Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[Itchy]

Get the Vaccine. If you want to be a great person and do something for your country and your fellow country people you get the vaccine. It's really that simple.

100%.

And if you don't you are a selfish dick

[Angelo]

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

Covid deaths are overstated, unequivocally overstated.

[Angelo]

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?

You have said this multiple times.

Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?

You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.

I haven't said that.

That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.

On the first lockdown?

I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.

This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.

It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;

1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data

Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.

So again, what's your plan?

And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".

The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.

This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.

You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.

So no plan at all then?

Anything?

Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?

And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?

So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?

I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.

You haven't done it yet.

And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

You have neither answered nor even addressed this question.

How does a virus like this "run its course"?

And again - the lockdowns didn't fail.  The bit that was supposed to come after it did.

The goal for lockdowns here to reduce the R number means that they worked. The problem is that they aren't strict enough and they should have a goal of zero covid. We are an island and could achieve what new zealand have if we imposed a very strict lockdown for 2 or 3 months including strict quarantine for anyone flying into the island.

Lockdowns have worked?

Suffering f**k. Where do you even start with that?

[Angelo]

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.

100% of excess deaths were due to Covid as you claimed.

That is utterly, utterly bogus.

He didn't claim that.

It's a bogus claim.

Covid deaths are overstated. We know 93% of people have underlying conditions. 66% of people were over the age of 80.

When have people stopped dying of terminal illness and old age?

[trueblue1234]

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?

[BennyCake]

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?

You have said this multiple times.

Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?

You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.

I haven't said that.

That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.

On the first lockdown?

I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.

This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.

It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;

1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data

Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.

So again, what's your plan?

And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".

The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.

This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.

You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.

So no plan at all then?

Anything?

Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?

And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?

So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?

I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.

You haven't done it yet.

And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

You have neither answered nor even addressed this question.

How does a virus like this "run its course"?

And again - the lockdowns didn't fail.  The bit that was supposed to come after it did.

The goal for lockdowns here to reduce the R number means that they worked. The problem is that they aren't strict enough and they should have a goal of zero covid. We are an island and could achieve what new zealand have if we imposed a very strict lockdown for 2 or 3 months including strict quarantine for anyone flying into the island.

Yes, totally agree.

[Angelo]

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?

You're arguing something completely different

You are ignoring the fact that the people who record the deaths have acknowledged their numbers are overstated. It has never been quantified by how much. All we know is that if you test positive for Covid at the time of your death you are listed as a Covid death, regardless of whether you actually died because of Covid or another health related problem. It's not 9, it is not quantifiable but we do know that 90%+ of those who have been classified as Covid deaths already had underlying health conditions and 66% of people who died in the O6 until August were over the age of 80. Do you expect to believe that of 93% people with underlying health conditions, 66% over the age of 80 - that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of those cases. Or do you think it's the arbitrary way deaths are recorded that is the cause of death.

[trueblue1234]

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.

[Angelo]

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.

[Milltown Row2]

If someone has terminal cancer and is given 2 years but catches Covid and dues within a month is it cancer or Covid?

By the same token if someone has cancer and dies of blood poisoning is it cancer that killed him or blood poisoning?

[trueblue1234]

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.

[Franko]

Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?

[RedHand88]

Getting the vaccine by the weekend, next week at the latest. Will report back if I grow a third arm.

[Franko]

https://youtu.be/lrjLUxnjLqY

Interesting graphic. (Albeit covering England only)

Shows the clear effect of the lockdowns in suppression of the disease.

Also shows how close things came to actually getting this under control, had the track and trace function been run correctly and also given actual power to compel folks to isolate.

Also, depressingly, shows very graphically how fcuked things are right now

[Angelo]

Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?

You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.

Interesting mindset you have.