Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've already posted about this in the 'Come Together by Region?' thread in the Solutions forum.   But now here is the advert for the big event on the 29th August. It would be great if as ma

Summary meeting with MP.   Big sign on door saying have to wear a mask. Reptilian brain nearly kicked in and panicked - temptation to go to the store and buy one. Managed to keep it together

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Mystery virus with unique properties blights the human race!   The deadly virus is only contagious at particular times of the day in certain regions and can

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Jack said:

I'm not sure, I didnt get to read many of them so not sure if his stance was COVID is a hoax.

 

Maybe he's  re positioning himself

seriously doubt it. Ian has been vocal for a good while. Most of his songs revolve around selfhood, righteousness, good, valor, question the bollocks,

Dolphins Were Monkeys, Stardust, FEAR, time is my everything, first world problems, kiss ya lips, save us, illegal attacks, stellify ,m some folks are hollow

Edited by zArk
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, zArk said:

seriously doubt it. Ian has been vocal for a good while. Most of his songs revolve around selfhood, righteousness, good, valor, question the bollocks,

Dolphins Were Monkeys, Stardust, FEAR, time is my everything, first world problems, kiss ya lips, save us, illegal attacks, stellify ,m some folks are hollow

i meant "as a hoax" 

hes still  posting stuff up

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

And you do what you always do, label the source as MSM something or other and avoid what it says. When it suits you, you go to any number of MSM sites and take small sections of data. 

 

Would it be possible for you to actually shut up about "ME" and why you think I'm here?

 

I labelled it as a far left rag not MSM I replied with the WHO & Economist, you ignored yet again..like you ignore all my replies.

Like youll probably ignore this.

Your Washington post was printed in February, when the 2019-20 season ends. After that flu disappeared in the USA.

Heres the CDC latest: (post covid)

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

WHONPHL41_small.gif

 

 

Quote

 

What does it prove? It proves that YOU don't ever post anything like it because it doesn't fit your preconceived view. Blunders all over the place. Hanlon's razor.

Fake as fuck: "Metro" government fearmonger..same as the Mirror reported & the Sun & all the other SAGE funded shite.

Ramping up the doom again, to excuse more lockdowns & then riots & then troops on the street..track & trace.. immunity passports..mandatory vaccines.

The never ending second wave tsunami, batten down the hatches..😴

Chris Witty & Vallance totally wrong again..

This second wave bullshit has going on for months now.

Why would I take their LIES seriously & wish to see my country go to shit, you filthy tyrant apologist.

Based on a casedemic from a fraudulent test with cronies Serco £12 billion pissed up the wall on fake tests to enslave us all.

Matt Hancock "dont kill your gran" when he has killed thousands of pensioners already...& you are seriously posting his opinion to me.🤮

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A relatively small group of people determines central policy. Central policy determines the directives.  All it takes is for there to be a flaw in the root premise and basic assumption of the policy, people following that policy (and the directives that flow from it), and you have mass deception. When people question the policy, they can be marginalised (via another policy i.e. deny and discredit). A lot of organisations work like that - top-down control. Newspapers are one example. The editorial policy is determined by the top of the chain, the rest of the organisation has to follow it or else be out of a job. The editorial policy for many news outlets in this situation is ostensibly driven by government policy.  Government policy appears to be influenced by WHO. 

 

WHO >> Government >> Media >> Informed / misinformed people. 

 

 

 

Edited by Oakwise
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Dude, I saw that was your claim from 3 posts ago. Stop cluttering up the thread.

 

Sceptics of what? The general term is used to denote somebody who doubts accepted opinion. So that would be you lot. But I won't be so rash in my claims. Truthers/sceptics only sometimes fall prey to fake news and you should all point it out when they do, not leave it to people like me to do it!

 

However, they DO use mainstream sites but very rarely quote the whole thing. As I said and has been demonstrated on this thread....small cherry picked "ahaaah" snippets are used, sometimes out of context, often without pointing out other variables and certainly never using anything from mainstream sites that contradict the general line of the claim.

 

That isn't truth seeking, that is confirmation bias.

I wasn't talking to you the first time. 

 

Yes, some "Truthers" are cherry pickers, as I said the first time.

 

And all Skeptics are Truth deniers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE COVIDIAN CULT

"Their initiation into the Covidian Cult began in January, when the medical authorities and corporate media turned on The Fear with projections of hundreds of millions of death and fake photos of people dropping dead in the streets. The psychological conditioning has continued for months. The global masses have been subjected to a constant stream of propaganda, manufactured hysteria, wild speculation, conflicting directives, exaggerations, lies, and tawdry theatrical effects. Lockdowns. Emergency field hospitals and morgues. The singing-dancing NHS staff. Death trucks. Overflowing ICUs. Dead Covid babies. Manipulated statistics. Goon squads. Masks. And all the rest of it."

 

https://consentfactory.org/2020/10/13/the-covidian-cult/   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice some of you bickering over whether it's wildly exaggerated or fake. 

 

Look at the root premise of the argument: Covid is a credible threat, therefore xyz. 

 

1. If the government claims are wildly exaggerated, then covid isn't a credible threat. Therefore, extreme measures are unnecessary.

 

2. If the government claims are fake, then covid isn't a credible threat. Therefore, extreme measures are unnecessary.

 

Either way the conclusion is pretty much the same. Extreme shutting down of society is unnecessary. This is what we need to prove. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Morpheus said:

🤣 it amuses me that half of the DI forum are attempting to convince 1 person that something isn't right here. You couldn't make it up. 

 

I’m out of likes, but imo you are bang on the money; bloody incredible!!!

Ego...

 

If no one replied, it - truegroup ad nauseum - would go away; instead it’s cluttering up the thread going round and round.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Morpheus said:

I don't do ignoring because it means you concede defeat. At the end of the day, neither of us have been unpleasant to each other and we are conversing to what appears to be equal terms. 

 

Oh shit; after replying and agreeing to one of your previous posts, here you are doing the same thing 🙄🙄🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Dear Members of Parliament,

I am writing to you to express my grave concerns regarding the Government’s policies in respect of coronavirus. I am an airline pilot with a major UK operator. As such I am used to processing information and analysing it logically and am not prone to hysteria. Before I was an airline pilot I qualified with a PhD in Applied Mathematics and Statistics. I spent nearly a decade as a researcher and lecturer in The Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at The University of Leeds and have published numerous papers in internationally refereed journals on these subjects. Much of this letter is based upon my experience in this field, in which I am qualified to hold an opinion, and the remainder I present as an extremely concerned citizen. The analyses I present in the appendices to this letter are either my own or from trusted academic sources. 

The most important message to convey is that I strongly believe the Government’s response has been, and continues to be, disproportionate to the true threat posed by this virus. While this was, perhaps, understandable in March when less was known, the policies that are still in place, which are both economically and societally ruinous, are now much less credible. The Government appears to be locked into the single objective of dealing with this one virus at the expense of a myriad public health issues, many of which are exacerbated by the current COVID-centric policy choices. 

The first recorded outbreak of the virus in the spring teaches us that the health impact of the virus was, in terms of clinical impact, akin to a severe influenza season. Indeed Dr Anthony Fauci said in the New England Journal of Medicine in February that the “clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza”. The data both in the UK and worldwide have borne this out. The mortality burden of COVID-19 in the UK has been similar to the relatively severe 2018/19, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 influenza seasons, and significantly lower than the 1968 H3N2 influenza pandemic which killed approximately 80,000 people in the UK. These outbreaks were as severe, if not more so, than the current COVID epidemic and yet the country was not closed down risking economic ruin and serious long-term public health consequences. 

Appendix A deals with the statistics of the present epidemic and its associated mortality burden. It demonstrates that the mortality burden is felt substantially by the over 70s and even then the majority of those individuals (over 90%) have one or more co-morbidities so that recovery from any respiratory illness is likely to be compromised. This defines a clear vulnerable group who may need to take some extra precautions during the epidemic. It is not the function of the state to force them to do so however: they are old enough and wise enough to make their own decisions if provided with an objective assessment of the true risks they face. In this regard the Government has completely failed in its duty to its citizens by instilling fear rather than providing rational and proportionate public health messaging. 

SAGE minutes from March 22nd on ways to increase adherence to social distancing contains the following: “[t]he perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. The proposed means of achieving this include advice such as “use media to increase sense of personal threat” and “consider use of social disapproval for failure to comply”. Since the spring the media been keen to maintain the hard-hitting emotive narrative of a deadly virus that is dangerous to everyone, which is simply not supported the data. Rather than providing simple, effective and proportionate public health education the Government and media opted for a policy of “psychological warfare” against our citizens.

In terms of the wider public health effects, during the lockdown there was a 50% reduction in A&E presentations for heart attacks according to the British Medical Journal's Open Heart. A similar figure applies to strokes. Both of these conditions have poor outcomes unless treated in a clinical setting. The lack of A&E presentations is thus a serious concern because it points to significant excess mortality for those conditions. 

Cancer diagnosis and treatments were, and continue to be, severely disrupted with Cancer Research UK estimating that on average 2,500 cancers were going undiagnosed each week during the lockdown. A study conducted by DATA-CAN, the Health Care Research Hub (HDR UK) for Cancer, estimates that the number of excess cancer deaths attributable to the disruption of cancer care could be as many as 35,000. The additional mortality burden from just these three conditions is likely to be broadly similar to that of COVID-19 and those additional deaths are attributable to the Government’s policies which have clearly dissuaded, and continue to dissuade, contact with the NHS. Recently released SAGE minutes estimated that the indirect mortality burden caused by the coronavirus measures could be as high as 75,000. 

All of this is without considering the long-term damage done to children’s education, widespread mental health issues from loneliness and reduced social interactions, failed businesses and rapidly-increasing unemployment despite the Treasury’s Furlough and Job Retention Schemes, which are merely delaying the problem because the markets supporting those jobs are collapsing. 

The origin of the first of many U-turns from a policy of “herd immunity” to more stringent measures seems to be Imperial College’s Report 9 based on the modelling of Neil Fergusson. Appendix B deals with some aspects of the credibility of this model and its assumptions. Although framed as a “reasonable worst case scenario”, it was evident to other eminent scientists that the scenario therein was most unlikely to be a credible one. Professor Johan Giesecke (former Swedish State Epidemiologist and current member of the World Health Organisation’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards) was one such doubter as he made clear in a media interview with Freddie Sayers on 17th April. Professor Michael Levitt, a Nobel Prize winner, also predicted that Imperial’s modelling would over-predict deaths by at least a factor of ten. Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University doubted the Imperial model and its high death toll was credible. Last month John Ioannidis, Stanford professor and the most referenced scientist in the world, released a preprint paper demonstrating that lockdowns in Europe had little to no effect and that the Imperial modelling is not robust and built on faulty assumptions. 

These people are not crackpots and their predictions of a sharp rise of cases for a month, followed by a long tail of two or three months, have been correct from the outset because they predicted SARS CoV-2 would behave like every other respiratory disease in the northern hemisphere. This has happened irrespective of the severity of lockdown with Sweden being the oft-quoted comparator. I would encourage you to seek out their various interviews, both video and written, because their narrative is different and, importantly, they have been correct in their predictions.

From the beginning the Government claimed to be “following the science”, giving the impression of a definitive path, when in fact the science was far from a settled matter and there were alternative viewpoints which should have been considered and debated. Aside from the occasional disquiet among members of SAGE, there are no signs that the Government seriously sought any alternative viewpoints, and understanding why they did not will be a key matter for the inevitable Public Inquiry. 

More recently, a letter to the UK Government from a panel of experts led by Professors Carl Heneghan, Sunetra Gupta and Karol Sikora, and another signed by 66 General Practitioners led by Dr Ellie Cannon, highlighted the additional public health effects of the Government’s continued COIVD-centric approach, including physical and mental health effects. Abroad a similar letter from Belgian GPs to their Government and The Great Barrington Declaration and Petition are examples demonstrating that scientists and doctors with “dissenting views” are, rightly, becoming more vocal and insisting on a meaningful scientific debate. 

Turning to the matter of a vaccine it should be noted that there hasn’t been a successful vaccine for a coronavirus in humans or animals. The flu vaccine, for example, has failed to reach 50% efficacy in seven of the last ten years. There have been recent murmurings of the possibility of compelling, either by mandate or “social coercion”, the population to take this vaccine once it is available. It is extremely important to be aware that forced or coerced vaccination would contravene the Nuremberg Code, which the UK was instrumental in creating, protecting any person from medical interventions without informed consent. There will be many people who are well-informed of the true risks of this disease who will exercise their right to deny consent for an expedited, essentially experimental, vaccine, the longer-term health effects of which are by definition unknown. As an example the Swine Flu vaccine was found to cause narcolepsy in some individuals.

It does seem that the Government’s policy endpoint is presently mass-vaccination supplemented by mass-testing until the vaccine is available. While I am not implying the pharmaceutical industry is behind a conspiracy it is nevertheless an industry which has a history of exploiting public health scares for its own profits. Following the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic the European Council launched an investigation into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the WHO and the global swine flu campaign. This was seen as a step towards improving transparency of what it called “the Golden Triangle of corruption” between the WHO, the pharmaceutical industry and academic scientists. The Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council adopted Resolution 1749 (2010) calling for more transparency and changes to the handling of future pandemics. A selection of the salient points, which are instantly recognisable and applicable to the present COVID “pandemic”, are reproduced in Appendix C. Regrettably little appears to have been learnt in the decade since this resolution was adopted.

Prior to a potential vaccine the Government appears to be relying on mass-testing as a means to identify viral outbreaks; the so-called “Operation Moonshot”. This is also a poorly-thought-out policy with a questionable scientific basis. Firstly there are doubts about the diagnostic ability of the PCR technique: PCR tests were never intended for diagnosis, and in particular for SARS-Cov2 there exists no “gold standard” against which to assess their diagnostic capability. Appendix D deals with the significant issue of false positives, which is a substantial flaw of mass-testing schemes. Briefly, throughout the summer the virus prevalence was low according to The Office for National Statistics. In these circumstances the testing produces mostly false positive results (around 90% of positive tests are false positives), even at the apparently-low 0.8% false positive rate quoted by the Health Secretary. Belgium, for example, terminated its community testing programme in September in part due to these issues. 

Through the summer months the COVID mortality rate of hospitalised patients fell to the normal background hospital mortality rate of around 1.7% and the strong correlation between hospitalised cases and deaths, which was present in the spring, completely decoupled. This is suggestive of the majority of summer positive results being false positives. This is bad news for two reasons: first uninfected individuals have been labelled as “cases” on the basis of a false positive test and second, the high proportion of false positives obscures any real increase in the viral prevalence should it occur. Essentially the Government was “working in the dark” and basing its summer and autumn policies on flawed tests and data. 

Surveillance data from NHS Triage, The ONS population sampling campaign and the UCL Zoe App all show a plateau or even a reduction in the number of actual symptomatic cases in the last fortnight. The official testing data however, still shows a significant rise. As one of several examples of data-illiteracy in Public Health England, every positive test is reported—even repeated positives—but individuals with negative results are only reported once even if they test negative multiple times. This failure to accurately capture repeated testing is artificially inflating the proportion of positive tests. 

You may also recall that PHE were recording deaths of persons who tested positive at any time previously. An individual with a positive test who made a full recovery, but subsequently died months later of an unrelated cause, was considered a COVID death. Fortunately this bizarre practice was highlighted and stopped, but it seriously calls into question the veracity of the Government statistics and official data, which have consistently appeared to inflate the magnitude of the COVID issue. These are not isolated examples, but are, perhaps, the most well known. 

Appendix E deals with the present trajectory of the so-called “second wave”. On the basis of the available data it is not appropriate to call the trajectory a second wave, and I believe it was irresponsible of the Prime Minister to declare to the media that we “are in the second wave”. I also believe it was highly questionable that the Chief Scientific Advisor presented to the public essentially a guess as to case numbers at various time points which, although he claimed was “not a prediction”, nevertheless has the capacity to reinforce fear in members of the public who are less well informed or rely on the Government and mainstream media for their information. 

The data are once again misrepresenting the true situation because they are reported on the basis of absolute numbers rather than per 1,000 tests or a similar standardising measure. The increases in tests performed, coupled to the false positive issue and incorrect reporting of multiple testing mentioned earlier, can account for much of the apparent-rise in “cases”. Appendix E shows some of these data presented in a correctly standardised format based on work by Professor Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk and Probability, at Queen Mary University London. 

Much of the “second wave theory” is built on the Spanish Flu pandemic which was over a century ago. It is also widely believed that the apparently-larger second wave of Spanish flu was in fact a completely different pathogen and so the comparison is probably flawed. The most likely outcome for SARS-CoV2 is a seasonal endemic respiratory virus; the same as most of the pandemic-causing viruses of the past, including the 1968 H3N2 virus, which remains endemic and in circulation today.

I have concerns over the way that the Government imposes it’s ad-hoc policies through the Public Health Act (1984). This act gives Ministers the same powers as Magistrates and allows the confinement of infected individuals for the prevention of infection or contamination. I, and many other people more schooled in the law than me, believe the Government is overstepping its authority under this act. Retired Supreme Court Justice Lord Jonathan Sumption has been vocal on this issue and the Government’s avoidance of scrutiny through the use of this act. The act of parliament that does confer the rights to take some of the steps the Government has is the Civil Contingencies Act, but measures taken under this act are for a very limited duration and subject to significant parliamentary scrutiny. This is a Government that seems to prefer to avoid scrutiny and debate, for example the attempted prorogation of parliament in the final act of the Brexit debate. I believe at this stage wider scrutiny of all the Government’s policies and scientific data would be appropriate. Some progress was made in this regard by the recent actions of Sir Graham Brady, but I still feel that the concessions made by the Government did not go far enough.

Much has been made of the “Swedish model” for handling the virus and I have always believed their approach was significantly more sensible. Appendix F looks at the Swedish epidemic which should teach us, among other things, that lockdowns do almost nothing to prevent the spread of disease epidemics. Swedish education has been significantly less disrupted, the Swedish economy is less impacted and importantly their policies have the substantial benefit of being sustainable over a longer period of time. Video from Sweden at the height of the epidemic showed life continuing largely as normal: people were shopping, visiting restaurants and bars and were not wearing masks. Sweden’s state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell realised at an early stage that it might be necessary for society to live with this virus, as we have many before, over an extended period of time while natural immunity was established. Fortunately natural immunity may not be as far away as first believed—see Appendix F. This will of course negate the need for widespread vaccination outside the most vulnerable and any kind of digital tracing or “health passes”. Doubtless the pharmaceutical and biotech companies won’t agree with this and will lobby for their adoption, but I am certain we have progressed to a stage of this epidemic where these measures are unnecessary and can be written off as the hideous apparatus of a police state: the total antithesis of a civilised and free western society. 

I believe this is the most important single issue for our country in our lifetime. If you are accepting the Government’s narrative at face value I would ask that you use the information in this letter and the appendices to consider an alternative view which has over recent weeks and months gathered momentum among the scientific community and public alike. The Government’s ad-hoc policies have been confusing, largely inconsistent and have prevented businesses and individuals from forming coherent plans. The quarantine of those arriving from abroad, for example, is based on a completely arbitrary unscientific threshold of 20 “cases” per 100,000 and is destroying the travel industry, a vital economic engine, en masse. The Government is undeniably “fiddling while Rome burns”.

Holding the British public and British businesses in the current state of purgatory is not a viable long-term strategy because it inflicts incredible economic and social damage. I am determined that the the post-Brexit dream of “Global Britain” does not die in this economic and socially-destructive nightmare before it begins. As the divisions in Parliament become more apparent in the coming days I would ask that you use the information I have provided to assist in deciding where to place your support. The stakes are extremely high: what happens in the next few weeks and months will determine our country’s path and prosperity for decades. 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Brian Cattle. 

 

APPENDIX A. UK MORTALITY SITUATION FROM ONS DATA 

It is a simple matter to verify which age groups are most affected by mortality from COVID. By plotting the UK mortality data up to and including the week ending 18th September (week 38) reveals that:

  • excess deaths are occurring in all age-groups over 45
  • A substantial proportion of excess deaths due to COVID and non-COVID causes are in the over 70s.

Note that over 90% of COVID deaths are to those with a pre-existing medical condition, most notably heart disease and diabetes 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Golden Retriever said:

Film clips from the 2013 Channel Four "Utopia" series. Notice the masonic signs on the ceiling.

Predictive programming?

Operation Warp Speed Contamination Vaccination Extermination

 

 

Freaky coincidence. When Bill Gates opens that thermos.

Now watch this clip from Utopia.

Also 35.55 in.

 

 

Edited by oddsnsods
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Morpheus said:

To be fair, Bamboo has presented the ultimate argument in controlled narrative by the MSM. That story has been surpressed by Facebook and Twatter. Whilst you have your position, you have to acknowledge that story has been doubled down on by the msm. I mean FFS, they're calling Guiliani a drunk and that guy took down the Mafia for crying out loud. Also trying to say he is in cahoots with the Russians! 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

So I think we can safely say that the media lies and it's obvious. 

 

 

Can you post a link to what you are referring to...which story has been suppressed. Sorry if its been posted already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jack said:

 

 

Deputy pm no more after Saturday’s elections; gone, and retiring from politics.

 

He used to be not too bad, but for the last couple of years or so, he’s been spouting the elite/party line; probably got a nice payout from the psychos for his retirement.

 

Though what he was saying there is the majority mindset in NZ; truly the land of plentiful sheep.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...