This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 23 Jun 23 5.14am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That’s a myth popular with the anti-vaxxers!. The vaccines reduced symptoms significantly and in so doing reduced the spread. That they also enabled a more normal life to return was what everyone needed to happen. What the trade off was between the positive and negative effects was at each stage is another question but gradually the positives are outweighing the negatives. That sentence is utter bvll5hlt, if you'll excuse me. Reduced symptoms does not make you any less of a transmission risk.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 23 Jun 23 5.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
But never mind the deaths. Will anyone be able to step up in the Inquiry and say "I made that call".? Anyone ? or will all the big fvck-ups be lost in group-think and committee decisions ? And who got all the money from the Covid contracts ? And all the unusable PPE that was binned was not quantified. I know, because I was throwing a warehouse full of stuff out over a period of a month from a small local Council depot.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 8.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
That sentence is utter bvll5hlt, if you'll excuse me. Reduced symptoms does not make you any less of a transmission risk. Read the second paragraph
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 8.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
This isn't about long COVID. It's about the effect of lockdown on mental health. Ok, but it’s still a long term impact for which the same considerations apply. We just don’t know .
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 8.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
I really did touch a nerve didint I. At the start I was doing PCR tests and I even Agreed with the initial lockdowns. But after a while I seen through all the BS and lies and did what I had to do and faked my cert. Echos of what the Jews had to do to escape the nazis. I wasn't putting my life on hold or my health at risk. In the end it was a pandemic of the vaccinated.
Maybe you don’t realise it but that comment sums you and your attitude up! Lots of “I” and not a single “we”. Selfish!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 8.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Once again, show we the statistical evidence that the original vaccines lowered transmission rates. You may make a claim, but that's all it is....enjoy being a conspiracy theorist all of a sudden? If what you say is true then it would be reflected within the statistics. We know that the original vaccines were not tested in this way. If people feel less ill, they will have mixed more and hence passed the virus to more people than otherwise because they had been told they weren't going to transmit. People will have died vaccinated or not because of this....and many vaccinated people did and are dying. We know that the vaccine lowered initial death rates, however we are far in excess of death rates now and have been for a long time.....in all age groups. You know what can be used to show that and hence prove it? Statistics. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jun 2023 1.04am) We know that the excess death rates are due to Covid and the impact of the pandemic on health service provision and use. What we don’t know is what the situation now would have been had we not taken the steps we did.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 8.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
On all-cause mortality and adjusted for age in each country to take into account underlying factors that affect death rates Sweden has the lowest pandemic mortality in Europe. They followed the GBD and so the claim that we don't know what would have happened without lockdowns is a pretty weak one. In my view our death rate would have been similar to theirs once adjusted for population density and cultural norms of groups. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jun 2023 3.55am) The Daily Sceptic??? Hardly an unbiased source. Just look at who writes for it! This is the BBC article it seeks, unsuccessfully, to ridicule. It is balanced, fair and objective in trying to make sense of the figures. New Zealand locked down even harder than us, and have better stats than Sweden. Sweden may not have formally locked down, having such a compliant population, greater equality, efficient health service and well spread density there was less need, but they did introduce measures, especially in cities.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  23 Jun 23 9.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The Daily Sceptic??? Hardly an unbiased source. Just look at who writes for it! This is the BBC article it seeks, unsuccessfully, to ridicule. It is balanced, fair and objective in trying to make sense of the figures. New Zealand locked down even harder than us, and have better stats than Sweden. Sweden may not have formally locked down, having such a compliant population, greater equality, efficient health service and well spread density there was less need, but they did introduce measures, especially in cities. Having spent months saying Sweden doesn't compare with the UK New Zealand now comes up? An isolated country with half Sweden's population and correspondingly lower population density.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 23 Jun 23 9.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Maybe you don’t realise it but that comment sums you and your attitude up! Lots of “I” and not a single “we”. Selfish! Only selfish person is you. Expecting other people to risk their health.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 10.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Having spent months saying Sweden doesn't compare with the UK New Zealand now comes up? An isolated country with half Sweden's population and correspondingly lower population density. It was in the stats, but ignored by the "critic". It simply points out that trying to draw comparisons between completely different scenarios to provide support for a debunked theory, like the "GBD", is total nonsense.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 georgenorman 23 Jun 23 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It was in the stats, but ignored by the "critic". It simply points out that trying to draw comparisons between completely different scenarios to provide support for a debunked theory, like the "GBD", is total nonsense. Scotland locked down even harder than us, and have worse stats than England.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Jun 23 10.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Only selfish person is you. Expecting other people to risk their health. There is a risk involved in getting out of bed. The real question is the size of the risk, and whether that is outweighed by the benefit.s Such decisions, like many others, need to be taken collectively so that collectively we benefit. You want to take daft decisions, based on a misunderstanding of the risks both to yourself and others, on your own. That's pure selfishness. It shows a complete lack of responsibility.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.