for the last 24 hour period, 89 last Thursday 642 new cases though
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 16, 2020 16:31:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jul 16, 2020 16:44:22 GMT
A law to make masks compulsory in shops is just plain crazy. It's unenforceable and makes a mockery of the law. The only way it can work is if shops decide themselves on whether or not to allow customers in without a mask. They have the right to set their own rules. OS. This is the problem with our "free society" Mick. Lots of people moaning that "guidance" isn't clear, other complaining about too many rules, whilst not even the scientists can agree on the real value of face coverings. Common sense should prevail...but heh...it aint so common No one is going to "enforce" this, and anyone exempt just has to say so, and they won't be challenged any further, so if someone doesn't want to wear a mask they can just say "I'm exempt" but then it is up to them, and their conscience, if they end up spreading this virus. Outlets setting their own rules will only add to the existing confusion and could lead to other issues...and be very hard to manage unless they employ door security people Personally I feel that bringing in this rule is helpful in reminding folk that the virus is still with us and we should continue to take great care...loosening of lock down has seen many people seemingly forget there is a problem...and Leicester has had to lock down again, partly as a consequence of this, as well as other factors. My daughter noticed earlier today how mask wearing shoppers were also keeping to social distance guidelines whilst many of those not wearing masks were leaning over people in the shop...maybe the mask has a psychological effect on peoples attitudes Who knows
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Jul 16, 2020 16:50:32 GMT
Whilst most do conform to the rules there are still many that don't. So whilst Bozzo and his chums sit in westminster passing these new rules it's people like my better half on not much more than minimum wage that has to deal face to face with the non facemask wearing customers. That's on top of the customers already moaning about queing to get in, moaning about NHS staff getting straight in, moaning about Betty who's got hand sanitizer in her basket when there's non on the shelves, and that's all before they get to the shoplifters who really don't give a f@*k about any rules. I'm all for face coverings but it should be enforced by the goverments people not businesses and the "Good of the people" because there's simply too much bad in society that means innocent shop floor staff facing the brunt of the d!ckheads amongst us. That's exactly the point I was making. My eldest grandchild has been working part time at Tesco's in Cardiff for the last 4 years whilst studying for a degree and Masters and has come across all those you describe. During this lockdown she's had customers ignoring all the self-distancing rules and when she's tried to make them adhere to them, she's had loads of dog's abuse for doing so. This is the reality of dealing with people and why the police don't want to get involved. Not only do they not have the manpower, they know full well that it will be like dealing with the shit domestics they have to sort out 24/7. OS. Fuck it! You are both right, it's too hard. It's much easier to let people die, lets go with that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 16, 2020 16:58:15 GMT
A law to make masks compulsory in shops is just plain crazy. It's unenforceable and makes a mockery of the law. The only way it can work is if shops decide themselves on whether or not to allow customers in without a mask. They have the right to set their own rules. OS. My daughter noticed earlier today how mask wearing shoppers were also keeping to social distance guidelines whilst many of those not wearing masks were leaning over people in the shop...maybe the mask has a psychological effect on peoples attitudes Who knows Surely that's because the people wearing the masks are socially aware and want to play their part to help stop the virus spreading by following social distancing guidelines too. Whereas the others are just selfish fuckers who couldn't really give a toss.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jul 16, 2020 17:51:04 GMT
My daughter noticed earlier today how mask wearing shoppers were also keeping to social distance guidelines whilst many of those not wearing masks were leaning over people in the shop...maybe the mask has a psychological effect on peoples attitudes Who knows Surely that's because the people wearing the masks are socially aware and want to play their part to help stop the virus spreading by following social distancing guidelines too. Whereas the others are just selfish fuckers who couldn't really give a toss. Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that folks on here were arguing the exact opposite, that it was the people wearing masks who were ignoring the social distancing and leaning over people in shops because they thought the masks made them indestructible? One of the key things with people wearing masks is that it will make the workplace physically safer for shop staff. If everyone is wearing a mask then no one is going to get thumped for asking a customer to put one on. (I was talking to someone last night who had to smuggle a member of their staff out of the back door because an irate customer had returned to the store and was waiting in the car park with a baseball bat. That was about queueing/ numbers in store but it would a least be one less reason for such behaviour). Up until this week I had been following the Government experts advice that social distancing, hand cleaning etc was far more important than facemasks. I wore one today for the first time in Morrisons in Stone while doing my elderly mother's shopping to try and get into the habit before they become compulsory. I doubt even 10% of customers were wearing masks but then I would also say that when I go there I have also not seen any issues with either queueing, social distancing or people reaching over others in the store.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 16, 2020 18:27:17 GMT
In effect, all I've said is that the threat of this virus has been overstated, the test is uncertain as to revealing actual infection, the care home system seems to have inflated the figures for deaths that last year wouldn't have been classed as c19, especially when many deaths are been diagnosed on vague symptoms alone. And, also, by their very nature, care homes contain those that are towards the end of their lives. In light of this, I don't think lockdowns are warranted or justified when world deaths are less than a bad flu year, considering the catastrophic long-term effect on lives and livelihoods, health and poverty. Also , I don't wish to sacrifice the very basic of liberties on the altar of Covid19, with many rules and inconsistencies suggesting more of an aspect of control rather than health. It's others that have demanded a 'grand theory of everything' conspiracy. I understand the desire for this but ultimately it doesn't change some of the things I've just listed. I think if that was as far as it ever went, folk wouldn't take so much issue with what you say and have you down as a conspiracy theorist (although to be fair, I can't say I blame anyone for doing so, since almost every thread that has a contribution from your good self will be one hinting (at the very least!) about shadowy behind the scenes forces at work). However when you post stuff like this on a regular basis, it's difficult not to come to that conclusion: Pig flu is more bullshit to add to the current covid1984 bullshit. Although the ace up the Globalists sleeve is food shortages, so you never know. Just wait for that one. More stuff to question. The numbers seem arbitrary. And, if arbitrary they are meaningless. And if meaningless, we are being played. I believe most of it, at least, is bullshit. Just an opinion. My main concern has never been the virus, but the game behind it. If that doesn't indicate conspiracy theorist, I'm not sure what does... I said the numbers didn't represent a 24 hour period. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8529269/Daily-death-toll-INFLATED-fewer-40-people-dying-day-UK.htmlWho knows what else they doing with these numbers. That in itself is 'conspired' by people. I got slated for saying people are wasting their time discussing daily death counts. At least it kept the stattos entertained for no purpose. These numbers can be inflated and deflated at will to induce a panic/release response from the public. A known technique in psychological control.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 16, 2020 19:22:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 16, 2020 19:37:55 GMT
It’s still getting worse, or resurging, in many countries. Is that a sign of things to come here? You’ve got to think there is a good chance. Or maybe we have told the truth throughout
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 16, 2020 19:38:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 16, 2020 20:13:43 GMT
www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/This is staggering. PHE are actively checking databases to see if patients who tested positive for coronavirus are still alive or not (probably the elderly) There are now cases of people who tested positive earlier in the year, recovered from the virus but have subsequently died from some other condition like a heart attack, stroke or cancer but are being counted as a COVID-19 death. As the article says, "By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness". There has to be an inquiry into this.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 16, 2020 20:19:12 GMT
www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/This is staggering. PHE are actively checking databases to see if patients who tested positive for coronavirus are still alive or not (probably the elderly) There are now cases of people who tested positive earlier in the year, recovered from the virus but have subsequently died from some other condition like a heart attack, stroke or cancer but are being counted as a COVID-19 death. As the article says, "By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness". There has to be an inquiry into this. In the end 100% of people who have tested positive for Covid will die. We could still be reporting Covid deaths in the year 2100 on this basis :-)
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 16, 2020 20:39:54 GMT
www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/This is staggering. PHE are actively checking databases to see if patients who tested positive for coronavirus are still alive or not (probably the elderly) There are now cases of people who tested positive earlier in the year, recovered from the virus but have subsequently died from some other condition like a heart attack, stroke or cancer but are being counted as a COVID-19 death. As the article says, "By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness". There has to be an inquiry into this. In the end 100% of people who have tested positive for Covid will die. We could still be reporting Covid deaths in the year 2100 on this basis :-) Another method of Covid figure inflation. Why does a 'deadly pandemic' require numbers to be inflated? Clearly it's not deadly enough for certain agendas. You'd think authorities would be downplaying numbers to make the response look as good as possible. Instead we have the desperation to label any and every death as Covid19.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Jul 16, 2020 21:08:07 GMT
www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/This is staggering. PHE are actively checking databases to see if patients who tested positive for coronavirus are still alive or not (probably the elderly) There are now cases of people who tested positive earlier in the year, recovered from the virus but have subsequently died from some other condition like a heart attack, stroke or cancer but are being counted as a COVID-19 death. As the article says, "By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness". There has to be an inquiry into this. It depends what is classed as recovered. You can spend weeks on a ventilator without Covid19. The virus can cause blood clots even in mild cases so these people may not be going to hospital as they appear to recover and then die at home weeks or months later. Excess deaths still give the best indicator to what roughly the number of deaths is from Covid19. What people should find scary is the number of those people who were at deaths door without knowing. Maybe people who have tested positive should get scans to check for possible issues caused by the virus. Your have to be wary that we still don't know a great deal about this virus and what affects it has on the body.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 22:00:28 GMT
In the end 100% of people who have tested positive for Covid will die. We could still be reporting Covid deaths in the year 2100 on this basis :-) Another method of Covid figure inflation. Why does a 'deadly pandemic' require numbers to be inflated? Clearly it's not deadly enough for certain agendas. You'd think authorities would be downplaying numbers to make the response look as good as possible. Instead we have the desperation to label any and every death as Covid19. You can’t fudge excess death figures......
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 16, 2020 23:40:17 GMT
Another method of Covid figure inflation. Why does a 'deadly pandemic' require numbers to be inflated? Clearly it's not deadly enough for certain agendas. You'd think authorities would be downplaying numbers to make the response look as good as possible. Instead we have the desperation to label any and every death as Covid19. You can’t fudge excess death figures...... You can encourage them through care homes. They started at the point of lockdown. I have no doubt that lockdown and cancelled medical treatment contributed to thousands of excess deaths. Even the ones not labelled covid19 amount to around 15,000 a month ago. This is in the excess deaths number. And, as I've said the covid labeling is extremely dubious at the very best, or total bullshit. I would go as far to say that lockdown and care home DNR forms and the resulting neglect caused the majority of excess deaths.
|
|