MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Flu (Health)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 71, 72, 73  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There Is No Novel Virus III


There are few statistics out of Wuhan, afforded by the CCP, that are reliable. Which is to say, there are none. No one knows how many people died. So how can we know that tens of thousands--or more--did die?

Well; you can not know. But I can.

I happen to have a friend from Wuhan Province. She lives in Canada now but Wuhan Province is her home. Shockingly, she reported to me that two of her childhood friends were killed by the "Wuhan Virus." They were working in Wuhan City and both died. Both were under 30.

I would argue that, given the scale of Wuhan City, my friend's "childhood acquaintances" constitute a random sample of extremely limited size, That there should be two members of this random, sample group struck down by the virus would appear to require an enormous number of non-childhood-friends to have been similarly struck down. It's akin to sticking your hand into a paper bag containing 4.6 million marbles, pulling out six or seven, and finding two of the marbles you are holding are lumps of ashes. We would have to assume that lumps of ashes are present within the bag in proportions similar to those in the palm of your hand.

It is clear then that the Wuhan Virus must be extremely deadly and highly contagious.

Except it isn't.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Generally I find the statistic persuasive but please bear in mind

1. "I have a friend" is a classic urban myth source when you really mean "I have a source that I can vouch for" i.e. the classic friend of a friend
2. "She has two friends" is also a classic urban myth source when you really mean "She has a source that she can vouch for" i.e. the classic friend of a friend.

In your own account you have shifted from 'childhood friends' to 'childhood acquaintances' and later back again. They are hugely different statistical universes and it makes a difference. For instance, I know two people who have lost children under thirty, both to freak accidents. I could quite validly describe both people as friends. I knew the two children well enough to describe them as friends, but in truth they were children of friends-of-friends. The accidents were separated by several years and a coupla continents but even so I continue to experience a vague 'Blimey, they're dropping like flies' feeling.

But honestly I do not demur from your main thrust. Have at them!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
1. "I have a friend" is a classic urban myth source when you really mean "I have a source that I can vouch for" i.e. the classic friend of a friend

That's precisely why I said that "you cannot know. But I can." I know my source personally and she's immediately acquainted with the dead. But those persons are too-far removed from any of you to be anything but anecdotally evidentiary and the report of my friend can be nothing more than hear-say.

Nevertheless; if you take the report as valid, certain conclusions follow.

2. "She has two friends" is also a classic urban myth source when you really mean "She has a source that she can vouch for" i.e. the classic friend of a friend.

Yes. See above. But from my perspective; I have a factual report of two dead friends. I take this report as more reliable and more direct than anything heard in news media (which is laughably unreliable to the point of deliberately false).

In your own account you have shifted from 'childhood friends' to 'childhood acquaintances' and later back again.

Only because I didn't want to repeat the same phrasing. For accuracy, I suppose I should have kept it consistent. They grew up in the same tiny village. More on that village later pehaps. Because it too is a limited sample.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I know two people (actually personally know) who have died during lockdown. No other people I know have died during this period.

Person 1 - seventy five year old woman who had COPD (smoked 40 a day) who fell over and broke her hip. She died a few days later in hospital. Daughter surprised to be told that death was COVID related
Person 2 - man in his forties who was riddled with cancer. He died of a lung haemorrhage in his wife’s arms. She was surprised to hear from the coroner that they wanted to put COVID on the death cert. It took a call from the oncologist for sense to prevail.

So my personal experience is that the death rate is massively exaggerated and this is just hysteria.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is. More to come.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is clear now that the UK has entered new territory. The number of daily deaths has remained negligible for more than two weeks (and if anything is going down) while the number of daily infections has remained over a thousand (and if anything is going up). Naturally this wholly aberrant and significant situation has excited no comment from either the commentariat or the governmentariat.

Sigh. I shall have to do it myself. It looks as if the thousand plus represents a sort of 'background radiation' -- maybe permanent, maybe not -- that is being picked up by the regime of trace and test. The number of deaths is that which is to be expected from a mild but pernicious strain of whatever-it-is.

The real question is whether we have arrived at a situation when we can take off all restrictions, allow the daily rate to go up to several thousand, in the expectation that the daily deaths will be less than a hundred. And just shrug. Hey, that's what we get every year. Even if that is the situation, whether we will be able to see it as 'just normal' and go back to being normal, remains to be seen. I doubt it. Everyone is so, as it were, locked in.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
It is clear now that the UK has entered new territory. The number of daily deaths has remained negligible for more than two weeks (and if anything is going down) while the number of daily infections has remained over a thousand (and if anything is going up). Naturally this wholly aberrant and significant situation has excited no comment from either the commentariat or the governmentariat.


You misjudge the situation, the Reaper has moved on. Since the start of August, you are now 7 times more likely to be killed by flu or pneumonia than Covid. So to say that the commentariat or the governmentariat are sitting back is simply untrue, they are waiting to be led by the scientific advice from Public Health England about how to handle this deadly new threat.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is now not in the interest of the government to say "it's all over and wasn't as bad as we thought so back to work." If they do they will be blamed for the depression they fear is round the corner. Their strategy is to prolong the agony for as long as possible. This reduces the chance of the government being blamed for the collapse of the economy. And every government - apart from Sweden's and Brazil's - is in the same place
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My admiration for the Tory government has shot right up. I thought they were just incompetent but Grant has revealed they are marvellously Machiavellian. We are lucky to have them.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Machiavellian is too high a level of praise. No, they are just kicking the tin can down the road. This is made easier by most people rather enjoying lockdown.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Panic in the streets of Manchester
It's Peterloo all over again
Talk of breaking away from that Lunnon


The local authorities wanted some restrictions that were due to end at midnight to continue. At midday, the government announced they were going to be.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There Is No Novel Virus IV


This past week, new statistics released by the CDC in America revealed the shocking ineffectiveness of whatever it is the medical establishment has labeled "Covid-19." It turns out that only 6% of the Covid deaths the CDC has up-to-now counted were persons who died in the absence of a co-morbidity.

What does that mean?

It means that 94% of the Covid patients who died were going to die anyway and, of course, probably did die of something else entirely.

The total number of Americans who have died of "Coronavirus" infection alone is just over 9000. Of these, the CDC states that 90% were of "advanced age."

This is a lesser mortality rate---by orders of magnitude--than the seasonal flu.

Whatever Boris Johnson had, he was at no time in any real danger.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Your view, and what I've been banging on about, was finally recognised last night when a white coat pointed out that now our daily death toll is in single figures but the 'catching Covid' figure is still in four figures, that those who were likely to die of Covid already have. If only we (I am not sure that the USA has reached the same stage) will accept a daily Covid death rate in two figures and people catching a certain type of 'flu' in the high four figures, we could all go about our normal lives.

The kerfuffle in 'Trafford and Bolton' (see my last post) was all about the fact that 'the rate per thousand people was twenty-eight whereas nationally it was fifteen' [can't remember the actual ones]. This doesn't refer to deaths, there can't have been any; it doesn't even refer to people getting ill; it refers to people testing positive. And even this mostly has do with minority groups having different cultural practices.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Whatever Boris Johnson had, he was at no time in any real danger.

This is a ludicrous statement that implies some kind of conspiracy took place and undermines what is otherwise a plausible argument. It is not admissible to make an assertion without giving sources or showing how it was worked out.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
This is a ludicrous statement that implies some kind of conspiracy took place and undermines what is otherwise a plausible argument.


Not true.

Boris probably had a flu. A nasty one. I don't know about you but, every time I've had the flu, I've felt pretty certain I was going to die. Had I a top-notch medical team diagnose me, under those circumstances, with a life-threatening illness, I'd be 100% convinced to make out my last will and testament.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 71, 72, 73  Next

Jump to:  
Page 34 of 73

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group