Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

Here's the chart on excess deaths taken from your source. I believe that someone else has already posted it. It's on page 54.
View attachment 506505

They also had the following chart on page 51, showing deaths from all causes, up into early 2020. Notice something interesting at the right hand side of the chart?

View attachment 506507

yes, the death rate has increased. It also increases every winter from flu, what is the acceptable number of deaths from COVID for us to carry on as normal and what requires restrictions to be imposed? Apparently 20,000 some years from flu is fine.
 
hmmmm, Sweden


Dated 30th March, before T-Cell immunity became a 'thing' in July onwards.

 
“So, what is the acceptable number of deaths per measure imposed for COVID before everyone stays in their houses until they die from another cause? “
Which country has imposed this?

are you wilfully misunderstanding? To entirely stop the spread everyone could brick themselves into their home. That’s not practical, so some people will have to go out and be exposed. how many of those key workers must die to keep things going? Why is it acceptable for them to die? How many people is it acceptable to die? Are hairdressers worth it?
 
are you wilfully misunderstanding? To entirely stop the spread everyone could brick themselves into their home. That’s not practical, so some people will have to go out and be exposed. how many of those key workers must die to keep things going? Why is it acceptable for them to die? How many people is it acceptable to die? Are hairdressers worth it?
There is no misunderstanding. You put up a strawman argument about “locking people in their houses until they die of something else”.

Why are you so fixated on trying to elicit an answer to a false premise? The reason for lockdown in Spring was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by a large number of very sick people, not because there was a trigger value of the number of people expected to die.
 
You misunderstand my point. Which is, we regulate and then accept deaths. To achieve no deaths from driving would be simple - ban all cars and lorries. We don’t do that, we accept a number of deaths and try to make driving safer. So, what is the acceptable number of deaths per measure imposed for COVID before everyone stays in their houses until they die from another cause? 60,000 for a school lockdown, 50,000 for office workers to work from home? 70,000 for shopworkers to mask? There is either a methodology or not. 20,000 flu deaths is not enough to have caused any change so what number was the tipping point for COVID?
Let's hear your numbers for how many deaths you think would be acceptable and then we'll have something to debate.
 
Let's hear your numbers for how many deaths you think would be acceptable and then we'll have something to debate.
Or how many sick people should be turned away from hospital to suffer and possibly die at home because there isn’t the capacity to treat them.
 
There is no misunderstanding. You put up a strawman argument about “locking people in their houses until they die of something else”.

Why are you so fixated on trying to elicit an answer to a false premise? The reason for lockdown in Spring was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed by a large number of very sick people, not because there was a trigger value of the number of people expected to die.

there is no false premise. Either the key is to prevent total deaths or to prevent overwhelm of the NHS. The latter did not happen. In fact there was significant spare capacity in the end.

we can try to live in a zero risk world - everyone stays in their house forever. Or there is a tolerable level of risk. It is key to articulate what that tolerable level of risk is for life as normal . For flu it is at least 20,000 people a year, for driving 2,000 deaths and 130,000 injured.
 
We had almost empty Nightingale hospitals in the UK during the height of the last pandemic.

They're mothballed now.
I was expecting this response. I don’t suppose you can see the irony in you bleating about the Nightingale hospitals not being required because the measures you whine about were sufficiently successful.
 
Let's hear your numbers for how many deaths you think would be acceptable and then we'll have something to debate.

I’d say 35,000 in 2021. 20,000 for flu is apparently acceptable. This is anew disease but I’m value-added years, I don’t think ruining young people’s education and jobs is matched by 80+ yr olds living another year in isolation.
 
I was expecting this response. I don’t suppose you can see the irony in you bleating about the Nightingale hospitals not being required because the measures you whine about were sufficiently successful.

Sweden didn't overwhelm their hospitals either, with simple social distancing, hand washing, and other light-touch measures.

Same goes for the Motherland (Japan).
 
there is no false premise.
At least be honest with yourself. The false premise is that there is a trigger number of deaths that should result in people being locked in their homes. Those are your words, not any proposals by any Government anywhere in the world that I am aware of.

Either the key is to prevent total deaths or to prevent overwhelm of the NHS. The latter did not happen. In fact there was significant spare capacity in the end.
dear god, but I’m losing the will to live. Can you think of a reason why the latter didn’t happen? Do you think it might be something to do with the very thing you’re moaning about? Restrictions?

we can try to live in a zero risk world - everyone stays in their house forever. Or there is a tolerable level of risk. It is key to articulate what that tolerable level of risk is for life as normal . For flu it is at least 20,000 people a year, for driving 2,000 deaths and 130,000 injured.
Tell me who has suggested staying in their house forever.
 

AfricaExpat

Old-Salt
Here is a piece from Dr Mike Yeadon who is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D.

  • PCR tests absolutely hopeless and the number of false positives is absurd.
  • He supported the first lockdown but now has totally changed opinion.
  • Government seems to have no model of what sort of second wave is expected.
  • Government still refuses to discuss the extent of false positives.
  • When "cases" are adjusted for expected positivity the growth is massively less inflated and I would say matches the growth in fatalities
 
I'll say 80,000 would be acceptable for the UK. That's like double a really bad flu year.

It's a bit less than half of our annual cancer deaths.
How would you use that 80,000 deaths figure? Would you base it on projected deaths, or would you do nothing until 80,000 had already died?

This is a very relevant question, because one of the leading public health research centres, the IHME at the University of Washington are as of today projecting 93,429 COVID-19 deaths for the UK by the end of this year, assuming the UK government does not impose additional measures.

As this number is greater than your 80,000 by a considerable margin, does this mean you don't think the UK government are currently doing enough to control the pandemic in the UK? What additional measures do you think are necessary in order to get the projected number of deaths below the 80,000 mark?
 
I’d say 35,000 in 2021. 20,000 for flu is apparently acceptable. This is anew disease but I’m value-added years, I don’t think ruining young people’s education and jobs is matched by 80+ yr olds living another year in isolation.
This is still 2020. How many do you think is acceptable for 2020? What is your plan for reacting enough in advance to hit that target?
 
How would you use that 80,000 deaths figure?

I'd wait till we reach about 60k and then install a lockdown. The other 20k would be the residual deaths.

Maybe 70k with 10k residual.

My social care policy would be good afterwards though (much more cash to spend on the elderly through pension savings/NHS costs).
 

Latest Threads

Top