Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Professor John Ashton absolutely DESTROYS Boris Johnson - EP 13" video.

Where does this 70,000 figure come from? According the Office of National Statistics 51, 264 people have died with Covid mentioned on their death certificates up until July 17. More precise definition is now being sought and the number of deaths where Covid 19 may have been an underlying cause is likely to be less. The government has made an utter balls up of dealing with this -as have most governments. But the figures are all over the place. Where do these extra 18,000 come from? Are they heart and cancer patients who have died due to lack of treatment? I only ask because I'd like to know.
12
@alanmarr3323 I once had a gardener who used to sit in the potting shed raving on in a similar manner. I had to sack him.
4
I was going off Boris a bit but this blathering loon has made me think again.
2
@BigHenFor Bigot
2
@armand9404 Exactly so. There is every chance that this virus will mutate into something close to its near relative, the common cold.
2
@roycropper698 But this ancient! I have just revisited the ONS site and the figure is 51,264. That is all deaths in all locations where Covid 19 was mentioned on the death certificate. I ask again, where does this 70,000 number come from?
2
@Paul-eb2cl And the source of this? It is just a completely made up figure, isn't it? The official figures include all such eventualities.
2
How dare you include maggot Macron in such exalted company?
2
@MrDavidJMa He's hung like a horse apparently -although this shouldn't make a difference to any decent woman.
1
@conall5434 In principle. But with a disease as selective as this in that it only kills the elderly,the infirm or those who have been subject to repeated short term infections, it could be entirely possible.
1
@conall5434 Masks are not a universal panacea by any means. There are many factors affecting the rate of infection and death in many countries. Wearing a mask is but one of them.
1
@ONeill01 No-one can quantify the effectiveness of masks. Their use is more psychological than anything else. And over 65 is more like it. Children seem if not immune then certainly far less likely to suffer severe symptoms.
1
@conall5434 The masks worn by medical professionals when dealing with Covids are of a somewhat different order to the little nappies we wear. Our masks offer no protection to incoming viruses, and only partially prevent us from infecting others if we are unknowingly infected ourselves. Fiddling with your mask is likely to cause you to be infected if you have picked up viruses from hand to surface contact. When you start doing the numbers you start to realise that wearing masks is going to have very little effect on the spread of the disease, the fatal outcomes of which are diminishing rapidly in any case. And there is considerable evidence that children not only suffer very mild symptoms but also pass the disease adults very infrequently. In short we are not doing to little to late, we are doing too much too late. Boris's going into 75 different stages of panic isn't something we should emulate.
1
@conall5434 Can you point me to a peer-reviewed study demonstrating how effective n95's or a bit of pillowcase are in restricting the spread of coronavirus? Some effect, but how much? And what is the statistical likelihood of anyone coming into contact with an unknowingly infected person as the figures stand at the moment? And what are the chances of a fit, healthy person suffering anything other than the equivalent of a dose of flu if they do?
1
@ONeill01 I presume these studies have been repeated with confirmatory results and peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals? This seems very tendentious to me. Did these percentage rates persist to the point where the growth rate reached zero, or was there a ceiling? Hydroxychloroquine has several studies which demonstrate its efficacy - not in preventing infection but in denying the virus the opportunity to replicate. Other drugs, if taken at the right time, can also vastly reduce symptoms. Overall, swift and effect treatment is a better solution. Otherwise we could be walking around wearing masks for years..
1
@ONeill01 It's not a question of lack of efficacy, it's lack of consensus. All the studies I have seen show that the wearing of masks has an impact on reducing the spread of infection and to widely varying degrees. But in all cases the studies, naturally enough, were conducted in situations where participants washed their hands regularly. I have yet to find a study which demonstrates the efficacy of facemasks by experiment ie using free-floating viruses, viruses in water droplets viruses expelled at various speeds etc etc. If you know of one I would be very pleased indeed to read it.
1
@ONeill01 I meant consensus on the degree of efficacy. Obviously. And the WHO certainly has a political agenda which affects its objectivity.
1
@ONeill01 What evidence do you have otherwise? The mask issue aside, all I am saying is that the WHO, like nearly all UN agencies, is the pocket of China, and this clearly affects its pronouncements.
1
@ONeill01 Both I imagine.
1
@ONeill01 Must we keep going over this time and time again? It's simply a question of whether or not the degree of efficacy is worth the trouble of wearing them. This a quote from The Journal of Nursing There are of course many other views "Clinicians tend to depend on medical masks or simply cloth masks. But relying on masks alone may deflect them from practicing other basic safety measures and anomalously it would lead to spread more COVID-19 contagion. Otherwise, once a local outbreak starts in community settings general public begins panic-buying face-masks or sardonically, the N-95 respirators leading to a scarcity in the worldwide supply chain, price-hike and shortage for front-line health-care providers (Fen et al., 2020). No available mask exposes them to a bigger threat during patient interaction. Moreover, the improper face-mask use as well as the repetitive use of disposable masks may increase the vulnerability towards the transmission of COVID-19 (Fen et al., 2020)."
1
@ONeill01 It is still not established to what degree masks prevent the spread of the virus. When masks, social distancing, frequent hand-washing and selective isolation are all used in conjunction with each other it is impossible to analyse their separate effects. The inconvenience of masks, along with the probable result of increased hand to face infection must be taken into account. That's what I'm implying.
1
@ONeill01 You could say that about wearing bowler hats. I don't wear a mask because I hate them and regard them as symbols of conformity to an unproven ethic.They also provide a false sense of security and are a badge of faith in authority's ability to deal with this crisis - a faith I do not share.
1
@ONeill01 Masks do not stop you from getting Covid. They may prevent you from passing it on if you unknowingly have it. That's all
1
@ONeill01 I really think we are starting to agree with each other now. I don't think the pros outweigh the cons and you do.That's the big difference. There's no long-term future in keeping this virus out. We have to let it in and kill it before it kills us. Preventing viral replication is, I believe, the best answer and there are several ways of achieving this.
1
@ONeill01 Oh dear I BELIEVE you. I simply refer you to my previous answer. I have scientific justification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xqCg12rOPM
1
@accc9090 Has is crossed your mind that there might be some sort of overlap here? The sort of people who have died from Covid - the elderly, those with lung and heart conditions - are exactly the sort of people who die from influenza. We can therefore expect the flu deaths this coming winter to be much reduced. Covid got 'em first.
1
@accc9090 How do you know they have long lasting effects to their pulmonary system etc etc?And how many of them are there? Very probably, as with practically all conditions, there will be a small percentage who will suffer anomalous long-lasting side effects. It is very unfortunate but that's the way it is. It's obvious that the fewer who catch it the better -but there has to come a cut-off point. There has to be a time when we can say:look the deaths are dropping drastically, the number of people suffering from serious long term effects is small. Let's come out of hiding. A lot has been learned about the best ways of dealing with this disease. Unfortunately it has become politicised by some and seen as an opportunity to make money by others. There is an incredible amount of misinformation around. Personally I think the fact that deaths from ALL causes in the UK are now running at a figure below a five year average is a strong indicator that Covid has harvested practically all it is likely to. For this reason one can predict that flu deaths this winter will be lower than normal. .
1
@accc9090 Then you must give me links to these studies so I may assess them. I would be grateful if you would do so.
1
@accc9090 Newspapers tell lies; now more than ever before. I was a journalist myself for thirty years and saw standards drop. They are even lower now. Back in the day the joke was "never let the facts interfere with a good story." Bad enough, but now the deceptions are often politically motivated. I have gone to a few primary sources as you suggested and - as I expected - all the "might", "may be" and "scientists fear that" stories you have presumably read all have very shaky foundations. The simple and obvious fact is that we are at too early a stage to predict long term outcomes. That is not to say that there won't be any. There certainly will. Influenza, for instance often has severe long term effects. Reduced lung function persists in the majority of cases, Crippling depression and exhaustion can persist not just for months, but years. There is considerable evidence that schitzophrenia can result in later years in people whose mothers had the flu while pregnant. It has been cited as a cause of Parkinson's disease in later life. It is important to remember that all these things - and indeed the symptoms themselves - are not actually caused by the virus itself, but by our bodies' reactions to the invasion. This is why prophylactic precautions are just as important, if not more so than trying to keep the disease at bay by wearing a shred of cloth on your face. I have evidence for everything I say. When I speculate I make it clear. I am afraid that propagandists posing as journalists you have read in publications such as the Guardian do not adhere to these standards.
1
@Paul-eb2cl It's pointless arguing In fact doctors often have great difficulty in determining the cause of death when a number of factors is present, but they are told in a pandemic to include the pandemic disease on the certificate if they have any suspicion that it may have been present. In the case you mention the doctor, if he was doing his job, would have put the cause of death as myocardial infarction, but included on the certificate that Covid 19 was present. That death would have been entered as coronavirus related and would have appeared in the daily "death toll" figure. This injunction was made very shortly after the outbreak was discovered and it is false to suggest that deaths in care homes would not have had coronavirus entered as possibly present on their death certificate, and thus they too would have appeared in the official figures. No test would have been necessary. The fact the deceased was running a temperature and was coughing would have been enough. All this suggests that the actual number of deaths attributable to Covid 19 are probably LESS than the official figure, but it seems churlish to argue the point. What interests me more is why people find it necessary to exaggerate and amplify a situation which is bad enough as it is. This mindset seems to occur in people who have some deep inner need to take as many precautions as possible, to regulate as much as possible, to find someone to blame and to try to apply rules of juristiction to what is a manifestation of cruel nature, rather than any fault of man.
1
@Paul-eb2cl Sorry for being so defensive then. You were , however, attempting to provide information in support of a falsehood. I'm afraid I am getting increasingly riled by the quantity of misinformation being accepted as gospel by so many people.
1
@Paul-eb2cl Covid deaths now in single figures almost every day. Deaths from all causes now below the five-year average for the sixth week running. Total official death figure now reduced as new stricter criteria applied. I think you must be including excess deaths from causes other than from Covid itself, but indirectly caused by panic (not pandemic) ie cancer and heart patients not getting treatment, excess suicides etc etc. Anyhow. It's all ancient history now. We must look to the future. If there IS a second wave it will be entirely due to our failure to deal properly with this one. Lockdowns and facemasks are all very well, but the virus is still out there when we ease lockdowns and stop wearing masks. Prophylactics and very swift treatment with viral reproduction inhibitors are the answer I think. And the drugs are out there, tried and tested and usually very cheap. What I fear most is the introduction of new untried vaccines, created with profit in mind.
1
Trump 2020!
1
Is there any evidence that Johnson has blamed BME people for the epidemic? All I can find is quotes from one Tory MP who appears to suggest that crowding people together in sweatshops is not a good idea. The fact that most of these people are of Pakistani or Bengladeshi origin is irrelevant - other than the fact that their ethnicity makes them more likely to die of the disease. .
1