David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Read the article. it's a guestimate based on the flawed idea that you can just average all the worlds antibody testing.
A covid denier and a racist, you really are a catch.
New WHO estimate puts coronavirus death rate at only 0.13% * WorldNetDaily * by Art Moore
The WHO estimate that about 760 million people -- more than 20 times the confirmed cases -- have been infected by the coronavirus worldwide means the death rate is 0.13%www.wnd.com
Sorry thought it was good news not fake crap
Sorry thought it was good news not fake crap
Follow the law DOD ?! Come on. It’s crazy.
There are huge numbers of people running round saying ‘protect the elderly’, has anyone asked them what they want ?!
The median age of Covid deaths in this country is the same as the average life expectancy (around 80ish). I’d imagine most people in their 70s and 80s would actually chose to spend what time they have left seeing their grandchildren grow up, being comforted by a loved one, living their lives and ultimately taking their chances.
If there is risk around nhs capacity then I’m 100% behind enforcing restrictions and measures, but otherwise I think it should be down to the individual if they wanted to be hugged or comforted by a loved one - I’m saying that as someone who would currently chose not to hug their mum (unless at an extremely distressing time) as she is high risk and I wouldn’t forgive myself if I passed her Covid, however, it should be an individuals choice
Point of order: your life expectancy at 80 isn’t 80, that’s your life expectancy at birth. As you age and fail to die younger the mean extends.
Also there’s really no such thing as individual choice in a pandemic. Transmission is inevitable, every broken link in the chain slows the spread.
Continuing to allow loads of school kids to mix keeps that chain very much intact.
We’ve decided we can’t keep the entire economy on furlough, that means we need childcare. It’s an economic not medical decision.
Isn't this based on continuing restrictions? The report specifically says its not "predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19".The latest estimates from the CDC have an interesting breakdown of fatality rates by age group. The estimates also place flu as having a higher fatality rate than COVID for the under 50s, although both are of course very low. Those aged 70+ are put at around 2,000 times more likely to die from COVID than those under 20. Full data and modelling here:
Isn't this based on continuing restrictions? The report specifically says its not "predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19".
In so doing we've decided to give the entire economy COVID so let me out of my box
What is ? London never being locked down ? It's a bedsit ridden breeding ground .Great Alan Partridge take on things.
What is ? London never being locked down ? It's a bedsit ridden breeding ground .
No, it's the same shills that have called for it all along. That Carl Heneghan and Co, they've been wrong about everything to date yet continue unabated. According to Heneghan there would be no second wave because he thought the herd immunity threshold had been reached back in May.Well well. Scientists now starting to call for herd immunity ...
Well well. Scientists now starting to call for herd immunity ...
I’d like to call for a lottery win as well and there’s about the same likelihood.
As the self appointed covid expert on here, how do you propose achieving Herd Immunity with no vaccine? It’s total bullshit.
When you say it is doable what do you consider an acceptable number of deaths to achieve herd immunity?you've gotta assume its now doable
It's the same group who've always advocated similar, if you read who's responsible. Some responses to it however:Well well. Scientists now starting to call for herd immunity ...
It's groundhog day here, grasping for hope among the outliers, ignoring the consensus that says otherwise.No, it's the same shills that have called for it all along. That Carl Heneghan and Co, they've been wrong about everything to date yet continue unabated. According to Heneghan there would be no second wave because he thought the herd immunity threshold had been reached back in May.
Alright fair enough, you've all debunked it, just wanted opinions
Alright fair enough, you've all debunked it, just wanted opinions
Not really looked at the numbers for London but if they are lower than the rest of the country then I hope someone is looking into why that is. You'd expect the tube to be a hotbed of transmission.
Agree on both points, particularly the latter given that population growth in and around London has been driven by commuters who can now WFHI haven’t looked into the south east numbers in detail either, however, IF (and I do mean if) they do remain lower then it could possibly to do with a far higher percentage of active people getting it the first time (so element of herd immunity - not a ‘let it rip’ type that everyone likes to mention but the more the fact that the more people who’ve had it, if immune, the harder it will be to spread quickly - logic not science based comment)
In addition, knowing a fair few who live down there, they have maybe taken it a more seriously over the summer and there are large quantities that remained WFH throughout.
As you say, needs the modellers to do some decent work on the data
That's true, and fair enough. Scientists will have a better idea than us though as they're more qualified, and have access to more data, and the ability to interpret it.The fact is, nobody on here currently knows what the right solution is, and nor do the scientists
Sorry, just seen this. I was just talking population averages (highlighting the median age of Covid deaths) and obviously anyone taken earlier than they would’ve been, is awful as their life has been cut short.Point of order: your life expectancy at 80 isn’t 80, that’s your life expectancy at birth. As you age and fail to die younger the mean extends.
Also there’s really no such thing as individual choice in a pandemic. Transmission is inevitable, every broken link in the chain slows the spread.
I think we'd all agree with this. Of course, as with any rules that require a subjective judgement, if you relax it a little, some will try and take advantage. As ever, it's the balance of making sure people comply, with a human element. That's never an easy balance to get, tbf.so certain minimal risk situations like the comforting of a loved one should be given leeway in my view
Sorry, just seen this. I was just talking population averages (highlighting the median age of Covid deaths) and obviously anyone taken earlier than they would’ve been, is awful as their life has been cut short.
The transmission point is an interesting one and I agree on a purely scientific level...however life’s more than that as it includes emotions, mental wellbeing
etc. This whole thing now is about minimising transmission not stopping it altogether (impossible unless we lockdown everyone until vaccine) so certain minimal risk situations like the comforting of a loved one should be given leeway in my view
ps Dave’s article the other day about clusters and back tracing is very interesting when looking at minimising transmission
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?