Messages

No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.

But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.

Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.

Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.

It's a bogus claim.

Let me get this right.

You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.

And you're coming here stating as matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.

LOL when you get tired making a complete ass of yourself on line. This bogus study was from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. You are a complete moron. You can reword your question as many times as you like but the reality, as everyone can now see is that you have nothing. But I know your MO now is to go quiet on this for a while and the  pop up again ignoring the whole previous discussion where you were shown up and just start again. I have no idea why you do that, but each to their own.

Met Jack Charlton in a river in Ballina.

A lot of unfair comments on here relating to both parents and teachers

Not really. They're all useless.

Parents and teachers?

Every single one. All useless.

A lot of unfair comments on here relating to both parents and teachers

Not really. They're all useless.

No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.

But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.

Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.

Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.

No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.

I said nearly. There's 80k excess deaths, 75k COVID deaths. I'll let you do the maths.

Covid deaths are overstated, unequivocally overstated.

I know. I gave you the breakdown. Around 9%. Given the numbers, not a massive impact. Instead of 76k, around 69k.
Does that number change anything significantly for you?

I said nearly. There's 80k excess deaths, 75k COVID deaths. I'll let you do the maths.

Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?

You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.

Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu

I didn't say that.

But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?

Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?

And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.

Aye, round the f**king bend again.

I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.

For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.

The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.

You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html

You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.

You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.

Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?

Sorry just to be fair, what claim was utterly bogus? I thought you were chatting about the 1 in 5 with underlaying health conditions. But I see that was on another post.

Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?

You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.

Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu

I didn't say that.

But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?

Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?

And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.

Aye, round the f**king bend again.

I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.

For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.

The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.

You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html

You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.

You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.

Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?

It's there for all to see. People can see who's talking out of their arse. You've been handed your arse because each claim you make is BS. As I've already pointed out to you. 91% of the deaths were due to covid. So the 8% is what you are talking about above. I'm happy for you to remove 8% of the deaths.

Alsdo what you are failing to mention in your posts is that there were no lock downs in any of the other years. So 2020 still had 80K excess deaths and that was with restrictions in place that weren't in place every other year including 2017-2018. So it's not comparing like for like. If there were no lock downs we would have been looking at a much higher excess deatj rate. 

Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?

You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.

Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu

I didn't say that.

But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?

Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?

And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.

Aye, round the f**king bend again.

I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.

For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.

The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.

You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html

Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?

You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.

Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu

I didn't say that.

But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?

Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?

And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.

[We know that if a person who dies from Covid tested positive for Covid within a certain period of time, they are going to be classified as a Covid, irrespective of whether it killed them or not.]

Of Covid reported deaths in NI over 91 % were as a direct result of covid. (It's actually up to 95% now I believe)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deaths-caused-by-covid-19-in-northern-ireland-reach-755-39539154.html

But I'm not sure what your point is? There's 80,000 excess deaths in 2020 in the UK.  The majority of these due to covid (75K). (If you want to take 91% of that figure then that's still a hell of a lot) in comparison to 25K odd for flu and flu like deaths in 2018. And that's with the lock downs that weren't in place in 2018. So I'm sure you can imagine the carnage if there wasn't a lock downs.

I'm really lost on what your point is here?

It's when you look at the data, the most worrying findings turn up.

For a start we don't test for flu. But on a historic analysis, there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season of Dec 17 - Mar 18. A four month period. That's a fact. And we didn't bat an eyelid back then when it happened.

If you want to look at the death statistics from NISRA. 1 March - 31 August.

Covid related deaths 875
Aged over 65: 93%
Aged over 70: 88%
Aged over 75: 79%
Aged over 80: 66%

Back in April, the NHS published information that 95% of patients who died from Covid had underlying health conditions.

We know that if a person who dies from Covid tested positive for Covid within a certain period of time, they are going to be classified as a Covid, irrespective of whether it killed them or not.

Now could you imagine if we classifed flu deaths in a similar way?

But I've just explained 91% of deaths recorded as Covid, the people die because of covid, not any other issues.
We don't test for the flu but we have a vaccine program in play. And Flu is classified as ILI deaths - Influenza-like illness. So I'm not sure ehat the difference is?
Also the bit about 95% of people who die from covid have underlying heath problems. About 1 in 5 people have underlying heath problems. 1 in 5. That's a huge amount of people who could potentially be at risk from covid.

Of Covid reported deaths in NI over 91 % were as a direct result of covid. (It's actually up to 95% now I believe)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deaths-caused-by-covid-19-in-northern-ireland-reach-755-39539154.html

But I'm not sure what your point is? There's 80,000 excess deaths in 2020 in the UK.  The majority of these due to covid (75K). (If you want to take 91% of that figure then that's still a hell of a lot) in comparison to 25K odd for flu and flu like deaths in 2018. And that's with the lock downs that weren't in place in 2018. So I'm sure you can imagine the carnage if there wasn't a lock downs.

I'm really lost on what your point is here? 

[Not a single confirmed case of flu this year]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

Not one case of flu?

Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..

So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.

Apparently not.

Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.

Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.

Ahem

<sup>As for the claim that the flu killed 64,000 people in the UK (where the post's author says they are based) in 2018, this is incorrect.

The only reference we've found to a UK figure like that in connection with the 2018 flu outbreak, is that in January 2018 around 64,000 people died in England and Wales, at the time the highest monthly total since 2006.

But this figure was for England and Wales and covered deaths from all causes, not just flu.

Public Health England estimated that over the 2017/18 flu season, there were around 22,000 deaths associated with flu in England. This was one of the highest flu death tolls in recent years, but is still significantly lower than the current death toll from Covid.

It's possible that the post might be mistaking the number of deaths in the UK for a figure from another country. In the USA, the CDC estimates that 61,000 people may have died in the 2017/18 flu season, which again was the highest number in recent years. The CDC estimates so far that there have been 211,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the USA.</sup>

https://fullfact.org/online/october-2020-flu-covid-pandemic/