Jump to content

Covid Misinformation Time-Outs


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, A.M.S. said:

Please state examples of those successful programs worldwide..

Not until you quote me where I have had any regard for NZ's approach or pull your fucking head in.

12 minutes ago, A.M.S. said:

The spotlight fallacy of constantly pointing to "New Zealand" as a model and assuming that it is the wonders of their magically competent government, not their geographic isolation and low population density, that has prevented many cases is a great example of the almost religious conviction of folks like Sparrow.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

They gonna be burning masks up there (I don't think that's a good idea but I bet they will).

No they just had the health officials put the order back in place.  Will take a few months to get back up to the supremes.  It was a good try and fail by the republicans, several friends got in on the billing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Not until you quote me where I have had any regard for NZ's approach or pull your fucking head in.

 

Statement withdrawn and restated:  The spotlight fallacy of constantly pointing to "New Zealand" as a model and assuming that it is the wonders of their magically competent government, not their geographic isolation and low population density, that has prevented many cases is a great example of the almost religious conviction of folks like Sparrow.  Now examples please.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, A.M.S. said:

Right, so NO successful programs........as stated previously. 

As I thought lazy and all piss and wind. You don't need me to point out the sucessfull contact/trace/test and isolate without widespread lockdown countries. You do if you want to ignore them as they don't fit your narratative. Hint some of the best exponents now got murdered in the first wave being unprepared so overlooked by many today. Probably more to the point what is the long term alternative in the absence of a vaccine?

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

NZ is probably worse example on earth to follow. The true cost of their low mortality outcome is eye watering.

NZ cost is not too bad, debt is 12% of GDP compared to 20% of GDP for the UK and worse for the US.  The major cost of NZ's system is because of the loss of the tourism and students industry and that would of happened whatever system we used to control the virus.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

NZ cost is not too bad, debt is 12% of GDP compared to 20% of GDP for the UK

Comparing NZ to UK the world's #1 for economic hit is not a good comparison and widespread  lockdown cost is not just economic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, astro said:

That's an excellent start.  Well done, but he is allowed back?  I know people who have been perma-banned for no reason supplied.

So you ban people for posting misinformation about COVID-19, but those who have repeatedly posted misinformation about subjects that threaten human life on earth ... that could kill us all, are allowed to post as much as they like?

Mmmmm

You are dead right mate. Time to ban all those climate change alarmists, conspiracy theory nut jobs and those that claim retarded Swedish teenagers can change the world.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, astro said:

That's an excellent start.  Well done, but he is allowed back?  I know people who have been perma-banned for no reason supplied.

So you ban people for posting misinformation about COVID-19, but those who have repeatedly posted misinformation about subjects that threaten human life on earth ... that could kill us all, are allowed to post as much as they like?

Mmmmm

Fuck, I got a time out for suggesting that masks were ineffective - I even posted 3 peer reviewed medical studies that said as much.

Even the CDC says

"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

It goes on to state that while other types of masks may be more effective in preventing transmission, but they must be fitted and handled very carefully - which most people won't do - or wearing them will actually be counterproductive.

 

The simple fact is that the median age of "Covid" deaths in most Western countries is over 80 years (Sweden is 84 years) and only about 4% of the dead had no serious preconditions. In sharp contrast to flu pandemics, the age and risk profile of deaths thus corresponds to normal mortality. The young and productive members of society have very low risk of illness and should never have been locked up. The "at risk" groups are easy to identify , so should be easy to target a reponse to them alone..

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html?fbclid=IwAR24uTYN6nHc0y1-BTC1FVBWnBUOlIz65NiC4JDajhmc2pOPgZCkc1lVyAA

 

...and yes, I do have a dog in this fight. I have a 96 year old mother in a rest home. Yes , I would be upset if she dies, but on the other hand, her quality of life is absolutely shit.

 

Communities and economies are being destroyed on the basis of a few random positive cases, yet there is absolutely no debate about the fact that the PCR test that is being used is horrifically inaccurate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

I have seen articles that claim the PCR test can return a positive reading from miniscule fragments of dead virus over 2 months after infection.

 

 

119980739_10158686103479722_5937343736898905032_o.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

You are dead right mate. Time to ban all those climate change alarmists, conspiracy theory nut jobs and those that claim retarded Swedish teenagers can change the world.

Or, we could see the streets of Miami underwater, hurricanes, floods, fires and droughts.  I'd prefer fantasy.  Which sells better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hasher said:

Or, we could see the streets of Miami underwater, hurricanes, floods, fires and droughts.  I'd prefer fantasy.  Which sells better?

Would the loss of Miami, plus other bits of Florida, be that much of a loss?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dorydude said:

Fuck, I got a time out for suggesting that masks were ineffective - I even posted 3 peer reviewed medical studies that said as much...

119980739_10158686103479722_5937343736898905032_o.thumb.jpg.76ae5c82b903a9d6544bbdbc80c4fe4d.jpg.b2a44561d952517a257dd432d6609ebf.jpg

Kicked out over only masks professor DoryDick...you fucking obviously need more time in the Gulag to refresh your memory.

This posted same week of UK and Sweden max mortality saying old people were going to die anyway.

IMG_20200412_202438.jpg

IMG_20200412_202231.jpg

As for that shit re-post on CDC % survival with no comment or context you greasy fuck and you loving certain medical studies..how about these on Covid for Infection Fatality Rate for over 35's compared to the flu noting CDC right hand bottom corner for flu source and one Covid IFR. Nearly 9 times more deadly at only 50 years.

Still a lying dangerous cunt.

EjqkEUaXYAEm0Wy.thumb.jpeg.6969ca8bf9342d12762f5a72f33d4f1a.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Kicked out over only masks professor DoryDick...you fucking obviously need more time in the Gulag to refresh your memory.

This posted same week of UK and Sweden max mortality saying old people were going to die anyway.

IMG_20200412_202438.jpg

IMG_20200412_202231.jpg

As for that shit re-post on CDC % survival with no comment or context you greasy fuck and you loving certain medical studies..how about these on Covid for Infection Fatality Rate for over 35's compared to the flu noting CDC right hand bottom corner for flu source and one Covid IFR. Nearly 9 times more deadly at only 50 years.

Still a lying dangerous cunt.

EjqkEUaXYAEm0Wy.thumb.jpeg.6969ca8bf9342d12762f5a72f33d4f1a.jpeg

You silly old cunt, I did post the CDC figures further up ....and ,yes, for most of the world's population, this is no worse than a bad flu. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dorydude said:

You silly old cunt, I did post the CDC figures further up ...

That's not what I said....lying cunt.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

..As for that shit re-post on CDC % survival with no comment or context..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Dr DoryDick this just to keep your collection of dangerous shitfuckery in one place as posts have been known to disappear.

BTW your choice of thread to keep batting on after having already been given a time out is intriguing.

5 hours ago, dorydude said:

...In sharp contrast to flu pandemics, the age and risk profile of deaths thus corresponds to normal mortality. The young and productive members of society have very low risk of illness and should never have been locked up. The "at risk" groups are easy to identify , so should be easy to target a reponse to them alone....

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Covid for Infection Fatality Rate for over 35's compared to the flu noting CDC right hand bottom corner for flu source and one Covid IFR. Nearly 9 times more deadly at only 50 years.

Still a lying dangerous cunt.

EjqkEUaXYAEm0Wy.thumb.jpeg.6969ca8bf9342d12762f5a72f33d4f1a.jpeg

42 minutes ago, dorydude said:

...yes, for most of the world's population, this is no worse than a bad flu. 

IMG_20200412_202438.jpg.76ab4f3c5cec40f23bdfc6310dfac4ec.jpgIMG_20200412_202231.thumb.jpg.e114d8101ecfbaecb8be86f324cb5daa.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dorydude said:

You silly old cunt, I did post the CDC figures further up ....and ,yes, for most of the world's population, this is no worse than a bad flu. 

What interventions do countries take in response to the yearly flus? Some countries offer flu vaccines which are known to be completely ineffective some years. US flu vaccination is approximately 35% on average.  Most Countries offer no or little flu vaccination.

My point being that the majority of the World has taken unprecedented steps to limit infection of Covid. Almost no flu intervention. If anything we promote flu infection by our typical lifestyles. No hand washing, distancing, masks. 
 

Comparing flu and Covid is stupid. Based on the different interventions & inaccurate numbers. It’s not apples and oranges. It’s a watermelon and a basketball. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dorydude said:

The young and productive members of society have very low risk of illness and should never have been locked up. 

That's debunked ^^^^^^ and this.

12 hours ago, dorydude said:

The "at risk" groups are easy to identify , so should be easy to target a reponse to them alone..

________________________

BlatantEcho     163

BlatantEcho

Two days ago, three epidemiologists (Harvard, Stanford and Oxford) released a statement about how bad current Covid policies are.
Since it's release, 6,000 medical professionals (MDs, PhDs, etc) have added their names to it.
 

Great Barrington Declaration

Scientists say idea of ‘focused protection’ for vulnerable people is very hard to achieve and likely to lead to even higher death toll

The strategy proposed in the Great Barrington declaration – a letter signed by an international group of scientists – is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle of ideas for how to tackle the pandemic. 

Authored by Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, and Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard, the declaration has received thousands of signatures.

According to the declaration, a “focused protection” approach is the most compassionate way to minimise deaths and social harm until we reach herd immunity – a situation where enough people are resistant to the virus that the pandemic shrinks. But among the scientific community, this is a fringe viewpoint.

I highlight Gupta as @Blatant clearly has a hard on for her and still has. This from August.

__________________________

On 8/21/2020 at 5:08 PM, BlatantEcho said:

Professor Sunetra Gupta, a theoretical epidemiologist at Oxford University

Source (very worthy of a full read)

_______________________________

To which I replied at the time and here in part.

"Sunetra Gupta led and co authored a Oxford paper dated 24 March 2020 with a really long name.

The short name is: 

"Up to half the UK already infected & immune - Only 1:1000 will require hospitalisation."  - 24 March 2020

The Times used a even shorter version;  Coronavirus may have infected half of UK population — Oxford study and left out the bit about the hospitalisation rate in real life being hundreds of times greater. 

The only good thing is many of her peers came out in the MSM and tore her work to shreds and gave her a new arsehole. The fact her paper employed no real life data got many pretty steamed up. :lol:

Ironicaly it was published the day after lock-down started in the UK. Two weeks later daily deaths measured by excess mortality peaked at nearly 1,500. Today the UK carries the global gold medal for deaths per capita and ranked #5 in total. 

I wonder what that number would be today if they didn't do a UTurn on 13 March and continued following Swedens approach that was endorsed by her?"

The bullshitters always keep bullshitting even after a time out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

@jack_sparrow You might not like one of them, but there are ~12,000 other medical professional who have signed this week.

Only you are right, and every single epidemiologists who signed is wrong? Is that your position?

Your propensity for misquoting people is legendary. That is your way. 

The declaration was drawn up at the American Institute for Economic Research, a right-leaning organisation in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, that promotes individual rights, small government and open markets. That is not a scientific body by any stretch of the imagination. Of greater interest is individuals who have not signed than the number who have.

Note this is a summary of one part of that this Great Barrington Declaration taken from the cited article. 

"It calls on governments around the world to abandon strategies that suppress the virus until we can better cope – through working test-and-trace programmes, new treatments, vaccines and more – for the radically different approach."

Then compare that to this post exchange upthread. You might recognise it.

________________________________________

  On 10/7/2020 at 6:38 PM, BlatantEcho said:

I realize you guys all disagree with me (and mostly resort to name calling)
I'll also accept, I don't always articulate points well, no question - I'm human.

But, at a certain point, the body of evidence building against current lockdown policies, becomes overwhelming.

  20 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I agree with you or anyone that lock down policies have always been regarded as shit for economic as well as consequential health issues. 

However reality is that if a country or state are not properly prepared to prosecute  a suppression response excluding all but hot spot lockdowns or execute that response badly, including citizens not taking directions and it gets away into exponential reproduction numbers, then options are simple. Accept the increased mortality or impose more robust suppression including wider scale lockdowns beyond hot spots.

The number of countries or states that still fit this following description month 10 into a pandemic is fucking rediculous.

Lockdowns used instead of a robust test-trace-isolate program and where community ownership of the response is lacking with or without poor messaging by authorities. In other words: “It’s too hard to quarantine a few people now, so let’s quarantine everybody.” 6 months ago that was excusable. It isn't anymore. Richest country on earth does not have a 'centralised nationwide' contact/trace/test/isolate response program in place. That is fucked. They are not alone.

By the way this has been put to you numerous times before your holiday and you rejected that outright on the bullshit basis the virus was not dangerous to most of the community, high excess mortality rates were acceptable and or herd immunity without a vaccine was sustainable.

The jury is out on whether you still believe that shit. Leopards don't change spots comes to mind.

So there is no disagreement there at all EXCEPT for one key part. That part is the subject of my post. That was supported with a cite so hardly restricted to being my opinion against 12,000 as you dishonestly portray.

So also from the Great Barrington Declaration.

Quote: 'We know that all populations will eventually  reach herd immunity'. 

There is no global expert support to 'herd immunity' in the absence of a vaccine. Even in the country first credited for promoting it, Sweden, it has been abandoned in favour of more traditional contact/trace and suppression with hot spot isolation and just as I posted in my reply to you above. If herd immunity materialises great. To date it hasn't there or anywhere from Brazil to London.

One the co authors of the Great Barrington Declaration Sunetra Gupta is a promoter of 'herd immunity' As I have cited, her work in this sphere has been discredited by her peers. You were shown that by reply months ago. It is repeated above. You have ignored it twice now. Maybe her expertise, 'theoretical epidemiology' is something which should be given closer attention?

You cherry pick articles, you cherry pick data, you cherry pick posts and you ignore posts that collide with your narrative.

Why do you do that? The answer is simple. You and your discourse is dishonest to the core.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Look to the right...they are not hard to miss.

 

Ah, the literal right. But that's a location, I was more interested in the mindset. 

I wonder if those keyboard warriors walk the talk. Shifting dung in an internet forum is a lot different from making that stand in everyday life. Do they start to preach like that when shopping for groceries or fueling up? Do they start an argument with their boss? In an restaurant? With friends or family that use masks or distance?

I don't think so.

So, why do it here?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

@jack_sparrow You might not like one of them, but there are ~12,000 other medical professional who have signed this week.

Only you are right, and every single epidemiologists who signed is wrong?

There are like 68 epidemiologists on that letter.  The other 11000 are guys exactly like Scott Atlas and Wess and you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grog said:

So, why do it here?

Opinionated, fanatical or a partisan mindsight can sit under the surface or at least be controlled for day to day social interaction. Introduce a high profile divisive subject, a pathological switch is thrown and anything goes. Can also satisfy a need like a drug and online anonymity is the perfect delivery system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Opinionated, fanatical or a partisan mindsight can sit under the surface or at least be controlled for day to day social interaction. Introduce a high profile divisive subject, a pathological switch is thrown and anything goes. Can also satisfy a need like a drug and online anonymity is the perfect delivery system.

In which case they should be spending time with a shrink rather than a keyboard. Or go on walk or even pick up knitting.

Anything but this wasteful nonsense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There are like 68 epidemiologists on that letter.  The other 11000 are guys exactly like Scott Atlas and Wess and you.

A) I'm not a Stanford MD, but thank you for making me feel smart. B)

B )  Wess comes off as pretty damn reasonable. I realize his opinion, like mine, isn't popular - but, he's pretty logical from ILCA to Covid-19.
I'll take that as a compliment too.

C) I didn't count, but, a quick search seems to confirm you're close.  Another 1000 or so have signed it today.
Fauci is the most rightest though yeah?   If 150 epidemiologist disagree with him, he still wins?


It just seems sort of like a rockstar pro sailor onboard treatment.  
We're paying them a $1000/day to make calls, so, we just assume they're right.

I get it, I understand the desire for one expert to rule them all.
But, isn't the point of having experts to help get to the truth?  

Or, do we prefer to trust one expert so blindly even when a chorus of other experts are increasingly worried about the starboard tacker that the pro didn't see coming?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

EjqkEUaXYAEm0Wy.thumb.jpeg.6969ca8bf9342d12762f5a72f33d4f1a.jpeg

You realise that this graph is out of date (there is an updated one on mbecand's github https://github.com/mbevand/covid19-age-stratified-ifr) and even then the 14 data sources are very old (mostly from the peaks of fatality rates)?  Estimated IFR's are falling as a greater understanding is gained of the true number of infections.

Also the Author isn't exactly a noted epidemiologist!  https://www.zorinaq.com/  He is a Computer Engineer specialising in computer security.  His interests are:  reverse engineering, security vulnerability research/exploitation, cryptography, software optimization, GPGPU, decentralized cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin), hardware hacking, home automation

This is the latest US CDC estimate which the graph hasn't updated yet from Table 1.  You can see the source here - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#table-1 

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054
Link to post
Share on other sites

The key issue isn't the IFR alone but the relatively high R figure - i.e. more people are being infected than the average flu therefore total fatalities are high even though the actual IFR's MAY not be that much higher for most age groups.

WHO this week released an estimation that 10% of the world population have been infected.  So that's 20 times the current confirmed cases i.e. 35 million vs 700 million.  That size denominator will drastically reduce the IFR's.  One might counter that argument and say that million's more have died and are not recorded but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that that is the case.

https://time.com/5896734/10-percent-world-infected-covid-19-who/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my. The dirty birdy and clean but ignorant chrome dome will not be pleased. They hate truth and those that do not conform to their lies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You realise that this graph is out of date (there is an updated one on mbecand's github https://github.com/mbevand/covid19-age-stratified-ifr) and even then the 14 data sources are very old (mostly from the peaks of fatality rates)?  Estimated IFR's are falling as a greater understanding is gained of the true number of infections.

Thanks but as you can see little change and more to the point it was secured and to simply counter the nonsense view Covid and a bad flue had similiar IFR's except for the elderly PLUS it had to be one that included CDC data for BOTH the flu and Covid to match BlattentlyBullshittings use of CDC data. This is the only one in the public domain to my knowledge.

IFR's are falling across all age spectrums so doesn't change the above and yes due to improvements in treatment BUT also because unlike the first wave more younger people below retirement age are being hospitalised now where their fatality rate is lower. Also the load on health care, particularly acute care has a large impact on fatality rates and that load is lower now.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Also the Author isn't exactly a noted epidemiologist!  https://www.zorinaq.com/  He is a Computer Engineer... 

I am unaware of any professional critism levelled against this work, noting it one of assembling the data and work of health professionals.  BTW it is not unusual that non-epidermologists are involved in epidemic modelling. For instance the majority of modelling on Herd Immunity Thresholds (HIT) is done by mathematicians working in the field. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

IFR's are falling across all age spectrums so doesn't change the above and yes due to improvements in treatment BUT also because unlike the first wave more younger people below retirement age are being hospitalised now where their fatality rate is lower. Also the load on health care, particularly acute care has a large impact on fatality rates and that load is lower now.

But that is the same for Flu IFR's.  That's why it is pointless using an IFR 4 months into a pandemic (as most of the data in the graph is early data) to draw any inference or comparison.  In some respects it is just another form of misinformation.

8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I am unaware of any professional critism levelled against this work, noting it one of assembling the data and work health professionals.

There are mistakes in his work, it is out of date and the subset of papers/data chosen seems to be quite selective to prove his hypothesis that "Covid-19 is much worse than the Flu".  I doubt health researchers would take much note of it.  Also there is a doubling up of research as some of the papers are themselves meta-collections of data.

I'm trying to work out how to plot the USA CDC latest model IFR figures on the diagram.  Not to misinform but to show that a Covid-19 vs Flu comparison doesn't serve much purpose other than a political one - for BOTH sides!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I'm trying to work out how to plot the USA CDC latest model IFR figures on the diagram.  Not to misinform but to show that a Covid-19 vs Flu comparison doesn't serve much purpose other than a political one - for BOTH sides!

tenor.gif

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

tenor.gif

Isn't it valid to plot the latest CDC figures on this graph?

Plotting those figures show a line well below the flu averages which reinforces the issue that if you only use one metric in isolation then you can misinform.  Combining the R0 metric and then you can see the true impact.  IFR on its own is pointless.  How is that bullshit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

WHO this week released an estimation that 10% of the world population have been infected.  So that's 20 times the current confirmed cases i.e. 35 million vs 700 millionThat size denominator will drastically reduce the IFR's.......

The CDC indicated likewise for the US a couple of months ago. One would assume they therefore include that in their IFR estimates.  

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

One might counter that argument and say that million's more have died and are not recorded but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that that is the case.

Hardly not recorded. Evidence in the form of 'Excess Mortality'  indicate the world average undercount to official Covid deaths is around 30%. In some countries it is much higher. For instance in the UK it is over a 40% undercount, the US a lesser difference. This is not unexpected where for instance official deaths have to be accompanied by a positive test result.

This can can extend to the rediculous where the UK reduced its official total by 5,000 overnight by time barring that test result to 28 days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Hardly not recorded. Evidence in the form of 'Excess Mortality'  indicate the world average undercount to official Covid deaths is around 30%. In some countries it is much higher. For instance in the UK it is over a 40% undercount, the US a lesser difference. This is not unexpected where for instance official deaths have to be accompanied by a positive test result.

Even so if you did undercount by 50% the IFR will be substantially lower as the denominator by magnitude is much much larger.  The red lines in the graphs use predominantly antibody serological samples to estimate the denominator.  Those following the research know that early antibody tests underestimate positives and that after mild infections antibodies can be negligible and so you get false negatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

But that is the same for Flu IFR's.  That's why it is pointless using an IFR 4 months into a pandemic (as most of the data in the graph is early data) to draw any inference or comparison.  In some respects it is just another form of misinformation.

We are in month 10 of a pandemic now. Flu IFR's are historical without non pharma mitigation and suppression. Covid mitigation and suppresion has reduced flu mortality this year in both hemispheres. Misinformation is trying to indicate Covid and the flu have similiar IFR's. They don't.

That misinformation is being used to propogate herd immunity as a viable response. That is coming from the scientific 'fringe.' You appear to favour the 'fringe'. End of story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

Fauci is the most rightest though yeah?   If 150 epidemiologist disagree with him, he still wins?

And the thousands of epidermiologists world wide that side with Fauci not the 'fringe' are irrelevant according to you.

12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

You cherry pick articles, you cherry pick data, you cherry pick posts and you ignore posts that collide with your narrative.

Why do you do that? The answer is simple. You and your discourse is dishonest to the core.

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

Flu IFR's are historical without mitigation and suppression

Uh?  Are you saying flu vaccines aren't mitigation/suppression?

5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Misinformation is trying to indicate Covid and the flu have similiar IFR's. They don't.

Of course they don't.  But the latest CDC model parameters uses IFR's that are lower!  I keep repeating that it is pointless looking at IFR's for this reason and others.  

9 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

That misinformation is being used to propogate herd immunity as a viable response. That is coming from the 'fringe.' End of story

Again "herd immunity" has become politicised.  Herd immunity is the ultimate end game in the absence of eradication or elimination.  The path towards that is what is in question.  The optimal, in the absence of a vaccine, is probably somewhere between the polar positions of "complete lockdown" vs "let it rip."  A vaccine gives us a more benign path towards "herd immunity."

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Uh?  Are you saying flu vaccines aren't mitigation/suppression?

You were a bit quick. 

41 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Flu IFR's are historical without non pharma mitigation and suppression.

 

25 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

  A vaccine gives us a more benign path towards "herd immunity."

Not a "benign" path. A vaccine is an 'essential companion' to 'herd' or 'natural' immunisation when mortality rates are deemed unacceptable to a community and large questions still exist about the effectiveness of natural immunisation or even it's HIT. Other than the 'fringe' all experts agree on this as they do on robust contact/test/trace in the interim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the criteria @clean ?

You have set a precedent now.  Here we have an obvious sock posting dangerous information in a timeout thread!!!!. 

Have you done it yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, astro said:

Here we have an obvious sock posting dangerous information in a timeout thread!!!!

Yes joined Sept 10 a giveaway and is steering a very fine line just this side of losing it. It is giving Wess a hard on though which is amusing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 11:30 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

There are like 68 epidemiologists on that letter.  The other 11000 are guys exactly like Scott Atlas and Wess and you.

There are a lot of scientists signing The Great Barrington Declaration promoting herd immunity  :lol:

Should be jailed for this gigantic fraud.

Ej4kjfqXgAYtmJn.jpeg

Ej4jkAxX0AABfTj.jpeg

Ej4kjfpXcAc4F6b.jpeg

Ej4jSIrX0AADJ68.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 10/9/2020 at 9:57 AM, MR.CLEAN said:
On 10/9/2020 at 9:43 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

 

You really do not know how to take a hint do you

On 10/9/2020 at 2:26 PM, LB 15 said:

Kate’s a cunt. Boot it.

@Kate short for Bob is lining up for a second boot. 

The cunt now promoting LET IT RIP.

Go to BOOKMARK at the end of this post.

Lying dangerous cunt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

The cunt now promoting LET IT RIP.

That's an outright lie.

I questioned the efficacy of a full lock down in the UK now as being too late.  Case numbers appeared to be turning.

That statement isn't an advocacy for "let it rip"!  

Many of the lockdowns throughout the world have been far too late i.e. the damage has been done. 

Full lockdowns come at a considerable economic cost, severely impact the people who can least afford it and have serious impacts on other health outcomes.

The key difficulty is determining what level of suppression is the target or do you attempt elimination.  The latter is damn near impossible now in the UK.  So I imagine they are aiming to control this surge to a level where health services can continue go cope.

Saying that is no different to the World Health Organisations view.

You can have you own views but don't make up bullshit about mine.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's an outright lie.

I questioned the efficacy of a full lock down in the UK now as being too late.  Case numbers appeared to be turning.

That statement isn't an advocacy for "let it rip"!  

"That's an outright lie. I questioned the efficacy of a full lock down in the UK now as being too late"

"Questioned" and "now" - Pigs Arse

UK at 15 Sept (3,000 new cases) you said it "WAS TOO LATE"  to lock-down. 

UK today 5 Nov (25,177 new cases) you said there "IS NO POINT" to lock down.

With those TWO statements in mind you now try and claim;

"That statement isn't an advocacy for 'let it rip'!"

Your concocted statement just posted doesn't advocate "LET IT RIP."

BUT your actual THREE statements earllier today and copied below, advocate EXACTLY that AND from 15 September when cases were just starting to rise exponentialy. (See chart below). 

AND 

"Case numbers appeared to be turning"

More Bullshit

Today you actually said it "appears the peak has been reached." AND "it (lock-down) would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curve".

Peak cases HASN'T been reached and HAS turned UP not DOWN where 25,177 new cases yesterday is the LARGEST one day rise since 21 October and the second largest rise since March. 

The rest of your post above is just weasel words about non pharma interventions BUT omits the following fundamental pillar to what ever that goal might be.  

There is no health care capacity and  hospitalisations reference there and which you never mention. So bullshitting by omission, noting a record 1,421 hospital admissions occured yesterday with capacity stretched and with up to a 3 week lag between cases and deaths.

You are a liar. 

What you advocate is fucking dangerous.

You are also a cunt. 

Those descriptors can be all combined. 

And so you are are under no misunderstanding I'm not that phased by your views. However I strongly object to you evading questioning and lying when the spotlight is put on those views. They are your tools of trade.

___________________________

From CuntShortForBob See Bookmark at end of post.

"Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curve."

"But it WAS TOO LATE then (15 Sept). Cases were already well over 3,000 a day.

"Regardless there IS NO POINT doing it now as it appears the peak has been reached."

UK 4 November Scorecard

- 492 deaths - highest daily increase for 5 months & 58% higher than last Wednesday. Already over half the 8 April record.

- 25,177 new cases the largest one day rise since 21 October and the second largest rise since March.

- 1421 record hospital admissions. Approx 3 week time lag cases to death. Many hospitals running close to max capacity.

Note these graphs DO NOT INCLUDE the above or inclusive of Wednesday 4 November.

  IMG_20201105_130723.jpg

Comparison to Wave #1 

  IMG_20201105_130558.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

This graph is from the UK NHS website.  Doesn't it show that the current outbreak is following the standard epidemic curve? 

 

screenshot-coronavirus.data.gov.uk-2020.11.06-07_00_55 - Copy.png

Early November? I don't think so.

I rather think that is a mixture of effects following the introduction of the 'three-tier' system (12 October), and a slightly more cautious public. People tended to avoid retailers and 'fun venues' such as pubs from mid-september on a little more than during summer, per Google data.  

[edited for clarification]

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Early November? I don't think so.

I rather think that is a mixture of effects following the introduction of the 'three-tier' system (12 October), and a slightly more cautious public. People tended to avoid retailers and 'fun venues' such as pubs from mid-september on a little more than during summer, per Google data.  

[edited for clarification]

So you are saying people modified their own behaviour in response to reports of increasing cases?  That's a novel thought!  <sarcastic font>  

With regard to UK Government restrictions the following graph (I'm not sure of its veracity) depicts the changes.  IF the curve is turning based on the earlier actions taken that you elude to what then why ramp up the lockdown?  Isn't that a fair question to ask?

covid-stringency-index (4) - Copy.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Not I am saying it. Publicly available data suggests it.

And it's not that novel a thought. A large chunk of 'the Swedish play' rests on the assumption of people taking action rather than being told. You sure heard about that? <sarcastic AND comic font>

2. Because it's not exactly the start of the outdoor and ice cream season. Remember: people stay in hospitals, they occupy ICU beds for a long time. The flatter the decline, the more patients pile up in the hallway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Matagi said:

Remember: people stay in hospitals, they occupy ICU beds for a long time. The flatter the decline, the more patients pile up in the hallway.

True.  I haven't analysed the data from the first wave thoroughly with regard to length of stay.  However what I have seen is that hospitalisations as a % of cases are down quite a bit.  Which is good news because if the rate was at the same level as the first peak then they would be in trouble in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

True.  I haven't analysed the data from the first wave thoroughly with regard to length of stay.  However what I have seen is that hospitalisations as a % of cases are down quite a bit.  Which is good news because if the rate was at the same level as the first peak then they would be in trouble in the UK.

They are doing splendid. Marvellous. Absolutely fantastic. 

  • Claimed NHS is treating equivalent of 22 hospitals' worth of Covid-19 patients
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Matagi said:

They are doing splendid. Marvellous. Absolutely fantastic. 

  • Claimed NHS is treating equivalent of 22 hospitals' worth of Covid-19 patients

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.  However headlines such as the one in bold are misleading.  The total number of hospital beds in the UK is 170,000 and there are 1,250 hospitals in the UK.  I Googled those figures and haven't checked the veracity of them in detail but the sources seem accurate.  There are figures that are higher for example Statistica says there are 1,900 hospitals as of 2018.  But for this comparison I have gone worst case on capacity.

I downloaded the NHS data for Hospital Admissions - they have a lag of one month on the monthly file but have a smaller Covid-19 subset that is updated weekly.  The first peak there was 18,000 of confirmed Covid-19 case occupied beds.  With regard to length of stay that 18,000 dropped to 9,000 in one month after the peak.  The UK Chief Medical Advisor, Chris Chitty said in May that the average stay was 8 days but double that if ventilation was required.  Over 80% didn't require that level of intervention.  By the end of July there were less than 1,000 people with Covid in hospital.

Currently 11,000 are in hospital with Covid.  If anything the headline understates the "hospital equivalency"!  Using the average number of beds per hospital then there would be 80 filled with Covid patients.  BUT that's 5% of the total i.e. 95% of the hospitals are full of NON-Covid patients.  IF the observed latency from the first peak is the same for this second one then the total Covid-19 hospitalisations will go close to the first peak BUT with nearly double the number of cases.  

If the hospitalisation rate was the same as the first peak then the UK will be in trouble.  The TOTAL occupied beds is way higher but still within capacity.  I assume the addition numbers are probably influenza and similar seasonal illnesses.

Caveat on numbers:  Occupied beds vs Covid is for England - NHS doesn't seem to report on the other UK countries.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the desperate climb down from a 'serial liar'.

6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where did I say "let it rip"?  

I never said you used the words "let it rip."

I said you advocated 'doing nothing' in mid Sept and you advocated 'doing nothing' now. That's called 'do nothing' OR 'let it rip' whatever label you like. 

Now the fucking funny bit from the 'serial liar'.

6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I dont bother reading your long ramblings of manipulated cut and paste out of context quotes.

So what do we find.

15 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

The rest of your post above is just weasel words about non pharma interventions BUT omits the following fundamental pillar to what ever that goal might be.  

There is no health care capacity and  hospitalisations reference there and which you never mention. So bullshitting by omission, noting a record 1,421 hospital admissions occured yesterday with capacity stretched and with up to a 3 week lag between cases and deaths.

So I claim you never discuss health care in any of your posts (as it doesn't fit your narratative). So let's have a look.

Let's search @Kate short for Bob and 'Hospital'.

Only 4 posts and NOT ONE about capacity except today. 

IMG_20201106_085732.jpg.afc2d97a1f72cef36d859c5683550be0.jpgIMG_20201106_084843.thumb.jpg.f1fcbe397ea268dd654ca1cc260fa048.jpgIMG_20201106_085222.thumb.jpg.73d3e16ae30a8a9c18590d26eea9238a.jpg

 So let's try 'Hospitalisation.' Wow only ONE post BUT that was TODAY. 

IMG_20201106_085336.jpg.0cd96224d8870eba7c000990db5d3260.jpg

Maybe Kate is only interested in intensive care so let's try 'ICU.'

Bingo we find one talking about ICU being the "bottleneck"....wow ...earth shattering.

Now this is someone who is all over health care capacity. :lol:

IMG_20201106_085512.jpg.c54a5b05873f32788b5e984e36289e99.jpg

So to continue

Mat mentions the word 'hospital' and bingo a reply from the 'serial liar'.

4 hours ago, Matagi said:

Remember: people stay in hospitals, they occupy ICU beds for a long time. The flatter the decline, the more patients pile up in the hallway.

3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

True.  I haven't analysed the data from the first wave thoroughly with regard to length of stay.  However what I have seen is that hospitalisations as a % of cases are down quite a bit.  Which is good news because if the rate was at the same level as the first peak then they would be in trouble in the UK.

 

But WTF.

An immediate reply from the 'serial liar' indicating he is all over health care, and even UK health care, thousands of miles away and even having secured data from the "first wave" 6 months ago ???????

"True.  I haven't analysed the data from the first wave thoroughly with regard to length of stay.  However what I have seen is that hospitalisations as a % of cases  are down quite a bit."

Yet one hour later the serial liar who has been all over UK health care since the first wave is now all over Google trying to find out how many hospitals there are in the UK.

Only just worked today NHS data is for England and missed it also includes Wales. Didn't know Scotland and Nth health care is devolved and so multiple data sources required and STILL doesn't it seems.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The total number of hospital beds in the UK is 170,000 and there are 1,250 hospitals in the UK.  I Googled those figures and haven't checked the veracity of them in detail but the sources seem accurate....

....Caveat on numbers:  Occupied beds vs Covid is for England - NHS doesn't seem to report on the other UK countries.

A fucking dangerous lying cunt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I said you advocated 'doing nothing' in mid Sept and you advocated 'doing nothing' now. That's called 'do nothing' OR 'let it rip' whatever label you like. 

I did NOT advocate that.  What I said, and ironically in another post in reply to someone else, is that arguably the advice in September was TOO LATE given that cases were ALREADY at 4,000 per day.  The inference being that the path of the surge was already determined i.e. the horse had bolted.  FFS even when I agree you still call me a liar.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

So I claim you never discuss health care in any of your posts (as it doesn't fit your narratative). So let's have a look.

Where specifically did I state that?  DON'T reference one of your length rambling posts where you cut, paste and manipulate quotes to suit your agenda.  Reference the one statement!

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I did NOT advocate that.  What I said, and ironically in another post in reply to someone else, is that arguably the advice in September was TOO LATE given that cases were ALREADY at 4,000 per day. 

Lying cunt.

No words "arguably" or similar or reference to SAGE advice. You said it WAS TOO LATE to 'lockdown' in Sept NOT Sage's advice was 'too late.'

You said EXACTLY the same for yesterday's lockdown too.

"But it WAS TOO LATE then (15 Sept). Cases were already well over 3,000 a day.

"Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curve."

"Regardless there IS NO POINT doing it now as it appears the peak has been reached."

Fuck off you lying cunt. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where specifically did I state that

 ...Reference the one statement!

Why would I say you said something while I was saying it.

Are you now using insanity as a defence for being a lying cunt?

"One statement". ALL your your hospital like statements, ONLY 6 in number and 2 today, 1 prior about capacity in all of SA are posted above.

Fraudster

Edited by jack_sparrow
Edit..penultimate para added
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

"Regardless there IS NO POINT doing it now as it appears the peak has been reached."

 

Even you said that the current lockdown is "too late".  Why do you say that?  If the peak has been reached what does a lockdown achieve?  It will impact a lot of people negatively.

So two questions for you Jack - I'm interested to read your analysis:

  1. Has the current surge in the UK peaked?
  2. If so what will a harder lockdown now achieve?
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Yet one hour later the serial liar who has been all over UK health care since the first wave is now all over Google trying to find out how many hospitals there are in the UK.

No I put a caveat one what I posted and admitted I hadn't fact checked HENCE stating the lower figures to make my point rather than other higher figures which would have enhanced my point.  I erred on the side of caution and stated that.

47 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 Only just worked today NHS data is for England and missed it also includes Wales. Didn't know Scotland and Nth health care is devolved and so multiple data sources required and STILL doesn't it seems.

3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

HENCE only comparing Apples with Apples i.e. only comparing England with England.

As I said at the height of the first peak 18,000 people were in hospital with Covid-19.  As of yesterday 10,994 people were hospitalised.  I noted there is a lag and that this will increase BUT as a % of the total number of cases it is LESS than the previous peak.

 

screenshot-docs.google.com-2020.11.06-13_37_02 - Copy.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

More fucking lies from the 'serial liar.'

First the 'serial liar' indicating he is all over health care, and even UK health care, thousands of miles away and even having secured data from the "first wave" 6 months ago.

"True.  I haven't analysed the data from the first wave thoroughly with regard to length of stay.  However what I have seen is that hospitalisations as a % of cases  are down quite a bit."

FIRST POST TODAY

11 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

True.  I haven't analysed the data from the first wave thoroughly with regard to length of stay.  However what I have seen is that hospitalisations as a % of cases are down quite a bit.  Which is good news because if the rate was at the same level as the first peak then they would be in trouble in the UK.

8 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Yet one hour later the serial liar who has been all over UK health care since the first wave is now all over Google trying to find out how many hospitals there are in the UK.

 

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No I put a caveat one what I posted and admitted I hadn't fact checked HENCE stating the lower figures to make my point rather than other higher figures which would have enhanced my point.  I erred on the side of caution and stated that.

 

So.

"No I put a caveat one what I posted and admitted I hadn't fact checked."

Correct a caveat applied, BUT NOT to that FIRST post ABOVE regarding your 1st wave hospitalisation knowledge. Yet 1st wave hospitalisation knowledge that HASN'T seen the light of day in SA EVER. 

The caveat applied to this following post on information you sourced for the FIRST TIME TODAY about the number of UK hospitals and hospitalisations.

Your first post about the 1st Wave was clearly FRAUDULENT. You had NO knowledge about UK health care until today. 

10 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

SECOND POST TODAY

10 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

....The total number of hospital beds in the UK is 170,000 and there are 1,250 hospitals in the UK.  I Googled those figures and haven't checked the veracity of them in detail but the sources seem accurate. ......

....I downloaded the NHS data for Hospital Admissions - they have a lag of one month on the monthly file but have a smaller Covid-19 subset that is updated weekly.  The first peak there was 18,000 of confirmed Covid-19 case occupied beds......  Currently 11,000 are in hospital with Covid.  If anything the headline understates the "hospital equivalency"!  Using the average number of beds per hospital then there would be 80 filled with Covid patients. ....

....The TOTAL occupied beds is way higher but still within capacity.  I assume the addition numbers are probably influenza and similar seasonal illnesses.

Caveat on numbers:  Occupied beds vs Covid is for England - NHS doesn't seem to report on the other UK countries

I have no real interest in your sudden new found interest in UK hospitalisations as I believe it a diversion to obscure your 'let it rip' narrative.

My point has always been you have shown NO INTEREST to date ANYWHERE on SA about health care capacity, except one obscure ICU reference  in this 18 Oct post about ICU capacity being the "bottle-neck" and about staff remuneration as screen printed here.

IMG_20201106_085512.jpg.c54a5b05873f32788b5e984e36289e99.jpg

23 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

There is no health care capacity and  hospitalisations reference there and which you never mention. So bullshitting by omission, noting a record 1,421 hospital admissions occured yesterday with capacity stretched and with up to a 3 week lag between cases and deaths.

8 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

ALL your your hospital like statements, ONLY 6 in number and 2 today, 1 prior about capacity in all of SA are posted above.

 

WHY is that so?

I can only summise that if you advocated yesterday 'doing nothing' in mid Sept and you also advocated 'doing nothing' yesterday, then you have a far GREATER interest in 'do nothing' or 'let it rip.' You have fuck all real interest in health care capacity and Covid imposed loads in health, other than to understate those loads.

That thought is amplified in fact by your own hand from your second post above. 

"The TOTAL occupied  beds is way higher but still within capacity.  I assume the addition numbers are probably influenza and similar seasonal illnesses."

And then followed with this post with a chart showing regional bed numbers for only England.

"I noted there is a lag and that this will increase BUT as a % of the total number of cases it is LESS than the previous peak."

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

As I said at the height of the first peak 18,000 people were in hospital with Covid-19.  As of yesterday 10,994 people were hospitalised.  I noted there is a lag and that this will increase BUT as a % of the total number of cases it is LESS than the previous peak.

screenshot-docs.google.com-2020.11.06-13_37_02 - Copy.png

YET that 'previous peak' was accompanied by a national 'lock-down' 2 weeks BEFORE that peak. 

YET you said yesterday; "Regardless there IS NO POINT doing it now as it appears the peak has been reached."

YET in all your calculations today about UK health care capacity, NOT ONE FUCKING mention of ICU capacity or load, even though published by the very NHS sources you quoted.

YET to add insult injury you deliberately BYPASS COUNTLESS mainstream media sources, parliamentary debates and Govt briefings etc. These outline that it is health care/NHS capacity and load DRIVING a UK national lock-down.

So your narrative is crystal fucking clear. It is almost a catchy slogan. 

"Let it rip' and 'fuck the NHS.'

You are a fraud, serial liar, and dangerous cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CuntShortForBob this is not politics where if you 'repeat a lie' often enough, it miraculously converts into the 'truth.'

You are making me constantly repeat myself, which is now really pissing me off.

You are lying about about what I have said that raises the 'pissed-off' factor even fucking higher. 

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

FFS Jacko I'm agreeing with your comments that the UK Government intervened too late! 

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Even you said that the current lockdown is "too late".  Why do you say that? 

Have this sink into your fucking brain.

There is NO agreement between you and I on ANYTHING you have said as follows.

You said it WAS TOO LATE to 'lockdown' IN SEPT by saying; "But it WAS TOO LATE then (15 Sept). Cases were already well over 3,000 a day."

You said EXACTLY the same for yesterday's lockdown too where you ALSO said, "Regardless there IS NO POINT doing it  now as it appears the peak has been reached."

As to you INVENTING things I have said.

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The only area in this instance where we seem to disagree is what will the latest increase in stringency achieve.  

"The only area in this instance where we seem to disagree is what will the latest increase in stringency achieve" 

I have made NO comments, either directly or by inference and NO posts ANYWHERE on SA about "what will the latest increase in stringency achieve" for the UK (except just now about the NHS).

AND if that you believe you know my thoughts using telepathic fucking communication, then WHY then do you keep repeating the same question about "what does a lockdown achieve?" a question I HAVEN'T answered.

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If the peak has been reached what does a lockdown achieve?  It will impact a lot of people negatively.

So two questions for you Jack - I'm interested to read your analysis:

  1. Has the current surge in the UK peaked?
  2. If so what will a harder lockdown now achieve?
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

.....what will the latest increase in stringency achieve. I'd like to hear you thoughts on that.

 

Your lies are serial, your lies are pathological.

My preceding post above outlines your dangerous motivation.

'Let it rip' and 'fuck the NHS.'

I'm not replying any further to your bullshit and will leave this here to give you a fucking hint.

On 10/9/2020 at 9:57 AM, MR.CLEAN said:
On 10/9/2020 at 9:43 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

 

You really do not know how to take a hint do you

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Randumb the same number that thought your thought of George Bush blowing up the WTC on 9/11 was the sign of a whackjob I guess...so thousands?

I stay away from threads where you do this.  It's obvious and fucking annoying.

Makes you look the complete fake cunt that you are.  Your not good enough to get away with it, for it to work.

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/14/2020 at 11:40 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

I just banned BlatantEcho until 10/1 for posting fake information about COVID. I'm not sure why he wants people to die while he takes advantage of the the pandemic to take a low-cost sex tourism trip through eastern europe, but it doesn't matter. 

Why is mikewof still here?

Link to post
Share on other sites