Jump to content

The Great Barrington Declaration


Recommended Posts

Jack is correct, early on people were spoofing it with made up names (I presume to try to de-legitmize it?)
 

That said: if half of the doctors who signed it, were fake...  that's still almost 20,000 medical professionals who have added their names.


With the new reports that come out and the changes in messaging from the WHO...
I think it would be very silly for any person just to write it off and say 'whatever, those idiots'

Isn't science about different hypothesis and trying to find the truth?
Part of that is dissent, and challenging the hitherto line of thinking


I'm not sure why anyone would attack the people who signed it. Prove them wrong I guess, show data against their view.
But, trying to discredit doctors from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford.. and hundreds of other schools - with fake names on a petition?
Yeah, that's not a very convincing way to discredit what they're saying. Not from my point of view anyway.
 

Do your own research, dig into the data and facts.

For me: if 20,000-40,000 doctors sign they names publicly on something saying, 'there might be another way to handle this'....
(Especially in todays super toxic, internet trolling environment - where there are mobs that come after anyone.)
Even if they are dead wrong - that sure gets my full attention.

Screen Shot 2020-10-16 at 7.46.01 AM.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WestCoast said:

With the new reports that come out and the changes in messaging from the WHO...

WHO have branded it bullshit....or "unethical" to be precise.

37 minutes ago, WestCoast said:

That said: if half of the doctors who signed it, were fake...  that's still almost 20,000 medical professionals who have added their names....

...Even if they are dead wrong - that sure gets my full attention.

It was very sneakily crafted. It was headed up and concentrated on the subject of lock-downs are not the answer. There is little dispute globaly about that. They are a response of last resort and used principally when not properly resourced. Quite understandable 6 months ago but you would hope not now. 

The slight of hand is buried within is the reliance then on 'natural immunity' or 'herd immunity' but without a vaccine. There has never been an attempt to combat a virus with Covids IFR using this. It was this aspect that caused WHO's ire and that of all but professionals on the fringe. The significance is not who has signed this thing but those who have not. 

Of the 3 promoters the English 'Theoretical Epidemiologist' Gupta is responsible for this aspect. Her work to date starting with a report in March was heavily critisised by her peers. She is very dangerous. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WestCoast said:

Jack is correct, early on people were spoofing it with made up names (I presume to try to de-legitmize it?)
 

That said: if half of the doctors who signed it, were fake...  that's still almost 20,000 medical professionals who have added their names.


With the new reports that come out and the changes in messaging from the WHO...
I think it would be very silly for any person just to write it off and say 'whatever, those idiots'

Isn't science about different hypothesis and trying to find the truth?
Part of that is dissent, and challenging the hitherto line of thinking


I'm not sure why anyone would attack the people who signed it. Prove them wrong I guess, show data against their view.
But, trying to discredit doctors from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford.. and hundreds of other schools - with fake names on a petition?
Yeah, that's not a very convincing way to discredit what they're saying. Not from my point of view anyway.
 

Do your own research, dig into the data and facts.

For me: if 20,000-40,000 doctors sign they names publicly on something saying, 'there might be another way to handle this'....
(Especially in todays super toxic, internet trolling environment - where there are mobs that come after anyone.)
Even if they are dead wrong - that sure gets my full attention.

Screen Shot 2020-10-16 at 7.46.01 AM.png

Word!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Oh, do you. That is reassuring. Because at first, I was fearing that you would come up with some crazy stuff. Like locking old people indoors, or something.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, (jingle) we have devoted our careers to protecting people.

And writing articles. Loads of them. Just can't stop it. And, in several cases lead our own consultancies and/or side jobs as economists.

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.

They also aim to reduce the pressure on the health system, so that its proper delivery of the following measures can still be provided or re-established quickly:

The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

That is true. Then again, many countries have made it a top priority to keep schools open and -at least for the moment- the first trimester seems to underscore that keeping them open -e.g. with mandated mask wearing- seems possible.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Most countries haven't resorted to permanent full-out lockdowns. To my knowledge, all of them have opened up to their respective versions of 'new normal'. That is especially true for countries in southern Europe which initially took hard hits. What's happening from here onwards is another matter. What is true, though, is the number of people who have plunged back into poverty. 

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

While the former is likely, depending on the definitions of 'old' and 'young', especially the latter claim is not established and doubtable. Also, the long-term effects have not been established, but there is a growing amount of articles detailing why you really wouldn't want to have that bug in any case.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine.

We do not know this. We hope it. Yet we do not know.

Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

Not once in the history of humankind have we exterminated a disease through herd immunity, let alone through actively pursued attempts. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

What a beautiful euphemism. Did you know that there is a dictionary for those? I hope you make it in there in the next edition.  Why it is a euphemism? Because: 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.

Yes. And?

By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors.

The working conditions of many nurses, even in wealthy countries, are already often precarious. They are underpaid and often work unpaid long-hours. This would put additional pressure on them to 'acquire' the virus and subsequent 'immunity' in order to keep their jobs. Plus: PCR tests are well-known to either fail or to be disregarded (see this prime example, for instance). These bubbles would be breached.

Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home.

Again, minimizing staff rotation would put pressure on nurses' situations and bring about new problems altogether. Plus: you cannot seriously suggest to be 'compassionate' (see above) AND willing to basically isolate the elderly at the same time? Either way is understandable, but you have to make a choice in your argument.

When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside.

My bet: If your family is responsible, they already do that. No need for 400,000 people to sign a declaration about that. Is that all you've got?

A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

They haven't even figured out how to keep schools open!!! Do you even read your own memo??? 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.

Because, remember: Everything is fine.

Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold.

Surely all those medical experts have heard about this little plot-twist called 'asymptomatic spreading'? Please tell me you have.

Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. 

They have. There has even been a spectacular Tour de France been going on. My boys hockey tournament was also not bad. Who'd have thought.

Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Well. Most did. Except Grandpa. But that was him: always taking the risk. And someone else's ICU bed. A true hero.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 2:14 AM, WestCoast said:

Jack is correct, early on people were spoofing it with made up names (I presume to try to de-legitmize it?)
 

That said: if half of the doctors who signed it, were fake...  that's still almost 20,000 medical professionals who have added their names.

and if 0.01% of the doctors who signed it were genuine......that's still  2 medical professionals who have added their names

I think it is thus safe to say that somewhere between 2 and 40,000 doctors have added their names. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The Great Barrington Declaration crowd have just released  Frequently Asked Questions  last week which is odd considering the time elapsed since it's release. 

The reason is pretty funny after so much professional critisism generated.

Firstly the original risks of lockdown and protecting the vunerable stand and are not controversial, BUT stuff like these two examples and links in particular, they should be run out of town.

How Dangerous is the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease? 

It is important to distinguish between the risk of infection and the risk of death. Anyone can get infected, but there is more than a thousand-fold difference in the risk of death between the oldest and youngest. For old people, COVID-19 is more dangerous than the annual influenza. For children, the COVID-19 mortality risk is less than for the annual influenza

Have contact tracing, testing and isolation been successful against infectious diseases? 

Yes. Contact tracing is of critical importance for many infectious diseases. They do not work for widely spread diseases such as annual influenza, pre-vaccine measles, COVID-19, or, by definition, against any pandemic.  

_________________

HOWEVER. NOW THE BIG U-TURN

Is the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a herd immunity strategy? 

NO. Those making such claims in the media have either (i) not read the document, (ii) do not understand the basic principles of infectious disease epidemiology, or (iii) are willfully distorting the public health message for political purposes......

Does the Great Barrington Declaration advocate for “Letting the virus run free”? 

NO, that is a false characterization, as it advocates the opposite.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full quote for those that are interested in accuracy:

Is the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a herd immunity strategy? 

No. Those making such claims in the media have either (i) not read the document, (ii) do not understand the basic principles of infectious disease epidemiology, or (iii) are willfully distorting the public health message for political purposes. For COVID-19, all strategies lead to herd immunity, making it nonsensical to denote one specific approach as a herd immunity strategy just as it does not make sense for airplane pilots to talk about a “gravity strategy” for safely landing a plane. The Declaration advocates a strategy that minimizes mortality until herd immunity is reached. That is done by minimizing the number of older high-risk people in the group that get infected while maximizing them among those that are still uninfected when herd immunity arrives.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that are promoting the view that "a herd immunity strategy" equals a "let it rip strategy" are being mischievous at best.

BOTH immunity acquired through community infection AND vaccination leads to the goal of "herd immunity".  The debate should be on how best to manage the various means of getting to that goal.  

Vaccination will help but due to the limitations in the trials won't be the silver bullet to suppressing the virus to tolerable levels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

For those that are promoting the view that "a herd immunity strategy" equals a "let it rip strategy" are being mischievous at best.

BOTH immunity acquired through community infection AND vaccination leads to the goal of "herd immunity".  The debate should be on how best to manage the various means of getting to that goal.  

Vaccination will help but due to the limitations in the trials won't be the silver bullet to suppressing the virus to tolerable levels. 

You are ignoring that there is no evidence that there is any signficant immunity, from the strain originally caught or other strains.

“striving for herd immunity is neither ethical nor otherwise justifiable”. Anders Tegnell (late October)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ncik said:

You are ignoring that there is no evidence that there is any signficant immunity, from the strain originally caught or other strains.

That's incorrect.  The number of reinfection's so far reported have numbered in single figures unless you have information I haven't seen yet.  Some of those reinfection's are also doubtful under close security.

I have yet to see a report that says Covid-19 unlike every other virus in the history of mankind does  not elicit an immunity response.  In fact I have seen numerous research reports that say it behaves just like any other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Here's the full quote for those that are interested in accuracy:

Your inference being my post wasnt accurate. Yet CLEARLY shown as initial para extract only and abbreviated. So accuracy afforded in the link provided for any one wanting to read in entirity and which you used.

Dick.

7 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

The Great Barrington Declaration crowd have just released  Frequently Asked Questions  last week

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

Dr. Gupta wrote a pretty fired up response to the scientific community here:
 

A Contagion of Hatred and Hysteria  (Dr. Gupta, Nov 1)
 

She directly addresses the comments made to denigrate her.  
She describes herself as 'Left Wing' no less.

It's worth a read if you care about the truth / other side of the narrative.

 

We have reached an interesting time in Western society. Truth is predetermined then facts are found to suit. Anyone that disagrees is immediately attacked and labelled. Denier, fascist, right wing, shill (Randumb's favourite) and so on. They are pitied as needing help. The majority has become sheep, following the lead of voices on social media with no free thoughts of their own. Happy in the unconditional support as long as they just nod and agree, yet deep down scared of being cast out for the slightest indiscretion.

So they point the finger and scream for the witch to be burnt. China and Russia must be sitting back in amazement as their old foe eats itself from the inside.

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

Dr. Gupta wrote a pretty fired up response to the scientific community here:..

It's worth a read if you care about the truth / other side of the narrative.

4 hours ago, Gissie said:

We have reached an interesting time in Western society. Truth is predetermined then facts are found to suit. Anyone that disagrees is immediately attacked and labelled. 

 

18 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I have yet to see a report that says Covid-19 unlike every other virus in the history of mankind does  not elicit an immunity response.  

 

Gupta : You want answers?

JS : I think I'm entitled to.

Gupta : You want answers?

JS : I WANT THE TRUTH!

Gupta : YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[pauses] 

Gupta : Son, we live in a world that has hospitals, and those hospsitals have to be guarded by 'theoretical epidemiologists'. Who's gonna do it? You? You, @MR.CLEAN?

I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the 65,000** and you curse Boris Johnson. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that 65,000 dead, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, 'saves lives'. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me guarding that hospital.

You need me at the Department of Zoology . We use words like immunity threshold, host resistance, heterogeneity and ànimal kingdom. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!

I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a 'predictive model' and go to print. Either way, I don't give a 'damn' what you think you are entitled to!

JS : Did you say on 24 March; "Up to half in the UK already infected & immune - Only 1:1000 cases will require hospitalisation." ?

Gupta : I did the job I...

JS : [interupts her]  Did you order "Herd Immunity in March"

Gupta : "You're God damn right I did!"

** UK Excess Mortality 1st Wave

giphy (26).gif

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

This latest one is a completely mad piece of fiction!

"mad piece of fiction!". Gupta wouldn't like to hear that.

You read her March piece and replied in 4 minutes. :lol:

29 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacko - why would I risk getting into a debate with you on this when it will only lead to being banned?  As I posted yesterday I enjoy the America's Cup Anarchy.

I've read a lot of research and much of what Gupta writes is very very valid.  I will say that what she and her colleagues published very early in the pandemic has NOT be invalidated unlike the Imperial College's Mortality model.

Also note that cases in Britain seem to be already starting to peak BEFORE the implementation of more stringent rules.  Also the CFR is much lower in this current spike.  Both these facts would could be explained by Gupta et al's initial hypothesis.

I think it is extremely sad if not deeply concerning that someone of Gupta's expertise and high achievements both in epidemiology and the arts should be subjected to death threats and vile insults just because she published a piece of research that offered a different view.  No doubt Jacko you would call her a "lying dangerous c#$t" even though you don't have anywhere near her achievements or qualifications.

 

screenshot-www.worldometers.info-2020.11.04-13_06_49 - Copy.png

screenshot-www.worldometers.info-2020.11.04-13_08_09 - Copy.png

screenshot-ourworldindata.org-2020.11.04-13_08_29 - Copy.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's incorrect.  The number of reinfection's so far reported have numbered in single figures unless you have information I haven't seen yet.  Some of those reinfection's are also doubtful under close security.

I have yet to see a report that says Covid-19 unlike every other virus in the history of mankind does  not elicit an immunity response.  In fact I have seen numerous research reports that say it behaves just like any other.

I concur, but we're only 7-8 months into this thing. Too early to tell what happens in a full 12 month cycle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.

The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.

But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote."

National lockdowns aren't meant to cure society of Covid, they are to protect systems in society that would otherwise be smashed by an un-controlled outbreak. For example, hospitals.

So science won't sway her or her colleagues?

Shame on the abusers though, they don't add anything positive to the science or the debate.

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

Also note that cases in Britain seem to be already starting to peak BEFORE the implementation of more stringent rules.  Also the CFR is much lower in this current spike.  Both these facts would could be explained by Gupta et al's initial hypothesis.

Her initial hypothesis was this.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

JS : Did you say on 24 March; "Up to half in the UK already infected & immune - Only 1:1000 cases will require hospitalisation." ?

Gupta : I did the job I...

JS : [interupts her]  Did you order "Herd Immunity in March"

Gupta : "You're God damn right I did!"

That translates into her saying around <1,000 versus actual 70,000 dead.

You don't want to talk about that just like her.

If you you want to sprout bullshit at least add other European countries, even just one like Germany here and post it alongside your bullshit and try repeating it.

IMG_20201104_103803.jpg

IMG_20201104_105410.jpg

IMG_20201104_103848.jpg

IMG_20201104_103934.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ncik said:

"When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.

The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.

But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote."

National lockdowns aren't meant to cure society of Covid, they are to protect systems in society that would otherwise be smashed by an un-controlled outbreak. For example, hospitals.

So science won't sway her or her colleagues?

Shame on the abusers though, they don't add anything positive to the science or the debate.

That is not correct, she is being economical with the truth.

That abuse wasn't directed at lockdowns hurting or protecting the vunerable as promoted in the BD.

That abuse was directed at the BD encouraging herd immunity and saying contact/tracing doesn't work. She doesn't say that in her complaint.

With the BD promoters doing a UTurn on herd immunity last week, they have not come up with any more other than their original shield the vunerable which has universal support.

What happens now to those who signed the BD supporting herd immunity? 

Do the BD promoters start afresh and seek signatures? No. 

Hence the lack of support to the BD continues and the wider scientific community continue to state they are on the 'fringe' of the scientific community.

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

"When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.

The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.

But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote."

National lockdowns aren't meant to cure society of Covid, they are to protect systems in society that would otherwise be smashed by an un-controlled outbreak. For example, hospitals.

So science won't sway her or her colleagues?

Shame on the abusers though, they don't add anything positive to the science or the debate.

Why did you like this Kate short for Bob? It was an opposing view and breakdown of Gupta's comments that miss the mark, but I thought you were for Gupta and the Great Barrington Declaration?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Why did you like this Kate short for Bob? It was an opposing view and breakdown of Gupta's comments that miss the mark, but I thought you were for Gupta and the Great Barrington Declaration?

I liked it because you opposed the "abusers".  I'm not FOR the Great Barrington Declaration as such.  I'm for science.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Don't get your maths there.  Can you explain?

You must be fucking joking.

- You derided my post on this paper of hers as fiction 4 minutes after I posted, yet you were completely unaware of its existence.

22 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

JS : Did you say on 24 March; "Up to half in the UK already infected & immune - Only 1:1000 cases will require hospitalisation." ?

Gupta : I did the job I...

JS : [interupts her]  Did you order "Herd Immunity in March"

Gupta : "You're God damn right I did!"

22 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

What I don't understand is how the hell can Wacko Jacko's posts pass the misinformation test and others can't?  This latest one is a completely mad piece of fiction!

22 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

"mad piece of fiction!". Gupta wouldn't like to hear that.

You read her March piece and replied in 4 minutes:lol:

 

- I guarantee you have NOT read Gupta's paper (my link was just an abstract).

- Yet within the hour you post claiming miraculously to be widely read in Gupta's sphere, this 24 March paper of hers has NOT been invalidated and the current rise in UK cases SUPPORT it.

"I've read a lot of research and much of what Gupta writes is very very valid. I will say that what she and her colleagues published very early in the pandemic has NOT been  invalidated.......cases in Britain seem to be already starting to peak..... these facts would could be explained by Gupta et al's initial hypothesis..."

22 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I've read a lot of research and much of what Gupta writes is very very valid.  I will say that what she and her colleagues published very early in the pandemic has NOT been invalidated......

.... cases in Britain seem to be already starting to peak..... these facts would could be explained by Gupta et al's initial hypothesis...

CuntShortForBob you are a fucking fraud.

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

- I guarantee you have NOT read Gupta's paper (my link was just an abstract).

???? Uh?  Your link leads to a paper NOT an abstract.  See attached.

I first read this paper in March.

Again can you explain what you mean by the following:

21 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

That translates into her saying around <1,000 versus actual 70,000 dead.

As for the last part of your post I don't get your point as it is presented very confusingly.

2020.03.24.20042291v1.full (1).pdf

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

I first read this paper in March.

Then why have you NEVER posted about it until now, let alone then?

26 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Again can you explain what you mean by the following:

Crystal clear and her claims of 50% UK immunity and only 1:1,000 hospitalisations requires no more explanation. 

23 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

You weep for the 65,000** 

JS : Did you say on 24 March; "Up to half in the UK already infected & immune - Only 1:1000 cases will require hospitalisation." ?

Gupta : I did the job I...

**UK Excess Mortality 1st Wave

Fuck off.

PS. For anyone reading 70,000 is UK's  'excess mortality' to date.

El6Y5exXgAE1ZSb.png

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

Where do you get the 60,000 from?

As for the 1:1000 hospitalisations how do you prove their model is wrong?  For a start you don't know the total number of cases.

How do you explain the current surge starting to peak?

Never mentioned 60,000

Guptas paper was based on NO real life data and was one reason why the scientific community critisised her paper. Doesn't need me.

Fuck off troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought given your views on lockdowns in Australia that you would be sympathetic to Gupta's view on lockdowns.  Certainly it is hard to fathom the rationale behind the new lengthy lockdown being implemented in the UK starting tonight I think.  Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curve.  So again Gupta has a point in that lockdown's impact disproportionately those who can least afford them.

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

Yes and I asked where you got that figure 65,000 from i.e. what's the source?!

27 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Ok I see you have re-edited your post and put a graph in.

What is the source of the graph?

 

" what's the source?!...re-edited your post and put a graph in."

Fuck you don't get the 'reading' hint do you cunt.

- Graph PRECEDED your 'source' requests and NOT an 'edit' but MARKED as a Post Script.

- A DATA FACT from the UK 'Office of National Statistics' for 'Excess Deaths' by registration as SHOWN on that graph.

So fuck off troll.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Fuck off.

PS. For anyone reading 70,000 is UK's  'excess mortality' to date.

El6Y5exXgAE1ZSb.thumb.png.764f27ee5242b062b278d8cb1996087e.png

56 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where do you get the 60,000 from?

52 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Never mentioned 60,000

50 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Sorry should have been 65,000.

36 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

But not sorry you don't read.

On 11/4/2020 at 9:45 AM, jack_sparrow said:

...You weep for the 65,000**...

** UK Excess Mortality 1st Wave

33 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Yes and I asked where you got that figure 65,000 from i.e. what's the source?!

27 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

What is the source of the graph?

 

 

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

I thought given your views on lockdowns in Australia that you would be sympathetic to Gupta's view on lockdowns

Quote one post where I have been opposed to lockdowns in Australia. Critical of what caused it in one state yes that contributes 90% of national mortality from a fuckup.You cant quote that opposition, so you lie.

I am SUPPORTIVE of Gupta's lockdown views about their consequential harm and an only option when R0 runs away and STATED  that upthread not once, but TWICE, the first in a post you REPLIED to.

You are a lying 'dead-cunt' who just sprouts shit and DOESN'T read a fucking thing.

On 11/3/2020 at 10:32 AM, jack_sparrow said:

The Great Barrington Declaration crowd have just released  Frequently Asked Questions  last week which is odd considering the time elapsed since it's release. 

The reason is pretty funny after so much professional critisism generated.

Firstly the original risks of lockdown and protecting the vunerable stand and are not controversial, BUT stuff like these two examples and links in particular, they should be run out of town...

On 11/3/2020 at 10:47 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Here's the full quote for those that are interested in accuracy:

On 11/3/2020 at 5:49 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Your inference being my post wasnt accurate. Yet CLEARLY shown as initial para extract only and abbreviated. So accuracy afforded in the link provided for any one wanting to read in entirity and which you used.

Dick.

On 11/3/2020 at 10:32 AM, jack_sparrow said:

The Great Barrington Declaration crowd have just released  Frequently Asked Questions  last week

23 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

That is not correct, she is being economical with the truth.

That abuse wasn't directed at lockdowns hurting or protecting the vunerable as promoted in the BD.

That abuse was directed at the BD encouraging herd immunity and saying contact/tracing doesn't work. She doesn't say that in her complaint.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence that you are lying 'dead-cunt' who just sprouts shit and  DOESN'T read a fucking thing.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Certainly it is hard to fathom the rationale behind the new lengthy lockdown being implemented in the UK starting tonight I think.  Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curveSo again Gupta has a point in that lockdown's impact disproportionately those who can least afford them.

It is not hard to fathom and the reason the subject of articles in the main stream press and in Parliament.

SAGE the scientific group advising the Government recommended in the middle of September a "short circuit" lockdown of short duration. 

This was required as the UK's contact/trace/test program is a shambles. Lots of testing but persons tested a fraction and NO effective tracing.

The Government chose to ignore their advise and delayed it until today. That was to appease Tory backbenchers with their business consituents in their ear, and probably avid readers of Gupta.

The UK are locking down now too late when countries like Sweden (who locked down their first province weeks ago) and Germany (national lock down last week) have  HALF the new cases.

But you know all that as it's upthread in a reply to you, yet you ignored that.

Your preference is to spin unsupported shit.

You NEVER acknowledge a post that shows up your unsupported shit.

On 11/4/2020 at 10:17 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Also note that cases in Britain seem to be already starting to peak BEFORE the implementation of more stringent rules.  Also the CFR is much lower in this current spike.  Both these facts would could be explained by Gupta et al's initial hypothesis...

23 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

If you you want to sprout bullshit at least add other European countries, even just one like Germany here and post it alongside your bullshit and try repeating it.

 IMG_20201104_103803.jpg

IMG_20201104_105410.jpg

IMG_20201104_103848.jpg

IMG_20201104_103934.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is your point in attacking Gupta and or the Barrington Declaration?

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve.  

In terms of Covid-19 pandemic management nirvana what is your approach?

Is Australia's approach sustainable ling term?  A vaccine is unlikely until the end of next year and then it is only likely to be 50% effective.

Do you propose that Australia continues like this for the next two years?

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

SAGE the scientific group advising the Government recommended in the middle of September a "short circuit" lockdown of short duration. 

But it was too late then.  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.  Now the real question is why has it peaked?  

I imagine answering that question constructively is beyond you.

Quite frankly your name calling is becoming quite tiresome and only serves to demean yourself.

One must assume that you have some level of intelligence but resorting to vulgar abuse of anyone who disagrees with your myopic world view would suggest otherwise.

So on ignore you go and I'll confine myself to discussing the science with others who have manners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So what is your point in attacking Gupta and  or the Barrington Declaration."

You prove my assessment of you beautifully in your own words.

Maybe you followed me? :lol:

"I'm not FOR  the Great Barrington Declaration as such.  I'm for science ."

45 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So what is your point in attacking Gupta and or the Barrington Declaration?

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve

18 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I'm not FOR the Great Barrington Declaration as such.  I'm for science.  

On 11/4/2020 at 11:14 AM, jack_sparrow said:

That is not correct, she is being economical with the truth.

That abuse wasn't directed at lockdowns hurting or protecting the vunerable as promoted in the BD.

That abuse was directed at the BD encouraging herd immunity and saying contact/tracing doesn't work. She doesn't say that in her complaint.

With the BD promoters doing a UTurn on herd immunity last week, they have not come up with any more other than their original shield the vunerable which has universal support.

What happens now to those who signed the BD supporting herd immunity? 

Do the BD promoters start afresh and seek signatures? No. 

Hence the lack of support to the BD continues and the wider scientific community continue to state they are on the 'fringe' of the scientific community.

 And this.

45 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

In terms of Covid-19 pandemic management nirvana what is your approach?

"In terms of Covid-19 pandemic management nirvana  what is your approach?'

Nivarna is the Asia Pacific on right (subtract one Australian federated state not under Commonwealth control), those countried in Europe like the Nordic 5 (Sweden now not 1st wave), Germany and some others and the odd US federated state that got its shit together and coincidently under Democrate control.

And no the air is NOT special in the Asia-Pacific.

Deaths/million
USA            694

Europe       350

Asia-Pacific

China              3
S Korea          9
Japan           14
Taiwan            0.3
Vietnam          0.4
Cambodia       0
Laos                0
Thailand         1
Myanmar      21
Malaysia         8
Singapore       5
Indonesia     50

Australia          33 (90% State of Victoria)
New Zealand  5.1

  EluPW1vVkAIaa9R.thumb.jpeg.79296994443c67f34c5e32c7519c27ce.jpeg

And this.

45 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Is Australia's approach sustainable ling term?  A vaccine is unlikely until the end of next year and then it is only likely to be 50% effective.

Do you propose that Australia continues like this for the next two years?

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Quote one post where I have been opposed to lockdowns in Australia. Critical of what caused it in one state yes that contributes 90% of national mortality from a fuckup.You cant quote that opposition, so you lie.

I am SUPPORTIVE of Gupta's lockdown views about their consequential harm and an only option when R0 runs away and STATED  that upthread not once, but TWICE, the first in a post you REPLIED to.

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I thought given your views on lockdowns in Australia that you would be sympathetic to Gupta's view on lockdowns. 

You clearly have zero knowledge of lock-downs in Australia.

if you did you would know Australia is NOT LOCKED DOWN and apart from first wave they have been restricted to one state with 20% of population and smaller by land mass . That one state has caused border closures with states some have zero new cases and deaths to date in single figures.

You just keep lying despite being showed up  you keep ignoring any post or part thereof that exposes your bullshit.

You are a fraud.

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

You just keep lying despite being showed up  you keep ignoring any post or part thereof that exposes your bullshit.

You are a fraud.

It didn't take uou long to get again ignore "any post or part thereof that exposes your bull shit."

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

SAGE the scientific group advising the Government recommended in the middle of September a "short circuit" lockdown of short duration. 

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.  Now the real question is why has it peaked?  

I imagine answering that question constructively is beyond you.

Here you IGNORED your own post and and IGNORES all of my reply, only quoting ONE paragraph to give a straw reply.

For instance I said; "Germany (national lock down last week) have  HALF the new cases."

Germany have now reported R to be less than 1. By comparison today the UK R is now above 1.5.

I said;  "This was required as the UK's contact/trace/test program is a shambles. Lots of testing but persons tested a fraction and NO effective tracing."

Yet your reply;

"Now the real question is why has it peaked?

I imagine answering that question constructively is beyond you"

WTF.

BUT worse you are advocating the UK doing nothing and just let the VIRUS RIP when there is NO EVIDENCE it has peaked. Furthermore doing this when the UK's contact/trace system is broken by the Government's own admission and health care capacity fast running out with a time lag of 3 weeks from case to to death.  

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

You now have jumped up a notch to; 

Lying Dangerous Cunt.

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

More evidence that you are lying 'dead-cunt' who just sprouts shit and  DOESN'T read a fucking thing.

3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Certainly it is hard to fathom the rationale behind the new lengthy lockdown being implemented in the UK starting tonight I think.  Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curveSo again Gupta has a point in that lockdown's impact disproportionately those who can least afford them.

It is not hard to fathom and the reason the subject of articles in the main stream press and in Parliament.

SAGE the scientific group advising the Government recommended in the middle of September a "short circuit" lockdown of short duration. 

This was required as the UK's contact/trace/test program is a shambles. Lots of testing but persons tested a fraction and NO effective tracing.

The Government chose to ignore their advise and delayed it until today. That was to appease Tory backbenchers with their business consituents in their ear, and probably avid readers of Gupta.

The UK are locking down now too late when countries like Sweden (who locked down their first province weeks ago) and Germany (national lock down last week) have  HALF the new cases.

But you know all that as it's upthread in a reply to you, yet you ignored that.

Your preference is to spin unsupported shit.

You NEVER acknowledge a post that shows up your unsupported shit.

You conclude with this shit.

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So on ignore you go and I'll confine myself to discussing the science with others who have manners.

You have always ignored what's new.

Breaking News the SA Ignore button doesn't stop me shining sunlight on your bullshit.

I'm not sure anybody could be fucked discussing your science. unless they are fucking insane. I will leave this here for the insane.

________________________________________

BOOKMARK FOR DICUSSING KATE'S SCIENCE :lol:

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

But it was too late then.  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

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

It is not hard to fathom and the reason the subject of articles in the main stream press and in Parliament.

SAGE the scientific group advising the Government recommended in the middle of September a "short circuit" lockdown of short duration.

The Government chose to ignore their advise and delayed it until today. That was to appease Tory backbenchers with their business consituents in their ear, and probably avid readers of Gupta.

3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Certainly it is hard to fathom the rationale behind the new lengthy lockdown being implemented in the UK starting tonight I think.  Based on the data and past evidence it would appear it is occurring too late to affect the current curve.  So again Gupta has a point in that lockdown's impact disproportionately those who can least afford them.

From CuntShortForBob

"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
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

In terms of Covid-19 pandemic management nirvana what is your approach?

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Nivarna is the Asia Pacific on right (subtract one Australian federated state not under Commonwealth control), those countries in Europe like the Nordic 5 (Sweden now not 1st wave), Germany and some others and the odd US federated state that got its shit together and coincidently under Democrate control.

 

"Nivarna is the Asia Pacific....those countries in Europe like the Nordic 5 (Sweden now not 1st wave), Germany and some others." 

I might have jumped too early giving Sweden a pass for current approach. 

In 24 hours it went from sitting with Germany to turning on the after burners and joining the US. That or there is a Swedish data release anomaly such as their intermittent reporting.

 DOES NOT INCLUDE cases inclusive of the last chart dates.

IMG_20201105_145857.jpg

IMG_20201104_103848.jpg.ea4a4dedeb961a19dccdcdd57f6d5dc1.jpg

IMG_20201031_141738.jpg.0eba0b954773afc71e08e77cdd8a6fa0.jpg

272878646_ScreenShot2020-11-04at3_15_56PM.png.31631402f57d7b14272683f14692b98a.png

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...