Jump to content

Coronavirus pandemic


CJGJ
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I picked the day that had the highest deaths on the data that was available at that time. 

The deaths peaked in the UK on the 6th January. More deaths might get added at a later date

I use the 'date of death' data because 'date reported' could add deaths from months ago 

😂😂😂😂 I'm sure there's loads of bodies lying in folks spare rooms for months just so they can muck up England's stats a few months later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • The Real Maroonblood

    3408

  • redjambo

    3853

  • Victorian

    3998

  • JamesM48

    7306

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Footballfirst
2 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

I picked the day that had the highest deaths on the data that was available at that time. 

The deaths peaked in the UK on the 6th January. More deaths might get added at a later date

I use the 'date of death' data because 'date reported' could add deaths from months ago 

I doubt it very much.  You only get 8 days to register a death in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I doubt it very much.  You only get 8 days to register a death in Scotland.

It's all about making Scotland look bad and England justified to do what they're doing or done! 

 

Unionists can't help themselves. Shower of fools, most of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

The bottom line is that Scotland would have gotten through it much the same without the need for more restrictions

35 deaths a day instead of 18.  👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis Denuto
9 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I doubt it very much.  You only get 8 days to register a death in Scotland.

TBF to Nucky over the holidays reporting of deaths is all over the place and the date of death is a much more accurate representation, however it soon makes little difference and both reported and date of death averages usually even up.

 

That 41 figure has some deaths going back to December in it, but I would expect it to even up any day now so the seven day average would be about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

TBF to Nucky over the holidays reporting of deaths is all over the place and the date of death is a much more accurate representation, however it soon makes little difference and both reported and date of death averages usually even up.

 

That 41 figure has some deaths going back to December in it, but I would expect it to even up any day now so the seven day average would be about the same.

19 in Scotland and 24 in England are the current 7 day average. 

 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson
9 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's all about making Scotland look bad and England justified to do what they're doing or done! 

 

Unionists can't help themselves. Shower of fools, most of them.

C'mon Roxy FFS. You need to get this chip of your shoulder when it comes to England.

 

They done the right thing when it came to the omicron variant, maybe more luck than anything else, but that's a different story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS

The death thing brings us right back to the 28 day period. Self isolating reduced to 7 and 5 days yet they are still counting deaths after 28 days of a test. After 28 days you are clear of covid and have no symptoms. They should be reporting deaths from covid and nothing else. The death rate above seasonal average could also be partly down to those who refused to report a problem, due to not wanting to burden the NHS, so you can't use that stat either. SO the only true figure is those who died for no other reason than Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
20 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The death thing brings us right back to the 28 day period. Self isolating reduced to 7 and 5 days yet they are still counting deaths after 28 days of a test. After 28 days you are clear of covid and have no symptoms. They should be reporting deaths from covid and nothing else. The death rate above seasonal average could also be partly down to those who refused to report a problem, due to not wanting to burden the NHS, so you can't use that stat either. SO the only true figure is those who died for no other reason than Covid.

You do realise that, in addition to the reported 50 in ICU who have tested positive within 28 days, there are another 12 in ICU who have been there for more than 28 days, therefore aren't included in the headline daily stats.

 

They do report on "deaths from covid", but that is only published weekly in the NRS stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
43 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

You do realise that, in addition to the reported 50 in ICU who have tested positive within 28 days, there are another 12 in ICU who have been there for more than 28 days, therefore aren't included in the headline daily stats.

 

They do report on "deaths from covid", but that is only published weekly in the NRS stats.

The NRS stats are not being reported in the media though. The BBC and press are giving false figures keeping the fear factor going. Had they from the start, ONLY used deaths FROM covid then the public could make up their own mind as to the risks they are wiling to take.

The tide is turning and those who perpetuated this myth are being found out and all trust in the media has been eroded.

No matter how you want to twist the figures, even you have to admit that someone who tested positive 28 days ago, and dies of a stroke SHOULD NOT be counted in the figures reported. IF you are clear after 7 or even 5 days then surely deaths after that period Can't be down to covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:


Take his knighthood off him. 

No he can keep it as long as he agrees never to appear on tv again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
2 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Heres another one who needs to deck off as well.  Seriously

 

Next Covid variant could be 'more severe' than Omicron, Jason Leitch has warned - Daily Record

Ok I may be wrong here but I though the generally accepted theory was viruses get weaker as more strains come along. Leitch needs to be put out to pasture along with Sturgeon. Both have over stepped their authority and it's time for them to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Ok I may be wrong here but I though the generally accepted theory was viruses get weaker as more strains come along. Leitch needs to be put out to pasture along with Sturgeon. Both have over stepped their authority and it's time for them to go.

I thought that too but may be wrong . I’m sure if we are the resident epidemiologists will kindly inform us . The issue I have with this man and ofcourse Sturgeon is their lack of positivity and hope . It’s always doom and gloom . Omicron was and is very mild . I think I have it . It’s very mild 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
8 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

I thought that too but may be wrong . I’m sure if we are the resident epidemiologists will kindly inform us . The issue I have with this man and ofcourse Sturgeon is their lack of positivity and hope . It’s always doom and gloom . Omicron was and is very mild . I think I have it . It’s very mild 

They knew it was mild as the evidence came from SA. They then tried to induce fear by claiming differences between each culture. However they failed to admit that we are more vaccinated and must be in a far BETTER place. So the restrictions( sorry Protections ) were brought in under false data. I have said many many times it matters not how many catch it, the main thing is the number needing medical treatment. They created a situation whereby hospital staff had to isolate which created a false shortage in staff in the wards. They have no defense but will remain in power as any subsequent inquiry will take years to produce any significant findings.

Edited by Ex member of the SaS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

They knew it was mild as the evidence came from SA. They then tried to induce fear by claiming differences between each culture. However they failed to admit that we are more vaccinated and must be in a far BETTER place. So the restrictions( sorry Protections ) were brought in under false data. I have said many many times it matters not how many catch it, the main thing is the number needing medical treatment. They created a situation whereby hospital staff had to isolate which created a false shortage in staff in the wards. They have no defense but will remain in power as any subsequent inquiry will take years to produce any significant findings.

All correct . It was mainly just a ruse to get more people boosted . A scare tactic yet again . Reprehensible really . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Ok I may be wrong here but I though the generally accepted theory was viruses get weaker as more strains come along. Leitch needs to be put out to pasture along with Sturgeon. Both have over stepped their authority and it's time for them to go.

 

You got the first bit right.  The bit about being wrong.

 

Viruses do not get weaker as a generally accepted rule.  The effects of viruses get weaker due to the defences of the immune system.  There is no previously discovered example of a human adapted virus becoming weaker when immunisation is removed from the calculus.  Some of the weaker effects of Omicron is being theorised to be due to it finding it harder to replicate and increase infection in the lungs.  Even that hasn't been determined to be a trait of the virus alone or a consequence of immunisation,  either acquired from infection or vaccine.  If it is found to be separate to any immune memory,  even this small decrease in virulence would be most unusual.

 

But a basic principle that viruses become weaker as they evolve?  No.  Never yet seen.  That doesn't preclude covid being the first such example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You got the first bit right.  The bit about being wrong.

 

Viruses do not get weaker as a generally accepted rule.  The effects of viruses get weaker due to the defences of the immune system.  There is no previously discovered example of a human adapted virus becoming weaker when immunisation is removed from the calculus.  Some of the weaker effects of Omicron is being theorised to be due to it finding it harder to replicate and increase infection in the lungs.  Even that hasn't been determined to be a trait of the virus alone or a consequence of immunisation,  either acquired from infection or vaccine.  If it is found to be separate to any immune memory,  even this small decrease in virulence would be most unusual.

 

But a basic principle that viruses become weaker as they evolve?  No.  Never yet seen.  That doesn't preclude covid being the first such example.

👍 yes I read that omicron struggled to get to the lungs hence it being less virulent . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

👍 yes I read that omicron struggled to get to the lungs hence it being less virulent . 

 

It would be quite novel to virology for a virus to be shown to lose virulence in such a way.  It may still be a consequence of immune protection.  The speed and scale of the evolution of this coronavirus appears to exceed the amount of mutations that related and other respiratory viruses produce.  Probably due to the original Wuhan strain being novel,  the original naive immune system defences and the size and interconnectivity of the modern world population.  It has had an opportunity to evolve amidst it's pool of hosts like no previous virus.  That seems to provide a possibility that it may continue to behave outside of previously accepted principles.  Not all of the theoretical possibilities are good.  Some are particularly bad.  We just need to hope that the more likely evolutionary path transpires.  

Edited by Victorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It would be quite novel to virology for a virus to be shown to lose virulence in such a way.  It may still be a consequence of immune protection.  The speed and scale of the evolution of this coronavirus appears to exceed the amount of mutations that related and other respiratory viruses produce.  Probably due to the original Wuhan strain being novel,  the original naive immune system defences and the size and interconnectivity of the modern world population.  It has had an opportunity to evolve amidst it's pool of hosts like no previous virus.  That seems to provide a possibility that it may continue to behave outside of previously accepted principles.  Not all of the theoretical possibilities are good.  Some are particularly bad.  We just need to hope that the more likely evolutionary path transpires.  

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
39 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You got the first bit right.  The bit about being wrong.

 

Viruses do not get weaker as a generally accepted rule.  The effects of viruses get weaker due to the defences of the immune system.  There is no previously discovered example of a human adapted virus becoming weaker when immunisation is removed from the calculus.  Some of the weaker effects of Omicron is being theorised to be due to it finding it harder to replicate and increase infection in the lungs.  Even that hasn't been determined to be a trait of the virus alone or a consequence of immunisation,  either acquired from infection or vaccine.  If it is found to be separate to any immune memory,  even this small decrease in virulence would be most unusual.

 

But a basic principle that viruses become weaker as they evolve?  No.  Never yet seen.  That doesn't preclude covid being the first such example.

Because the goal of a virus is to survive, replicate, and spread, it tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly. There are exceptions and other factors, but in general, says Auclair, that’s what virologists expect to see occur with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

 

This sounds like it get weaker to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Because the goal of a virus is to survive, replicate, and spread, it tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly. There are exceptions and other factors, but in general, says Auclair, that’s what virologists expect to see occur with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

 

This sounds like it get weaker to me.

 

That principle has been widely challenged and debunked.  This virus,  like some others,  gains no reproductive advantage via becoming less deadly.  It performs it's reproductive cycle regardless of how ill it makes it's host.  It infects... it replicates... it transmits onwards... all entirely independently of subsequent illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

IF you are clear after 7 or even 5 days then surely deaths after that period Can't be down to covid.

Wow, just wow. So you have Covid, end up really ill, get taken to hospital, get worse so end up in ICU, get worse so put on a ventilator, get worse and die. All this in 5 days or it's not Covid???? Do you realise how dumb that makes you sound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam_the_legend
39 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It would be quite novel to virology for a virus to be shown to lose virulence in such a way.  It may still be a consequence of immune protection.  The speed and scale of the evolution of this coronavirus appears to exceed the amount of mutations that related and other respiratory viruses produce.  Probably due to the original Wuhan strain being novel,  the original naive immune system defences and the size and interconnectivity of the modern world population.  It has had an opportunity to evolve amidst it's pool of hosts like no previous virus.  That seems to provide a possibility that it may continue to behave outside of previously accepted principles.  Not all of the theoretical possibilities are good.  Some are particularly bad.  We just need to hope that the more likely evolutionary path transpires.  

Though you’re missing one key point, this virus most likely didn’t come from nature, not completely anyway. Leaked emails between fauci, Collins, farrar and vallance show they couldn’t explain certain aspects of its genetic make up and even in the early days thought it likely came from a lab. This is a virus like no other and it’s behaving as such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Adam_the_legend said:

Though you’re missing one key point, this virus most likely didn’t come from nature, not completely anyway. Leaked emails between fauci, Collins, farrar and vallance show they couldn’t explain certain aspects of its genetic make up and even in the early days thought it likely came from a lab. This is a virus like no other and it’s behaving as such. 

 

Not missing that point.  I think there's a very good chance it was an engineered strain leaked from a lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
2 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The NRS stats are not being reported in the media though. The BBC and press are giving false figures keeping the fear factor going. Had they from the start, ONLY used deaths FROM covid then the public could make up their own mind as to the risks they are wiling to take.

The tide is turning and those who perpetuated this myth are being found out and all trust in the media has been eroded.

No matter how you want to twist the figures, even you have to admit that someone who tested positive 28 days ago, and dies of a stroke SHOULD NOT be counted in the figures reported. IF you are clear after 7 or even 5 days then surely deaths after that period Can't be down to covid.

Virtually everyone who is "clear" of Covid after 5 or 7 days doesn't go onto die within the next 21 days from Covid, or anything else.

 

I'm going to quote NRS stats for 2020 an 2021 again (total of both years):

 

Covid recorded on the death certificate  -   12,470

 

Covid deemed the primary cause of death   -   10,828 (87%)

 

Daily deaths within 28 days of a +ve Covid test   -   9,678

 

Excess deaths   -   12,940 ...... of which are due to Covid 10,828 (84%) 

 

The "myth" that is consistently perpetuated, is that somehow Covid isn't responsible for many of the deaths that have been attributed to it.  The above figures  clearly demonstrate that the "myth" is unfounded.

 

If only "deaths due to Covid" were reported in the media, then the numbers would actually be higher than the 28 day measure currently reported.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

highlandjambo3

Might sound a bit daft but, see this isolation fixed period it  could be more flexible.  
 

Let’s say you test positive but, it’s the first test you’ve taken for a week or so……it could be that your now at the very end of the infection cycle and just about to shake it off.  So by current rules you go into this mandatory self isolation period but might spend most of this time infection free……….would it not make more sense (and be more practical) that if you test positive and go into self isolation testing daily then, after 2 negative tests over a 2 day period your clear and you come out of isolation………..simple no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Might sound a bit daft but, see this isolation fixed period it  could be more flexible.  
 

Let’s say you test positive but, it’s the first test you’ve taken for a week or so……it could be that your now at the very end of the infection cycle and just about to shake it off.  So by current rules you go into this mandatory self isolation period but might spend most of this time infection free……….would it not make more sense (and be more practical) that if you test positive and go into self isolation testing daily then, after 2 negative tests over a 2 day period your clear and you come out of isolation………..simple no?

 

Might be a redundant idea.  Within a few months or so there may be no general testing and isolation at all.  Everything depends on the ongoing clinical situation but,  if possible and excluding further evolutionary twists,  ending isolation will be of epidemiological benefit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Might sound a bit daft but, see this isolation fixed period it  could be more flexible.  
 

Let’s say you test positive but, it’s the first test you’ve taken for a week or so……it could be that your now at the very end of the infection cycle and just about to shake it off.  So by current rules you go into this mandatory self isolation period but might spend most of this time infection free……….would it not make more sense (and be more practical) that if you test positive and go into self isolation testing daily then, after 2 negative tests over a 2 day period your clear and you come out of isolation………..simple no?

From my current experience I tested positive on Sunday from two LfT and then a pcr test . I was informed to self isolate from the day I felt I had symptoms . I think it was probably Friday 7th but possibly Thursday 6th. Anyway the advice is if you take two LfT tests from day 6 and 7 and they are both negative you end isolating. I took a test yesterday , it was still positive . Still to take test today . However here’s the odd thing 

 

I can end isolation tomorrow as that’s my 10 days however I may still be positive but as long as I have no symptoms I can end isolation . However be careful whilst out for a few days . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
4 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Might sound a bit daft but, see this isolation fixed period it  could be more flexible.  
 

Let’s say you test positive but, it’s the first test you’ve taken for a week or so……it could be that your now at the very end of the infection cycle and just about to shake it off.  So by current rules you go into this mandatory self isolation period but might spend most of this time infection free……….would it not make more sense (and be more practical) that if you test positive and go into self isolation testing daily then, after 2 negative tests over a 2 day period your clear and you come out of isolation………..simple no?

I can see some merit in that argument for asymptomatic cases, but for symptomatic cases you would need to start your 5/7 day infectious period from your first day of symptoms.

 

I think it was reported in the last day or two that after 5 days 32% of people are still infectious, after 6 days it drops markedly to 7%, after 7 days it's 6%, but even after 10 days it was 5%.   You may recall that the initial recommendation was for 14 days isolation to minimise the risk of transmission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salad Fingers

My mate got this posted through his door earlier. 

 

Never heard of Patriotic Alternative but it sounds a bit Gammony. 

 

IMG-20220115-WA0002.thumb.jpg.5bd7ae312d7b99fb364fdb3866608fb9.jpgIMG-20220115-WA0003.thumb.jpg.1d8ebf31fd888a0deb1d7346960a30cb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I can see some merit in that argument for asymptomatic cases, but for symptomatic cases you would need to start your 5/7 day infectious period from your first day of symptoms.

 

I think it was reported in the last day or two that after 5 days 32% of people are still infectious, after 6 days it drops markedly to 7%, after 7 days it's 6%, but even after 10 days it was 5%.   You may recall that the initial recommendation was for 14 days isolation to minimise the risk of transmission.

 

That’s interesting to read . My friend who tested Monday had clear test yesterday . However he noted on the LfT test on Monday the lines were very faint . Where’s mine as to be expected nearly had sirens on them as both lines were very clear and thick 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Salad Fingers said:

My mate got this posted through his door earlier. 

 

Never heard of Patriotic Alternative but it sounds a bit Gammony. 

 

IMG-20220115-WA0002.thumb.jpg.5bd7ae312d7b99fb364fdb3866608fb9.jpgIMG-20220115-WA0003.thumb.jpg.1d8ebf31fd888a0deb1d7346960a30cb.jpg

have a read of their website.

:cornette:

would be my response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson
22 minutes ago, Salad Fingers said:

 

 

Never heard of Patriotic Alternative but it sounds a bit Gammony. 

 

IMG-20220115-WA0002.thumb.jpg.5bd7ae312d7b99fb364fdb3866608fb9.jpgIMG-20220115-WA0003.thumb.jpg.1d8ebf31fd888a0deb1d7346960a30cb.jpg

The folk you see on those marches are mostly scruffy, hippy, tree hugging types

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
56 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Wow, just wow. So you have Covid, end up really ill, get taken to hospital, get worse so end up in ICU, get worse so put on a ventilator, get worse and die. All this in 5 days or it's not Covid???? Do you realise how dumb that makes you sound

You complete miss the point. Go back and re read. thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

That principle has been widely challenged and debunked.  This virus,  like some others,  gains no reproductive advantage via becoming less deadly.  It performs it's reproductive cycle regardless of how ill it makes it's host.  It infects... it replicates... it transmits onwards... all entirely independently of subsequent illness.

It's nice to know you know more than the guy who rote this:

 

 Jared Auclair, who is an associate teaching professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern, leads the Biopharmaceutical Analysis Training Lab, and runs the university’s COVID-19 testing facility, the Life Sciences Testing Center in Burlington, Massachusetts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

The folk you see on those marches are mostly scruffy, hippy, tree hugging types

you've got that a bit wrong, more likely the nick griffin types going by their plan on their website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Salad Fingers said:

My mate got this posted through his door earlier. 

 

Never heard of Patriotic Alternative but it sounds a bit Gammony. 

 

IMG-20220115-WA0002.thumb.jpg.5bd7ae312d7b99fb364fdb3866608fb9.jpgIMG-20220115-WA0003.thumb.jpg.1d8ebf31fd888a0deb1d7346960a30cb.jpg

 

Borrowing the word 'patriotic' from the lunatics in the USA.

Edited by Bindy Badgy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS
51 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Virtually everyone who is "clear" of Covid after 5 or 7 days doesn't go onto die within the next 21 days from Covid, or anything else.

 

I'm going to quote NRS stats for 2020 an 2021 again (total of both years):

 

Covid recorded on the death certificate  -   12,470

 

Covid deemed the primary cause of death   -   10,828 (87%)

 

Daily deaths within 28 days of a +ve Covid test   -   9,678

 

Excess deaths   -   12,940 ...... of which are due to Covid 10,828 (84%) 

 

The "myth" that is consistently perpetuated, is that somehow Covid isn't responsible for many of the deaths that have been attributed to it.  The above figures  clearly demonstrate that the "myth" is unfounded.

 

If only "deaths due to Covid" were reported in the media, then the numbers would actually be higher than the 28 day measure currently reported.

Covid deemed the primary cause 10,828. How many of them were tested for flu? and how many died of FLU but were counted as covid? As I understand it from a doctor in the USA you need to test further to find out if it's covid or flu. IF this is the case, how many were fully tested?

You can manipulate figures to say virtually anything. My main point is the fake reporting by the media that are still using the 28 day period as counting as a covid death. As I said, tested positive 28 days ago and by current standards you are clear after 7 or 5 days depending on who you quote, so if you then die of stroke how can that possibly be quoted as a covid death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...