RicoS321

Facts about covid-19 9 Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. They link to 3 cases where that occurred (1 still tbc). That's not "many". That's a handful among thousands if you include the young lass in the UK too, which they didn't mention. So it isn't "a fact about covid-19" at all, it's misleading and inaccurate. The biggest issue is that this article and the publisher are presenting themselves as an antidote to the inaccuracies of the mainstream media. If they're going to do that then they need to be beyond reproach and certainly not easily taken apart by the links they provide. I'm annoyed, because cunts like this are part of the problem. They need to do better. As I've said, like you, I think there's a story there. This isn't it. Hitchens seems a lot closer to the mark and a lot more careful with his claims.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I said "it raises questions". I haven't concluded anything. I asked about ascertainment bias, which is only mentioned in the backup, which I obviously opened. The attachment to the Lancet does not back up the 0.2% figure, it backs up the 7.1 figure that has an ascertainment bias attributed to it to make up the 0.54%. If that bias is slightly amended it has a big affect on the result. I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm saying that they haven't given the backup for the bias, or I've missed it. There are not detailed facts, there are a mixture of facts and opinion. That's fine of course, but instead of chasing the 25, they could have concisely provided 3 or 4 good challenges like ionnadis' cruise ship one rather than the one of his that they link here in point 2, which I've read and added questions here (again, I could be wrong, but that's my conclusion on reading the available text, hence why I'm questioning it). Point 4 suggests a background immunity, but that isn't the conclusion of the article linked, which is a small study that raises questions that could be answered in a larger study.

I wouldn't say I was very disparaging, just critical, but fair enough. 1. Who defined the ascertainment bias in the 0.2% figure and how was it established? 2. Absolute risk doesn't seem to make any sense in the non-peer-reviewed backup. Why would this not change over time? Certainly when randomly compared with driving (a very known rate of deaths generally speaking). Why split into <65 and >65? Especially given the significantly higher rate in 40-65 year olds (who would also be more at risk than from driving) and the fact that the under 18s don't drive. 3. "Up to 80% remain symptom free". Unless your own objective is the production of propaganda, why would you use this stat in questioning the need for lockdown? One, it's very well known and repeated often by government and in the media. Two, what about the very high figure of the remaining 20%? It's just not a stat that would appear in a balanced article. It doesn't belong there. It's like the person was trying to reach an arbitrary target of 25 reasons rather than a good, balanced article. That's just from the first three points. These are 3 pretty weak arguments (in the article I mean!) In my opinion. There's probably some good stuff in there too, that is really quite relevant, but if they'd focused on the two or three important points it'd have made a convincing case I expect. It strikes me that the author has a pre-defined position (as we all do of course) and tried to find every single thing that backed that position without filter. Certainly not the work of an "anti-propaganda" proponent. The problem is that we/they're criticising the media, but any good journalist would question nearly all the points the article makes. Like you, I think there's a story there, but this doesn't find it and nor did hitchens from a month or so back. They both suffer from quantity over quality, throwing lots of little accusations/criticisms around without anything smoking gun and the basic inaccuracies (hitchens - who I quite enjoy - had a glaring one, I can't remember what it was) or deficiency of argument. Hopefully they'll keep looking.

Nope, that's why I said it raises questions, rather than provides proof. I had a look at a few of the sources (Sputnik etc), but I was commenting on the lack of balance in the article, nothing else. It presents very basic arguments that raise very basic questions that should have been addressed in a good article. There is no good reason to over-simplify an article if you're confident of its accuracy and don't have an agenda. Countering one perceived agenda with your own isn't necessary. I'm just saying that the article isn't helpful, balanced or one I'd trust off the bat. I'll definitely look through it though.

Interesting, but some fairly flawed arguments in there for something supposedly working against propaganda. Citing a rate of 0.2% is a little misleading. That 0.2% is inclusive of a lockdown. Giving the example of South Korea as an example of a country not in lockdown doesn't really tell the whole picture, and their approach directly opposes their other point on privacy. The flippant suggestion along the lines of that the old were going to die anyway sounds like something Cummings thought up and has been debunked elsewhere. The suggestion that kids are safe and should be at school is bizarre; as if kids aren't in contact with adults and couldn't spread the disease. I'm all for seeing the other side, but these aren't balanced arguments and raises questions about the swprs and who they represent. I'm guessing that they're probably correct in many of their assertions but it's lack of nuance is difficult to look past. Also, I expect the government to take a cautious approach to something that isn't fully understood. If only they'd do that with other things, such as chemicals, antibiotics etc.

Aye, but can he eat a bacon roll?

Not an expert, but I'm proficient and understand a lot of the jargon where I don't have first hand experience. Although, I didn't know that the app was being specified by third parties, I understood it was specified by NHS, being built by third parties, with data on NHS servers, but I don't know why I had that in my head. Aye, the testing going to the US is bizarre. This shit should have been sorted out years ago. We have heaps of testing facilities in the UK, they should all have been involved in pandemic drills and all have an action plan, and a coverage area. Instead of fucking off to yankland, we should have been hyper-localising our response and everyone in the country should have been aware of their role and what was expected of them. Instead, we're still redacting shite and not publishing data that decisions are based on. Which scientist suggested changing to "stay alert" (for an invisible virus)?

Rock and a hard place for NHS though (or nhsx, or whatever they're called, that specified the app). They need the data that a centralised app would provide, which the UK's testing approach is not. The decentralised model offers the NHS absolutely no assistance in controlling the virus, it just helps individuals. Unless the extensive use of testing and tracking occurs, there is no data on any hotspots, any second waves etc. It looks to me like the NHS are trying to mitigate the government's ineptitude in testing through the app, so I feel a bit sorry for them on this one. Interesting that "protect the NHS" doesn't seem to appear on the new slogan for retards. No point pretending I suppose. Thankfully, the US model available post-brexit won't even pretend to give a fuck.

Good news, the decentralised option would be the one I would choose if we were a normal country too, it's the best all round and the one I'd be most likely to download. I still don't think it's best for the UK, however, as it has to come hand in hand with rigorous "manual" contact tracing, which it doesn't seem we're even remotely set up for. I can see them sticking with their original choice. I think Scotland should have done it's own thing months ago and ordered its own testing and it's own app.

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/security-behind-nhs-contact-tracing-app Pretty comprehensive overview of the app here. Worth reading, it's not too technical. It seems to me that the decision to choose a centralised app over a decentralised one is entirely correct for the UK. This is because the decentralised model wouldn't really work with such low testing. The key being self-reporting and the ability to do this with a decentralised app. The true/false nature of infected or not can only be established via wide scale testing. The app seems like it'll be secure enough in this form. Remains to be seen how it'll evolve over time and how transparent changes will be.

No they won't. Just as they haven't offered - and there has been zero discussion or suggestion of doing so in the press - to repay season ticket holders for the remaining games that they inevitably won't get to see. I expect most, if not all, fans won't want a refund anyway. Just a ticket for the new season when it inevitably begins. I thought that the players agreed to take a paycut? These guys are just young lads with kids (in some cases) and mortgages and so on like the rest of us. They're nae multi-millionaire EPL players. The club will be expecting them to be keeping up with training and doing some community stuff too, so they'll still be performing a job of sorts (Shay will be fixing folks' bogs) so wouldn't be elligible for furlough anyway. I think that it's a good thing that the club shows loyalty to the players, and I think it's a good thing for fans to do so too if they can afford to.

What I don't understand is why we weren't all involved in this shite for years? Given pandemics are predictable (in that we know that they'll happen, but not when) why were the public not trusted to discuss, understand and plan for this in advance? Like a massive fire drill or nuclear strike preparedness exercise. The lockdown was a known possibility from pandemic exercises and certainly from looking at lessons learned after SARS, so why has it been such a surprise? Why didn't we know what to do (any of us)? It seems we've been lucky it wasn't a big killer like the plague or one of the bird or swine flu (can't remember which) up at 30% fatality. I'm just finishing the precipice by Tony Orr just now. A very good read, and timely release. It compares humanity to an adolescent, unable to discuss the big items that face us and the future. It's very prescient. I think that's it too. A handful of "important" folk in a room making plans without needing the input, discussion and assistance of the plebs. Or could it be that we might question the resilience of our needs at the local level?

The cynic in me imagines it being discussed at board level as a fantastic bit of PR, with Hibs being "first mover". There does seem to be a competitive element to the volume of caring being done to the extent that many of these things seem like empty gestures. Although we probably have to assume that isn't the case in this instance, it would have been far more appropriate - in my opinion - if they'd approached the entire league first and tried to get all clubs to do it, in a united approach. Perhaps they did, of course.

I'll leave this one in here, despite being appropriate in the truth thread too: https://skwawkbox.org/2020/04/21/biggest-political-scandal-since-cambridge-analytica-about-to-break-as-fake-nhs-accounts-set-up-by-dept-of-health/ Fuckers

They're fairly going to town on these 5G masts thanks to Eamonn Holmes. The faux outrage of the phone companies is fairly sickening to hear too "all we want to do is give people their dying wishes to say goodbye to their families, assuming that they are up to date with all billing payments". Can we add the app discussion here? I'm going to. Rocket, you could change the title to reflect. The app is key to this shit. Getting out of it or not getting out of it. That'll be the plan. There are ways and means to create an anonymous, decentralised application and ledger/database that would ensure that we can know when we've been in contact with the diseased and we can anonymously inform that we are diseased. What we will get is a centralised tracking database of our details, shared with "appropriate" departments and third parties. As we move toward a cashless society, everything will be connected to the app to the extent that you can't access basic services without it. And the government controls who can or can't access services as well as knowing where you are. Demonstrating against fracking/pollution/whatever in your area? Blacklisted. Obviously, this data is already accessible by 5 eyes, but this will put it firmly in the domain of legality. What are everyone's thoughts on the future of our privacy, or lack thereof? Does anyone still parrot the "if you've got nothing to hide" bollocks?

Because they are awarding the tims the league, they'll have to appease the Hun by awarding them the cup. That means the final European place will be decided by league position as the Huns would already have qualified, so we'd be in Europe. Stewart Milne will agree that it's the best decision for Scottish fitba as everyone needs a strong scum.

Good article minijc. I'm getting slightly confused, as I wasn't under any illusions that the government's strategy was anything but that highlighted by shute in the article. Everyone gets it, but over a longer period. I didn't realise they'd adopted an alternative approach. The article suggests otherwise. I've probably just been casting my assumptions [of what this government would do] onto the government rather than listening to what they were saying.

Lost to who though? The economic effects of this will be whatever the government chooses it to be. They could start a new green deal akin to the labour proposal in the last election (as an example) tomorrow if they chose to. They could invest, print, borrow as much or as little as they want. A depression is a choice, and who it afflicts is a choice. The qualified people talking about it are only - and only ever - talking about it within the narrow confines of the existing system and refusing to contemplate amending even slightly. Most of them are cultist fuds who talk about the markets like they're a living being. It's sudo-religious bollocks that doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. We have a sovereign currency, and we can and should use it. Stop issuing money as debt for a start (see positive money). Use printed money to bail out the public rather than banks. Make money lose value over time (like every other source of energy) as a function of its total (the more you have the faster the rate of loss - a half life if you like) rather than gain, to force people to spend it. Recycle it back into the bottom of the system. There are so many ways to change things for the better if economists would take their heads out Adam Smith's airse for a second and understand that what they pray to is a man-made set of beliefs that can be changed whenever we like. A massive caveat, of course: you're right, because we'll never depart from the existing, no matter how glaringly obvious it would be as a solution. Those who you talk about as qualified are not the issue, the issue is the qualification itself and when you're part of that you don't bother to look beyond it (so actually, they are the problem!). Economics is not a science despite what they'd have you believe. Have a look at Kate Raworth, Steve Keen, positive money, MMT, guy standing, the nef, dambisa moyo, even Charles Eisenstein and so on for a broader perspective of what's possible (I don't agree with all/most of them). I'd give you some of my books if I was allowed oot the hoose (fuckers).

That fucking little arse-licker Jenrick showed how unfit for purpose these cunts are and shows how presidential and pathetic our political system has become. The notion that we need one man to run the nation normally is fucking ridiculous. Certainly with the current situation and when it's that permanently MIA fucktard. A proper competent human being would have said: "the PM's primary focus is on getting better. He 'hand-picked' this cabinet as he trusts etc etc. we are more than capable of holding the fort in his absence and so on". Why the fuck would the British public want some ill fucker making live decisions that require real thought, focus and understanding?

It's the same answer as it has always been. It's to prevent the overwhelming of the NHS. You don't have to believe that, but that it is the reason that has been given. The flu is not comparable, nor is the eventual total relevant. The only thing that is relevant was the expected deaths if nothing happened. That was the data that put the fear of death into the government (literally in Boris' case it seems). The fact that they couldn't cope with a large number of people being infected at once and thus would result in otherwise healthy people being infected and dying or dying as a result of some other illness or injury because of an overwhelmed service. Furthermore, there aren't billions of pounds being lost and wealth is not being thrown down the drain, it's simply being re-distributed. If the government wants to affect that re-distribution then it already has the power to do so. If you're losing GBP then somebody else is gaining it. If you're savings are in a foreign currency then you will be in a different boat, but that's not yer average UK punter. There is nothing in this situation that has to cause hardship, it's an economic choice to affect people with that hardship. What the government does next is up to them, or at least up to their ideology. The UK government's agenda is what their lobbyist mates tell them it is. But they're clearing taking their lead from other countries on this one. They're locking down because that's what everyone else was/is doing. Events have overtaken them. They shat it big style and ended up in a halfway house that doesn't suit anybody. These fuckwits don't have the capacity to have an agenda on this one.

But one side of that argument is a monetary value, and the other side is death. What happens after lockdown is another decision, just like austerity was. It's economic illiteracy to suggest that the economy can only behave in one specific way, and if hitchens or Frederick Forsyth believe that then they're no less deluded than the followers of David karesh or any other cultists. It's not like being trapped between a tsunami and a forest fire, two natural phenomena. The economy is man-made. We've designed it, and if we've designed it so that it lacks any resilience whatsoever, then we change it. More importantly, why are guys as intelligent as hitchens not asking that glaringly obvious question? Why aren't they questioning why it's possible for banks and governments just to suddenly say that mortgages don't have to be paid, and loans can be ignored, but yet these artificial balances require payment in normal times, for example? Why would anyone's thinking default to siding with the fictional economy over human lives without the real challenge being posed? But all that aside, the NHS is currently struggling to cope and the number of people who will die because of this struggling, rather than the virus, is significant. That's the issue he skirts.

Agree with what you're saying, but not sure enty about this bit. The alternative was test test test. South Korea and China, Taiwan, Mongolia, Ireland etc all took this approach which means that they're total lockdown was/is only temporary, with a clear exit strategy i.e. managed lockdown. The fact is that there is no way round the virus. We're all practicing herd immunity, the key is simply how that's done. That's why I don't understand hitchen's point. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that the lockdown is only there to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed and he provides no solution to this. He does briefly mention that they would have coped, but with zero investigation and against current visible evidence. A managed lockdown gives us a clear way out and a coherent plan that informs the public. Lockdown until you and a large enough portion in your area tests as immune, national database that you're removed from when clear. Restricted travel throughout. International visitors quarantine. Show the public that you have a start, a temporary middle and a clear end. Give the NHS the information that they need and allow the population to very slowly gain immunity over time. There'll still be deaths of course, just not as many as there would have been by letting the health service become inundated.

The massive rise in consumer debt? Another house of cards that was just as likely to collapse as the CDO arrangement. On top of the fact that pretty much every tool a Tory government would consider using had been used up: austerity, interest rates etc. I'm not convinced it would have collapsed on its own, but there is always a disaster or fuck up on the horizon and the economy had zero resilience built in (just look at the interest rates over the last years). My own opinion is that it's a dying system, but that could take decades to happen. But we can see that it isn't a system that works when disaster strikes, so the effects of climate change or food supply shortages will be horrendous.

Do you really believe that we won't return to work as normal within a few months? Normal service will be resumed. With a fine excuse for the financial depression that was likely coming anyway.

Did it not turn out that she was shouting at open reach guys that had nothing to do with the 5G network? Or was it a different wifie? The one I read about was abusing open reach guys because 5G was spreading coronavirus. That's the type of bollocks that allows actual issues to fly under the radar. That lunatic wifie and her conspiracy are now the response to every genuine concern around it.