Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Been curious about this, since the spin of this bullshit https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52114476 The stories were saying no underlying health issue. The rumours flying around inc TWOCing

This is one of the reasons I fell out with my sister. For her to have witnessed some of what she claimed she would have had to have personally attended to just about every covid death in the country u

It is quite amazing to me how my colleagues in NHS are blind to the reality we see daily and the spin. Spring was very busy in ITU (but quiet everywhere else), today we are busy in ITU, but it really

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, eight said:

This is one of the reasons I fell out with my sister. For her to have witnessed some of what she claimed she would have had to have personally attended to just about every covid death in the country up to that point. Bear in mind the NHS deal with the aftermath of gruesome murder attempts, unwitting failed train suicides, victims of chemical burns, horrific cancers - what is it about covid that traumatises them to such an apparent extent?

Chance of getting loads of free takeaways ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The frustrating thing with all of these stories is the anecdotal nature of them..

Where's the numbers ?

 

And when you do get the numbers they are always obscured..  like the covid death rate.

Anyone admitted to hospital and subsequently dying,   died of covid if they test positive at any point during their stay.  Regardless of what they died of.

I've heard anecdotals (from people I know) of patients being wheeled into hospital with terminal illnesses,  who have died and then been told to list them as "covid" because they tested positive,  regardless whether they had any symptoms or it was actually the cause of death.

That against a backdrop of relatively low reported deaths despite apparently 1 in 50 people now currently having it.

The quality of the data,  and the quality of the reporting on this is very, very,  poor.   IMO.

Edited by Libspero
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Libspero said:

The frustrating thing with all of these stories is the anecdotal nature of them..

Where's the numbers ?

 

And when you do get the numbers they are always obscured..  like the covid death rate.

Anyone admitted to hospital and subsequently dying,   died of covid if they test positive at any point during their stay.  Regardless of what they died of.

I've heard anecdotals (from people I know) of patients being wheeled into hospital with terminal illnesses,  who have died and then been told to list them as "covid" because they tested positive,  regardless whether they had any symptoms or it was actually the cause of death.

That against a backdrop of relatively low reported deaths despite apparently 1 in 50 people now currently having it.

The quality of the data,  and the quality of the reporting on this is very, very,  poor.   IMO.

Indeed.

The correct jounro response to:

'We have people in their 40s, their 30s, their 20s on our intensive care unit, dying of Covid. We are having to think about whether we do cancer surgery, we're having to postpone cancer surgery because of the number of Covid patients we have in.

 

Is 

How many people have died in the last few weeks?

What are their age groups?

Did they have underlying health issues?

The NSHS excel file I linked to is going to be correct. And a lot of those deaths will be ill/old people.

Covid is looking like it just brought forward death by a ~6 months. 99% the old + ill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to another NHS excel report.

St Geoges in London (the one in the article) have had ....... drum roll ...... 5 covid deaths in Dec 20.

~1/week.

Now I accept that number might have increased.

And that they might have a full ICU.

But those figures do not tally wit hthe image of piling up bodies they are BSing.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was comparing data from the first and second waves.  This is a graph of normalised (so population average is 1) death risk by age, using the ONS data for deaths involving Covid in England and Wales.  For someone 90+ the risk of death from Covid is ~23x the population average.  For my age group (50-54) it's ~0.2x the population average.  For lower ages it's much less (but not zero).  When I hear doctors bleating about people in their 20s in ICU I just take it as propaganda.

DeathRisk.png.5d35bb6945d80f982dc624b39c995842.png

The blue data are for the first wave and the red are for the second, with a cut-off of the beginning of September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it's just another scare tactic to keep the bandwagon rolling.

I've had this out on my local Facebook page. Someone claimed 'lots more young people and children are going into hospital with Covid'. I asked for a source, and got given a link to an article in The Sun with a quote from an un-named junior doctor.

When I pointed out this was not a reliable source, someone got mardy and wrote 'will THIS do?' with a link to a BMJ article quoting a recent study.

But on examination, all the study showed was that there had been a slight increase in hospital admissions of women in the 20-40 age group (possibly obese, but it didn't mention that)

Add to that the recent statement by the Royal College of Paediatricians that there has been no significant increase in admissions of children.

Silence, of course, on Facebook - but it shows how people are swayed by headlines, and even those who are intelligent enough to dig out a BMJ article can't see much beyond the headlines of that either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very frustrating how:

  • Anything pro-covid narrative is okay to be anecdotal etc.
  • Anything anti-covid narrative needs robust scientific data behind it, and if it doesn't exist then it can be ignored.  Frankly, even if it does have robust data it will be ignored unless it is of the very highest quality.

[Eg, vitD.  There's loads of studies that show it to be at least useful.  But they still say 'no', because there's no 'gold standard' data that supports it (double-blinded randomised studies, etc).  Why isn't there the data?  Because the studies haven't been done.  Why not?  Because governments haven't supported it.  Why don't they support it?  Because there's no data showing it to be useful, etc]

It actually goes beyond even that, with official figures being presented in a way to highlight problems.  Eg, them showing death-by-age and death-by-morbidity but no data cross correlating.  

Even worse is when they cherry pick 'the worst' data -- eg, they choose whatever is higher on any given day from the 'deaths by date reported' and 'deaths by date of death'.  The just keep on doing this and there's never any criticism (from the greater media, scientific press, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

...

When I pointed out this was not a reliable source, someone got mardy and wrote 'will THIS do?' with a link to a BMJ article quoting a recent study.

But on examination, all the study showed was that there had been a slight increase in hospital admissions of women in the 20-40 age group (possibly obese, but it didn't mention that)

..

I find it extraordinary how many times 'official stuff' points to scientific papers that then don't support their argument.  It is very common.

[The official study that was used to justify 'masks' said that masks weren't that useful -- does no-one read the source any more... #ILoveScience (but can't be bothered to read the references)]

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, spygirl said:

According to another NHS excel report.

St Geoges in London (the one in the article) have had ....... drum roll ...... 5 covid deaths in Dec 20.

~1/week.

Now I accept that number might have increased.

And that they might have a full ICU.

But those figures do not tally wit hthe image of piling up bodies they are BSing.

 

 

 

Can you link to where it's broken down by Hospital?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dgul said:

I find it extraordinary how many times 'official stuff' points to scientific papers that then don't support their argument.  It is very common.

[The official study that was used to justify 'masks' said that masks weren't that useful -- does no-one read the source any more... #ILoveScience (but can't be bothered to read the references)]

So much of it comes down to a glass half full/empty approach.

The BMJ article mentioned was clearly trying to twist a negative out of statistics that did not really warrant such a conclusion.

In many ways this pandemic is part of a proxy culture war between those who can reasonably assess relative risk and those who cannot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, spygirl said:

According to another NHS excel report.

St Geoges in London (the one in the article) have had ....... drum roll ...... 5 covid deaths in Dec 20.

~1/week.

Now I accept that number might have increased.

And that they might have a full ICU.

But those figures do not tally wit hthe image of piling up bodies they are BSing.

 

 

 

My local authority of ~100,000 people has not had a single, solitary, Covid-19 death since May. Not one. None. Zero. 

Edited by the gardener
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dgul said:

It is very frustrating how:

  • Anything pro-covid narrative is okay to be anecdotal etc.
  • Anything anti-covid narrative needs robust scientific data behind it, and if it doesn't exist then it can be ignored.  Frankly, even if it does have robust data it will be ignored unless it is of the very highest quality.

[Eg, vitD.  There's loads of studies that show it to be at least useful.  But they still say 'no', because there's no 'gold standard' data that supports it (double-blinded randomised studies, etc).  Why isn't there the data?  Because the studies haven't been done.  Why not?  Because governments haven't supported it.  Why don't they support it?  Because there's no data showing it to be useful, etc]

It actually goes beyond even that, with official figures being presented in a way to highlight problems.  Eg, them showing death-by-age and death-by-morbidity but no data cross correlating.  

Even worse is when they cherry pick 'the worst' data -- eg, they choose whatever is higher on any given day from the 'deaths by date reported' and 'deaths by date of death'.  The just keep on doing this and there's never any criticism (from the greater media, scientific press, etc).

It's junk science, it's been going on for a long time. In recent years it seems to have been used to justify public health decisions aimed at reducing the burden on the health service. A classic example was 'second hand smoking'. Until the 80s most scientific studies about smoking showed that smoking was harmful pretty much only to the smoker. Because of the addictive nature of the drug, many smokers just shrugged and accepted the risks.

So TPTB, in order to relieve the burden on socialised medicine, had to somehow 'prove' that smoking was also bad for those around smokers in order to make smoking socially unacceptable. You could see the hysteria developing throughout the 80s and 90s as the 'studies' grew in volume.

Edited by Austin Allegro
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

IMO it's just another scare tactic to keep the bandwagon rolling.

 

It's what we normally call a common or garden lie.

What I can't understand is why the entire media, public sector and even individual NHS staff are engaged in perpetuating it. Why my sister will happily parrot a narrative that cannot tally with her own personal experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, eight said:

It's what we normally call a common or garden lie.

What I can't understand is why the entire media, public sector and even individual NHS staff are engaged in perpetuating it. Why my sister will happily parrot a narrative that cannot tally with her own personal experience.

Because a hysteria has been created. It's hardly surprising that people are acting like hysterics.

No amount of rationality will convince a hysteric. Social and mainstream media and the Government are complicit and indeed are using this as tool to their advantage. All the "Don't kill your Gran" stuff for example.

I think Covid exists and it's killing a number of people. Our reaction to that reality is however insane. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dgul said:

It is very frustrating how:

  • Anything pro-covid narrative is okay to be anecdotal etc.
  • Anything anti-covid narrative needs robust scientific data behind it, and if it doesn't exist then it can be ignored.  Frankly, even if it does have robust data it will be ignored unless it is of the very highest quality.

[Eg, vitD.  There's loads of studies that show it to be at least useful.  But they still say 'no', because there's no 'gold standard' data that supports it (double-blinded randomised studies, etc).  Why isn't there the data?  Because the studies haven't been done.  Why not?  Because governments haven't supported it.  Why don't they support it?  Because there's no data showing it to be useful, etc]

It actually goes beyond even that, with official figures being presented in a way to highlight problems.  Eg, them showing death-by-age and death-by-morbidity but no data cross correlating.  

Even worse is when they cherry pick 'the worst' data -- eg, they choose whatever is higher on any given day from the 'deaths by date reported' and 'deaths by date of death'.  The just keep on doing this and there's never any criticism (from the greater media, scientific press, etc).

Compare to the scrutiny over vaccines.

Nearly all these drugs that have been put forward, used and have many tens of studies in their favour have been used for decades by millions patients, so their toxicity / adverse issues are very well bounded, the only thing that is to debate is whether they are effective in preventing, reducing side effects, reducing mortality in the face of the China Flu either in isolation or as part of a co-ordinated drug regime.

The situation is so bad that it defies believe that those involved could be so inept, so leads to the conclusion that they are corrupt and mendacious in not doing so. 

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...