Corona please read very important

[MurrayMurray is verified member.]

I am sympathetic to Brewsters point, there will be some people on deaths door who happened to get corona too

But if those people make up any type of meaningful amount who knows

Do they test people who die at home for corona after they die?

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

it's now taken the life of a 21 year old woman with no existing health conditions

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...ions-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-11963451

NB: I now see this has already been posted above

 

[Chris Holland]

Relief is at hand however for the unfortunately named Corona beer. One of The Land of the Perpetual Siesta's major exports:

 

[Chris Holland]

I just couldn't be bothered.

 

[newguy]

I am sympathetic to Brewsters point, there will be some people on deaths door who happened to get corona too

But if those people make up any type of meaningful amount who knows

Do they test people who die at home for corona after they die?

Yes I see what he's getting at but still. When we look at the numbers from Italy, and soon other places though, I think we can see that Covid-19 is particularly nasty. A 'they would've died soon anyway' argument can only be taken so far.

 

[newguy]

Globally, over the last four months, 19,636 people have died from Covid-19. In the same period over TWENTY TWO times that figure, 450,000 have died in road traffic accidents. Lets stop driving our cars anyone? (Based upon World Health Organisation figures at WHO.int (nice domain BTW).

The number of covid-19 deaths will likely increase dramatically if steps are not taken to interrupt that. We can see that from Italy, Spain etc. Taking a snapshot right now and comparing to car accidents (or smoking - which I agree it a terribly unhealthy thing to do) isn't really a useful comparison because it implies that the current numbers are in some way static or meaningful going forward. In reality though, if no measures were taken to at least slow the spread it would certainly dwarf the traffic accident figure.

Also, there are plenty of car safety measures and features to attempt to curtail road deaths, just as they are feeling their way in how to limit covid-19 death now. It could be argued that the approach is overkill, but it will save lives and provide valuable time to ascertain how many people have already had covid-19 (with the antibody tests), which treatment options are best, and to make sure hospitals are as well prepared as possible. All that can will further help to reduce deaths.

I do suspect though, that that after this shutdown, and possibly one more, they will essentially tell people to get on with life and for older and more vulnerable people specifically to keep a low profile for an extended period of time while this makes it's way through the population (assuming and hoping that there is medium to long term immunity afterwards). Some unpleasant months ahead.

 

[anthony]

This morning, Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter confirmed on Radio 4 that UK Flu death statistics are generally as follows:

Good Year- 700 deaths/annum
Typical Year- 8K deaths/annum
Bad Year- 13k-15k deaths/annum

 

[BREWSTERS]

They have to say linked because of how the cause and reason for death is understood for anything in life, which are often different.

You have to remember coronavirus is the overall thing but people die from the effects it can cause. Coronavirus can lead to pneumonia for example, which can kill people. So did Coronavirus kill you or did pneumonia kill you? Technically it would be classed as pneumonia. But the pneumonia was caused by Coronavirus, so would be a Coronavirus linked death.

The cancer example you stated would be correct in an aspect but it would and should still be a linked death. IE: Coronavirus sped up the existing illness, or made it worse, so it's a linked death even if it's not the direct cause of death. I would imagine the crossover when that is taken into consideration, is quite small.

You're talking as though the only people to get pneumonia get it through CV. There's a hell of a lot more people that have pneumonia before they get CV. To say CV is the overriding thing is nonsense.

75 people over 65yo die every day because of pneumonia...some of them will also have got CV...maybe while in hospital.

-----------------

I assume you all know who the CDC are?

—The CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) admits the coronavirus test is flawed.

The widespread diagnostic test for the coronavirus is insufficient, misleading, useless, and deceptive.

That test, used all over the world where it is available, is called the PCR.

It DIAGNOSES patients. “Yes, you have the virus.” “No you don’t.”

Here is a CDC paragraph about results. I suggest you read it several times.

“Positive [test] results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

I’m going to blow past the blatant contradiction in that CDC paragraph and cut to the chase.

The key line in that paragraph is: “The agent detected [the coronavirus] may not be the definite cause of disease.”

BANG.

CDC: Yeah, you see, folks, ahem, the test could say the coronavirus is there in somebody’s body, but the virus may not be causing disease…

On one level, the CDC is admitting the test could turn up false positives: the test could SAY a patient has the coronavirus, but he really doesn’t.

This isn’t a footnote stuck at the bottom of a report. It’s right there near the top of the section about the meaning of the test.

On a deeper level, the CDC is saying straight out, IF THE TEST SHOWS A CORONAVIRUS IS PRESENT, THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S CAUSING DISEASE.

Well, yes, I’ve pointed out that the test has an inherent problem. At best, it might show that a virus is present in the patient’s body. But the test is incapable of determining HOW MUCH virus is ACTIVELY REPLICATING in the patient’s body.

And why is that important? Because, to even begin to say a virus is causing actual illness in a human, there would have to be millions and millions of a virus replicating in his body—and the PCR test has never been proven, in the real world, to be able to make such a judgment call accurately.

But, if you read that CDC quote again, you’ll see the CDC is ordering labs to report a positive test result to public health agencies—where it will be counted as a “coronavirus case” come hell or high water.


Link to where you can find the information contained in the above - https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

 

[diablo]

This morning, Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter confirmed on Radio 4 that UK Flu death statistics are generally as follows:

Good Year- 700 deaths/annum
Typical Year- 8K deaths/annum
Bad Year- 13k-15k deaths/annum

The average number of flu deaths in England for the last five seasons, 2014/15 to 2018/19, was 17,000 deaths annually. That's just England, not the UK.

This ranged from 1,692 deaths in 2018/19, to 28,330 deaths in 2014/15.

This period covers increasing flu jab administration.

 

[webberwebber is verified member.]

it's now taken the life of a 21 year old woman with no existing health conditions
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...ions-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-11963451

I'm surprised this comes from Sky. I would expect this from Huff or Ladbible
The article lacks any facts apart from quotes from some FB posts... could very well be fake profiles or posts (there seems to be a few recently)
Don't jump to conclusions. Wait for the facts from trusted sources

 

[NigelNigel is verified member.]

I assume Sky have checked out the story first and the identity of the sources. There is even a photo of the 21 year old woman. What's the point of faking a story like that.

 

[webberwebber is verified member.]

I assume Sky have checked out the story first and the identity of the sources. What's the point of faking a story like that.

Never assume...
Similarly, what is the point of faking a story about dolphins or anything else?
A Merkel: "I ask you not to believe rumours, but only the official communications"

 

[Richard K]

Can you back that up with facts?

When you were asked to back up your own ‘arguments’, you replied “I’m not a dancing bear”.

Same principle applies here.

 

[BREWSTERS]

You've couldn't have posted a more conspiracy ridden blog post from a fellow conspiracy theorist, if you tried.. Classic pulling of sections that meet their conspiracy theory while ignoring the picture as a whole.

From reading the summary part of the FDA link it actually also states "Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection" - Which means it can be wrong about someone not having it also (correct me if I'm wrong). So that in theory also means MORE people may have it than we think.

Now does that mean results may be inaccurate, yes and it doesn't say what % that may be which isn't ideal. However, posting blog posts like that is again as with other things you've posted on here is extremely misleading, dishonest and dangerous.

The comments on the original blog post are just ridden with conspiracy theorists lapping it up too. The comments are the scariest part about it all. It does make me concerned about peoples mental health.

One of the comments is "COVID-19 is a giant global psy-ops and scam by our Overlords for their agenda of One World government, currency, military, and religion" - Like... what? That's the sort of reader that reads the blog posts you do.

The point of that post was to show that the PCR test is only capable of detecting a virus...it doesn't show whether that virus is at a level that can cause a problem (and not because of the false-positives or false-negatives which as you point out, possibly cancel each other out. Also, not trying to mislead as I posted a link.)

It was in conversation with those on here who seem to think that if a person who is diagnosed with CV and then dies, must've died from the CV and not their possibly long-held and severe underlying illness.

 

[LCHappy]

Aren't we about to see the truth through Sweden, those people are going for it, no lock down. If their is little differences in their stats then guess we will know.

 

[newguy]

28 deaths today in England today (and 5 in Wales, 6 in Scotland and 2 more in Northern Ireland). A surprisingly low number if accurate, so we'll have to see what tomorrow's numbers hold. I guess there's a fine line between bringing in a lockdown too early, and leaving it too late.

Attached: By country comparison

 

[LCHappy]

28 deaths today in England today

Something isn't right, numbers all over the place. If tomorrow's numbers are low, someone needs to start asking some questions. We need scientists in the lobby asking the PM questions. How many times do with need dumbo's from the BBC and SKY News asking the same dippy questions about vouchers. Let's get some opposing experts in there. Also, I'm sure the CSO and CMO are sick of the journo's asking the same stupid questions over and over.

 

[BGBG is verified member.]

Prince Charles has got the old CV as we affectionately refer to it. Wishing him well and hoping a full recovery. Hope his Mom hasn't got it.

I heard whilst Prince Charles is isolating at Balmoral with Covid-19.. Prince Andrew is isolating at Windsor with Jennifer 14.

Crazy times..

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

With reference to the figures for coronavirus deaths, they were issued with the following qualification: "Please note these figures do not cover a full 24 hour period."

That qualification is new i.e. it didn't appear in previous days.

In other words, we can't draw any conclusions at all from the new numbers, especially since the Government hasn't provided any details of how long a period was covered.

Here's their original tweet...
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1242950122981470208

 

[diablo]

With reference to the figures for coronavirus deaths, they were issued with the following qualification: "Please note these figures do not cover a full 24 hour period."

That qualification is new i.e. it didn't appear in previous days.

In other words, we can't draw any conclusions at all from the new numbers, especially since the Government hasn't provided any details of how long a period was covered.

Here's their original tweet...
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1242950122981470208

The qualification isn't part of any new conspiracy! I think we've enough of those on the thread already

The tweet from the 24th stated:

"As of 1pm, 422 patients who tested positive for coronavirus have sadly died."

https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1242479152420225025

The latest figures therefore cover 1pm to 9am (one reason they are lower than would be the case if it was a full 24 hours). That's why the tweet yesterday had the "new" qualification.

The official full announcements are here and better than going by tweets:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public#number-of-cases