Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
jrs

Covid-19 Are we being told the truth ?

Recommended Posts

 From the BBC website,  the BBC yes never trust the BBC,i know....                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             "No wonder militaries have long tried to harness disease as a tool of war. No wonder that, until recently, far more soldiers died of disease than died in combat. A pathogen is a perfectly economical weapon, turning its victims into its delivery system." 

                                                    

ME   /    I still think there is a world elite .....     ....     ...    ..    . if you have loads of money ,you must get bored ?.....                                                                                                                          

OH Vincent , my wife recons she had it October 2019,...mind you she did look bad ,it only lasted 1 day so i thought ( oh she has put make up on today )  TRUE story

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, DC2 said:

Yes, they should have a choice.

That’s not a hard concept.

Good luck explaining segregation to someone with dementia. Its not going to end well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, topsoil said:

Good luck explaining segregation to someone with dementia. Its not going to end well.

Well, that’s where a judgment has to be made in consultation with the family: would the resident be happier with the other residents in the Covid protected section or would he be happier being free to see family?

You see: choice, rather than no choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Vincent Blachshadow said:

But the non-vulnerable still get it, still need hospital treatment and still take up beds and resources that would ordinarily be used for routine operations. We'd be in the same position as we are now with postponed ops and folk waiting god knows how long for their treatment and folk dying through lack of available hospital space. And would it have preserved the economy if millions of infected folk were milling about everywhere as before the pandemic with the virus moving about unchecked? In my opinion, no. 

Some do, yes.

But we could have prepared for that by increasing hospital capacity between May and November and by segregating Covid and Non-Covid patients.

Fewer than 500,000 people in total have been hospitalized, and that includes the elderly 60% who should have been quarantined, compared to 10 million people on furlough.

Do the maths.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, DC2 said:

Some do, yes.

But we could have prepared for that by increasing hospital capacity between May and November and by segregating Covid and Non-Covid patients.

Fewer than 500,000 people in total have been hospitalized, and that includes the elderly 60% who should have been quarantined, compared to 10 million people on furlough.

Do the maths.

There's no point using figures for the situation as it exists and doing the maths as figures would be vastly different if infected folk carried on as before the pandemic. 

At least the Nightingales would be having a lot of use - as long as the NHS could find enough non-infected staff to work in them had lockdowns not been instigated.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Mass testing of pets is the latest MSM fear porn. The covid cult train keeps rolling on down the track of insanity...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vincent Blachshadow said:

There's no point using figures for the situation as it exists and doing the maths as figures would be vastly different if infected folk carried on as before the pandemic. 

At least the Nightingales would be having a lot of use - as long as the NHS could find enough non-infected staff to work in them had lockdowns not been instigated.

 

Figures would be vastly different?

Would they?  

Or would two metre distancing, washing hands and mask wearing in shops, workplaces and transport leave the hospitalisations no worse than they are now, especially if the elderly are taken out of them by quarantine?

Either way, it would have been worth trying to save the £300 billion wasted on lockdowns.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, DC2 said:

Figures would be vastly different?

Would they?  

Or would two metre distancing, washing hands and mask wearing in shops, workplaces and transport leave the hospitalisations no worse than they are now, especially if the elderly are taken out of them by quarantine?

Either way, it would have been worth trying to save the £300 billion wasted on lockdowns.

This is the Government's problem though. The result of allowing the under pension-age infected to roam free with no lockdown could have been massive mortality, many times the current figure, we don't know. And if it was, what price a million deaths - £300 billion? And we still wouldn't be doing the operations being suspended now.

 

Edited by Vincent Blachshadow
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Vincent Blachshadow said:

This is the Government's problem though. The result of allowing the under pension-age infected to roam free with no lockdown could have been massive mortality, many times the current figure, we don't know. And if it was, what price a million deaths - £300 billion? And we still wouldn't be doing the operations being suspended now.

 

Err, no.

Massive mortality occurs only in the vulnerable group and if that were quarantined there would be far less mortality than now.

It is arguable that without lockdowns more non-vulnerable people might become infected and a number of them might need hospital treatment but that would be far fewer than those in hospital now.

Our government failed to foresee the Winter Season and to prepare for it by increasing hospital capacity, but had it done so, capacity, without pressure from the vulnerable group, would have been sufficient both to cover the extra non-vulnerable hospitalisations and to continue with important non-Covid treatments.

Stockholm, for example, has not been ravaged with deaths and hospitalisations in the under 50s despite life carrying on as relatively normal.

Our government could also have prepared better by telling everyone to reduce their BMI to 28.

Edited by DC2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, DC2 said:

Err, no.

Massive mortality occurs only in the vulnerable group and if that were quarantined there would be far less mortality than now.

It is arguable that without lockdowns more non-vulnerable people might become infected and a number of them might need hospital treatment but that would be far fewer than those in hospital now.

Our government failed to foresee the Winter Season and to prepare for it by increasing hospital capacity, but had it done so, capacity, without pressure from the vulnerable group, would have been sufficient both to cover the extra non-vulnerable hospitalisations and to continue with important non-Covid treatments.

Stockholm, for example, has not been ravaged with deaths and hospitalisations in the under 50s despite life carrying on as relatively normal.

Our government could also have prepared better by telling everyone to reduce their BMI to 28.

Didn't the government increase capacity by building the Nightingales?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

Didn't the government increase capacity by building the Nightingales?

Yes, but did they recruit sufficient staff and to what extent have they been used?

Apparently 50,000 nurses are to be recruited by 2025, although I’m not sure if they will be in addition to the current total number!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Blupanther said:

Mass testing of pets is the latest MSM fear porn. The covid cult train keeps rolling on down the track of insanity...

Wonder what will be next? trees and plants maybe?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DC2 said:

Err, no.

Massive mortality occurs only in the vulnerable group and if that were quarantined there would be far less mortality than now.

It is arguable that without lockdowns more non-vulnerable people might become infected and a number of them might need hospital treatment but that would be far fewer than those in hospital now.

Our government failed to foresee the Winter Season and to prepare for it by increasing hospital capacity, but had it done so, capacity, without pressure from the vulnerable group, would have been sufficient both to cover the extra non-vulnerable hospitalisations and to continue with important non-Covid treatments.

Stockholm, for example, has not been ravaged with deaths and hospitalisations in the under 50s despite life carrying on as relatively normal.

Our government could also have prepared better by telling everyone to reduce their BMI to 28.

You're using stats from the current situation to make claims as to what will happen in a different scenario. Infected people, possibly millions of them, milling around virtually unchecked must make a difference - certainly, constant shoulder-rubbing with other infected persons won't improve their condition. None of us, that's none of us, can be sure of what would have happened without lockdown.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

Didn't the government increase capacity by building the Nightingales?

Yes they did, but then couldnt staff them, and knew they couldnt all along.

They were a massive propaganda coup, that quite a few governments in the past would have been proud of

The problem is the number of nurses the government say they are recruiting, are not figures for an increase in the number of nurses, as they dont take into account nurses leaving the NHS for whatver reason

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Vincent Blachshadow said:

You're using stats from the current situation to make claims as to what will happen in a different scenario. Infected people, possibly millions of them, milling around virtually unchecked must make a difference - certainly, constant shoulder-rubbing with other infected persons won't improve their condition. None of us, that's none of us, can be sure of what would have happened without lockdown.

 

 

Your suggested disaster scenario hasn’t happened in Stockholm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy