Jeremiah Cole

I’ve been on the forum since the beginning. It was me who gave div the idea for this forum in the first place!

Tbf, your incessant copy and pasting of random TL;DR internet shite is likely what you would class as evidence, and certainly something we could all do without more of. No, I’m not providing evidence at all. What would I be providing evidence of? I’m not supporting the lockdown! Can you provide any evidence as to why the entire healthy population needs to be locked down rather than just the vulnerable?

Nice selfie

That’s because you are one of the compliant sheeple, happy to be placed under a fascist police state for no real reason

How likely are you to die from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19)? Based on the hysteria spreading across the globe, it would seem like the chances are fairly high. But Statnews.com would report on the actual projected death rate of those who contract Covid-19 based on US Center for Disease Control (CDC) data, noting: …the death rate in Covid-19 patients ages 80 and over was 10.4%, compared to 5.35% in 70-somethings, 1.51% in patients 60 to 69, 0.37% in 50-somethings. Even lower rates were seen in younger people, dropping to zero in those 29 and younger. The article also noted that the worst cases involved not only people who were much older, but involved people who were also already unhealthy and vulnerable. Others have noted that many will likely get Covid-19, think they have an ordinary cold, get better and never even be tested, thus never making it into the statistics meaning the actual death rates are likely even lower than being reported. In other words, Covid-19 may be slightly more dangerous than the common flu, but not by much. Those who fall into a vulnerable category should obviously be more careful, but the hysteria being spread by governments and ordinary people alike is posing a bigger threat to human wellbeing than the actual virus itself. The economic damage alone this hysteria is creating will negatively impact the lives of many more ordinary people than the virus ever could and for a much longer period of time than Covid-19 takes to run its course within the typical human body or across various populations. Nations that have been reluctant to take extreme measures are being pressured to do so by a spreading wave of hysteria, deliberate or not, forcing them to close borders, shut businesses and disrupt the lives of millions, the vast majority of which are in no danger at all from the virus. Governments probably should take certain measures during such outbreaks, but ensuring the line between commonsense steps and the abuse of power is not crossed should be a primary public concern. Regarding Covid-19, common sense should still be exercised. Avoiding large crowds, staying healthy, eating well, exercising and overall taking care of your body so that your body’s immune system can take care of you is the best measure and means of staving of Covid-19 or any other infectious disease, during a pandemic or not. If you are part of a vulnerable demographic, obviously exercise more caution. Create More Resilient Economies Regardless If extreme measures really are necessary to stop the spread of Covid-19 and other viruses like it, nations must create permanent infrastructure that ensures economic continuity before, during and after outbreaks, rather than being repeatedly caught off-guard each time a new virus appears. Even by the most hysterical accounts, Covid-19 is not a doomsday scenario. It is not even a major human health threat. It is slightly more alarming than the ordinary flu, which itself is only a danger for those who are already in poor health and should already be exercising extra caution day-to-day. Covid-19 requires a slightly more cautious and considered approach than managing the average flu. Since we may never know where Covid-19 originated and how much of this hysteria is warranted, how much is simply human nature’s tendency to overreact and how much of it is a deliberate attempt to destabilize nations and economies around the globe, nations and communities must reexamine how they do business on a daily basis and think of ways to continue doing business even under the most extreme circumstances and in a way that will allow business-as-usual even amid another coronavirus outbreak or similar disruption. Those nations which do not, set themselves up to be targets of those well-equipped to spread hysteria and stir up public panic which in turn will place pressure on targeted governments and endanger political, economic and social stability.

Can you provide any evidence to back this post up?

Nice selfie

A well thought out response

The threat posed by COVID-19 itself is relatively low based on most current known information (and against information from previous pandemics). Although there has remained a legitimate risk for older people with weakened immune systems and pre-existing conditions, the disease is “survivable” according to every metric to date. Even now, with hysteria at earth-shattering maximum, even including the worst actual infection and death counts, the outlandish projections of a few weeks ago have not materialized. Yet the media continues to trumpet 80% infection rates and other hyperbolic fantasies to push maximum panic, to justify new police state measures and more public submission. Easily rendered compliant and submissive, the mobs echo the fearmongering propaganda. We need “testing”! We need vaccines! We need draconian “public health” controls! We need more and more “social distancing”. We need to “change life as we know it” permanently, “for our own good”. We must burrow deeply into the safest crevices in our homes, never to emerge, lest someone “infected” even look at our direction. In locked down communities across the world, self-righteous new social justice warriors—militant New Age collectivists—are taking it upon themselves to behave like Red Guards on steroids, “enforcing” the proper “social distancing”, reporting on fellow individuals who “fail to comply”, demanding new police enforcement of this new “distancing” paradigms, while also echoing the talking points of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Big Pharma, and their chosen political idols—the very agents at the source of this “crisis”.

We are witnessing psychosis, successfully fomented on a planetary scale. Virtually the entire human race has been rendered insane. Media-induced mass fear, panic, hysteria, and hypochondria grip all of humanity. As the tidal wave of panic overwhelms all of life itself, people become oblivious to facts, oblivious of clear evidence that they have been and continue to be criminally manipulated, exploited, and controlled. Even the most ardent and obsessed crisis watchers misinterpret, deny or ignore rational data, and embrace any convoluted interpretation of statistics that suit them. They seem to enjoy the “fear porn” and their own hysteria, and seek justification and approval for their madness.

Ask your parents about the lockdown in ‘ In 1957 it had all seemed initially quiet on the UK influenza front. Dr McDonald's quarterly report (November 1956—March 1957) mentioned a ‘remarkably low level of respiratory illness so far this winter.’ However, a Times newspaper comment (17 April) that ‘an influenza epidemic has affected thousands of Hong Kong residents’ heralded the start of rapid movement across the East with 100 000 cases in Taiwan by mid-May and over a million in India by June. Five months after the Hong Kong outbreak it was reckoned to have traversed the globe. As an entirely new strain there was no immunity in the populace and the first vaccines were not distributed until August in the US and October in the UK, and then on an extremely limited basis. The first cases in the UK were in late June, with a serious outbreak in the general population occurring in August. From mid-September onwards the virus spread from the North, West, and Wales to the South, East, and Scotland. One GP recalled ‘we were amazed at the extraordinary infectivity of the disease, overawed by the suddenness of its outset and surprised at the protean nature of its symptomatology.’2 It peaked the week ending 17 October with 600 deaths reported in major towns in England and Wales. There was some evidence of a limited return in the winter. By early 1958 it was estimated that ‘not less than 9 million people in Great Britain had … Asian influenza during the 1957 epidemic. Of these, more than 5.5 million were attended by their doctors. About 14 000 people died of the immediate effects of their attack.’3Not only was £10 000 000 spent on sickness benefit, but also with factories, offices and mines closed the economy was hit: ‘Setback in Production — “Recession through Influenza”’ (Manchester Guardian, 29 November). Despite Watson's early prediction that ‘in the end, and in spite of the scare stuff in the lay press, we will have our epidemic of influenza, of a type not very different from what we know already, with complications in the usual age groups,’4 the core group of main sufferers was aged 5–39 years with 49% between 5–14 years. In London, 110 000 children were off school suspected of having influenza. With adults there was usually a connection to children; for example, parents, teachers, doctors, or a closed group such as the armed forces and football teams. As the Manchester Guardian put it: ‘Fit Go Down with Flu’ (20th August). There was also a rise in influenzal deaths in January 1958 of an older age group but it was not clear how much of this was the usual seasonal deaths attributed to influenza as opposed to Asian flu.5

Yet despite the flu jab, nearly 500 extra people in the UK died every day in the winter of 14/15 from flu over and above the normal average flu deaths

The post you’ve quoted explains it

Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies. What he says: Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian. They will only get in trouble if they do too little. So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do. No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere. We cannot close down the whole world permanently. Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!”

Can you provide any evidence for this?

Why not just lockdown the vulnerable as opposed to the entire population?

No lockdown in Sweden Bars and restaurants still open People out making the most of the sunshine Less deaths per capita than neighbouring Denmark

Best solution is to make the season null and void. No promotion and relegation and draw lots for the European slots.

The Old Firm bleed Scottish football dry. With no Old Firm, the rest of the clubs would have a more competitive set up, more fans coming through the gates and more money.

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data By JOHN P.A. IOANNIDIS MARCH 17, 2020 The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco. At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact. Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm? Vaccines or affordable treatments take many months (or even years) to develop and test properly. Given such timelines, the consequences of long-term lockdowns are entirely unknown. The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population. This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future. The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher. Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%. That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies. Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter. These “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing. Instead, they are lost as noise among 60 million deaths from various causes every year. Although successful surveillance systems have long existed for influenza, the disease is confirmed by a laboratory in a tiny minority of cases. In the U.S., for example, so far this season 1,073,976 specimens have been tested and 222,552 (20.7%) have tested positive for influenza. In the same period, the estimated number of influenza-like illnesses is between 36,000,000 and 51,000,000, with an estimated 22,000 to 55,000 flu deaths. Note the uncertainty about influenza-like illness deaths: a 2.5-fold range, corresponding to tens of thousands of deaths. Every year, some of these deaths are due to influenza and some to other viruses, like common-cold coronaviruses. In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise. If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams. Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S. as of March 16 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000 … along with similar catastrophic patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario, or bad science fiction? How can we tell at what point such a curve might stop? The most valuable piece of information for answering those questions would be to know the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population and to repeat this exercise at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections. Sadly, that’s information we don’t have. In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work. School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease. This has been the perspective behind the different stance of the United Kingdom keeping schools open, at least until as I write this. In the absence of data on the real course of the epidemic, we don’t know whether this perspective was brilliant or catastrophic. Flattening the curve to avoid overwhelming the health system is conceptually sound — in theory. A visual that has become viral in media and social media shows how flattening the curve reduces the volume of the epidemic that is above the threshold of what the health system can handle at any moment. Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity. One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making. In the most pessimistic scenario, which I do not espouse, if the new coronavirus infects 60% of the global population and 1% of the infected people die, that will translate into more than 40 million deaths globally, matching the 1918 influenza pandemic. The vast majority of this hecatomb would be people with limited life expectancies. That’s in contrast to 1918, when many young people died. One can only hope that, much like in 1918, life will continue. Conversely, with lockdowns of months, if not years, life largely stops, short-term and long-term consequences are entirely unknown, and billions, not just millions, of lives may be eventually at stake. If we decide to jump off the cliff, we need some data to inform us about the rationale of such an action and the chances of landing somewhere safe. John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center.

You reckon we should have borrowed large sums of money and put it into an oil fund? How would that work?

To be fair, I thought the same as you at the time

Back in 2009 there were 1.4 billion swine flu infections and 575,000 deaths There were 61 million infections in the US and 12,500 deaths Yet no one really remembers swine flu and there was no panic back then Compared with swine flu, the current situation is a gross over reaction Unfortunately it’s going to wreck the worldwide economy

On the plus side, hoping that the lack of cash flow will see Sevco go bust

First time I’ve ventured into this thread Just had a quick look at the first couple of pages to pick out which zoomers whose opinion I can safely ignore