Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

Latest ONS figures are in. Thankfully the number of excess deaths in week 18 is 'only' 8K higher than would be expected vs 5 year averages and not the 11k odd it was for previous two weeks 16 and 17.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales

From the same source, there were 6,000 Covid deaths in the same week. What accounts for the other 2,000 excess deaths?

I do not know. I would welcome grown up discussion of that far more than barrages of experts estimating unknown things like fatality rates or R numbers who concluded 'this is no worse than regular periodic flu outbreaks we get every 5 or ten years'.

What I do know is that the difference between the hard fact number of total deaths all causes and the guess number of deaths from covid-19 is not simply - these are therefore deaths caused by lock down. I know that of the two sets of numbers one is know fact and the other is and can only be 'guessed opinion'. I would welcome any discussion that looks the question 'how many of the known fact excess deaths in ONS figures are direct covid-19 deaths and how many are not' if we agree to start with what is known as fact and not just seek to try and make out it is not fact when it is.

So a figure supplied by the ONS that suits your preconceptions is "hard fact" and a figure supplied by the ONS that conflicts with your preconceptions is "guessed opinion"? Your inability to see that you are suffering from confimation bias is bizarre.

[erolz66]

Latest ONS figures are in. Thankfully the number of excess deaths in week 18 is 'only' 8K higher than would be expected vs 5 year averages and not the 11k odd it was for previous two weeks 16 and 17.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales

From the same source, there were 6,000 Covid deaths in the same week. What accounts for the other 2,000 excess deaths?

I do not know. I would welcome grown up discussion of that far more than barrages of experts estimating unknown things like fatality rates or R numbers who concluded 'this is no worse than regular periodic flu outbreaks we get every 5 or ten years'.

What I do know is that the difference between the hard fact number of total deaths all causes and the guess number of deaths from covid-19 is not simply - these are therefore deaths caused by lock down. I know that of the two sets of numbers one is know fact and the other is and can only be 'guessed opinion'. I would welcome any discussion that looks the question 'how many of the known fact excess deaths in ONS figures are direct covid-19 deaths and how many are not' if we agree to start with what is known as fact and not just seek to try and make out it is not fact when it is.

So a figure supplied by the ONS that suits your preconceptions is "hard fact" and a figure supplied by the ONS that conflicts with your preconceptions is "guessed opinion"? Your inability to see that you are suffering from confimation bias is bizarre.

Can you seriously not understand why that is the case ? Have you not heard anything I have said for last 6 weeks ? Once more

Is there any way to doubt if someone is dead or not ? Yes or no ? Dead or not is a binary unarguable status. This is not true because it suits me for it to be true. It is just true full stop. fact.
Is there any way to doubt 'cause of death'. Yes or no ? Of course there is and regardless of covid-19. Such a status is by definition NOT clear cut and binary and nor can it EVER be so ? This is not true because it suits me for it to be true. It is just true full stop. FACT

This alone means any sane reasonable person would understand and accept that numbers that count the first thing will be, have to be, materially different in nature than ones that count the second.

But in addition to this.

Have we been counting in the UK total deaths from all causes for decades, using the same systems and methods created and refined in 'normal times' and circumstances ? Yes or No ?
Have we been counting covid deaths for a mere matter of months using hodge podge system and methods and systems created on the fly whilst we in the mist of a crisis ? yes or not ?

That after all I have already said, the clarity with which I have said it you TIM are STILL making arguments that these different numbers are only different because saying that 'suits me' and not because of just plain common sense, a 7 year old could understand sense, reality pretty much removes any last vestiges of doubt I might have had that you are capable of doing anything other than 'defend the camp you pre chose' at the start of all this.

THE TWO SETS OF NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THAT IS JUST REALITY

That after 6 weeks we still have to even 'argue' about this just shows the futility that results when someone is operating solely on the basis of having pre chosen their camp and can do nothing else but defend that and place any one else not in their camp in the false construct of the 'other camp'. I yearn for serious sensible discussion about the guesses we should be making and need to make but all you can offer me after 6 weeks of effort is denial of the reality of the universe because I am not in your camp. This is the kind of behaviour coupled with an inability to even recognise it, that is a greater threat to our species than anything bill gates or big pharma could ever do in your worst nightmares.

[cyprusgrump]

Latest ONS figures are in. Thankfully the number of excess deaths in week 18 is 'only' 8K higher than would be expected vs 5 year averages and not the 11k odd it was for previous two weeks 16 and 17.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ndandwales

From the same source, there were 6,000 Covid deaths in the same week. What accounts for the other 2,000 excess deaths?

I do not know. I would welcome grown up discussion of that far more than barrages of experts estimating unknown things like fatality rates or R numbers who concluded 'this is no worse than regular periodic flu outbreaks we get every 5 or ten years'.

What I do know is that the difference between the hard fact number of total deaths all causes and the guess number of deaths from covid-19 is not simply - these are therefore deaths caused by lock down. I know that of the two sets of numbers one is know fact and the other is and can only be 'guessed opinion'. I would welcome any discussion that looks the question 'how many of the known fact excess deaths in ONS figures are direct covid-19 deaths and how many are not' if we agree to start with what is known as fact and not just seek to try and make out it is not fact when it is.

So a figure supplied by the ONS that suits your preconceptions is "hard fact" and a figure supplied by the ONS that conflicts with your preconceptions is "guessed opinion"? Your inability to see that you are suffering from confimation bias is bizarre.

Can you seriously not understand why that is the case ? Have you not heard anything I have said for last 6 weeks ? Once more

Is there any way to doubt if someone is dead or not ? Yes or no ? Dead or not is a binary unarguable status. This is not true because it suits me for it to be true. It is just true full stop. fact.
Is there any way to doubt 'cause of death'. Yes or no ? Of course there is and regardless of covid-19. Such a status is by definition NOT clear cut and binary and nor can it EVER be so ? This is not true because it suits me for it to be true. It is just true full stop. FACT

This alone means any sane reasonable person would understand and accept that numbers that count the first thing will be, have to be, materially different in nature than ones that count the second.

But in addition to this.

Have we been counting in the UK total deaths from all causes for decades, using the same systems and methods created and refined in 'normal times' and circumstances ? Yes or No ?
Have we been counting covid deaths for a mere matter of months using hodge podge system and methods and systems created on the fly whilst we in the mist of a crisis ? yes or not ?

That after all I have already said, the clarity with which I have said it you TIM are STILL making arguments that these different numbers are only different because saying that 'suits me' and not because of just plain common sense, a 7 year old could understand sense, reality pretty much removes any last vestiges of doubt I might have had that you are capable of doing anything other than 'defend the camp you pre chose' at the start of all this.

You're an idiot - a hypocritical idiot - but then we knew that...

You're seriously suggesting that out of 100 deaths the doctors can't tell what they died of...?

Sure, there will be obvious Covid deaths, and perhaps a number of deaths that could have been Covid...

But you don't think the doctors, medical professionals, coroners can pick out those that did not die of Covid...?

What a mong...

[erolz66]

You're an idiot - a hypocritical idiot - but then we knew that...

You're seriously suggesting that out of 100 deaths the doctors can't tell what they died of...?

Sure, there will be obvious Covid deaths, and perhaps a number of deaths that could have been Covid...

But you don't think the doctors, medical professionals, coroners can pick out those that did not die of Covid...?

Yes that is EXACTLY what I am telling you because it is just a true reflection of the fundamental nature of reality.

What is more it is what any and every health professional who has ever had to assign 'cause of death' to a death will tell you. The times that there is a clear cut singular simple cause of death are a minuscule exception to the times there is not.

What is more it is what those of you who 'pre chose' your camp yourself included have been screaming here in this forum relentlessly for 6 weeks now, complete with 'funny memes' of people being run over by steamrollers and being assigned 'coivd-19' cause of death, along with happy clappy support postings and lols and smileys. It has been and will remain at the core of the arguments of those like you that pre chose their camp and who will and can do nothing but try and defend it. And you talk of hypocrisy.

And as ever you just can not stop talking in terms of what 'we know' can you ? YOU singular know jack other than what your prejudice tells you must be true and divorced from any and all reality. imo.

[Tim Drayton]

The phenomenon of statistical surplus deaths far exceeding the number of deaths attributable to Covid-19 seems to be cropping up elsewhere, e.g. in Italy:

“The data showed that 13,691, or 54 percent, of the 25,354 extra fatalities nationwide "are Covid-19 diagnosed deaths" included in Italy's official virus toll. That leaves 11,663 so-called excess deaths unexplained.”

https://www.thelocal.it/20200504/italy- ... s-in-march

which shows that caution is called for in interpreting figures and we should not immediately leap to the conclusion dearest to our hearts.

[erolz66]

which shows that caution is called for in interpreting figures and we should not immediately leap to the conclusion dearest to our hearts.

Nor we should we ignore, diminish or seek to obfuscate what is fact - how many excess deaths from all causes there have been to date, just because doing so suits a pre chosen 'side' and narrative.

Find the number of times I have interpreted any figure without caution and compare that with the number of times you have set the known total death from all causes figures in a false perspective of them being uncertain. You will not do so. I am not sure you are capable of doing so. Regardless the reality still exists.

[repulsewarrior]

https://www.ozy.com/around-the-world/gh ... _content=A

Ghana; not so helpless.

[Kikapu]

Not my numbers, actually, but those produced by the first large-scale scientific studies to be conducted into the matter:

Santa Clara County, California
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20062463v2

Heinsberg, Germany
https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020

As to your excellent question as to whose interests are served by wrecking the global economy for no apparent good reason, thanks for asking it and I can only direct you to the reply I gave the last time somebody asked it (and I am glad you are all ears):

cyprus47300-930.html#p895924

I would especially recommend taking a look at the “Wrench in the gears” blog (which I quoted in my last reply) while you still can: https://wrenchinthegears.com/2020/04/ . The author of that blog seems very knowledgeable about the kind of technologies they describe there which they say could be brought together to create a dystopian surveillance regime, and the author also sets out why they think destroying the current world economy is part and parcel of bringing about the fourth industrial revolution.

So Tim, the .37% is the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for district of Heinsberg in Germany, which the two scientists Streeck & Hartmann came up with that death rate vs. the 7% Case Fatality Rate (CFR) I came up with on global numbers which John Hopkins University provided, which the difference between the two rates by about 20 folds. A huge discrepancy indeed.

In the case of the (IFR), we are asked to accept that the population is infected 10 times more than what the actual cases are, hence coming up with the .37%. very convenient if one wishes to minimize the danger level of Covid-19. The question is then begged to be asked, if someone just takes a test to determine if they have the Covid-19 and is a negative result, does the same test also determine if that person had previously been infected by Covid-19, but are now negative or that they are now asymptomatic, which according to the same study in Germany, 1 in 5 are asymptomatic. If the later does not apply, then how is it determined that the population in general is 10 times more infected than those actually testing positive for the covid-19 test? On surface it requires us to take a leap of faith to take the (IFR) as gospel when in fact it could just be an assumption, conjecture or wishful thinking. I do not believe WHO has accepted the (IFR) at .37% over (CFR), which was 3.4% back in march.

I will however keep an open mind that the (IFR) is correct, and I hope it is, but the only way to know it for sure, is to wait until 100% of the people in the district of Heinsberg, Germany which have been tested, to which ONLY 1/10th of the people have positive Covid-19 and all the remaining 9/10th of the population will show that they have already been infected and now have the antigens against Covid-19 when their immune system created when they were first infected at some point, but were not shown as a positive when tested in the 1/10th of the people. Just because a person may have been exposed to the Covin-19 virus by small traces, does not automatically make them a victim of Covid-19 to be in the (IFR), in the same way when someone has some cancer cells in their body, which almost every person does but never becomes a cancerous tumour, it does not make them a Cancer patient, or else we can use the (IFR) method of calculations and say that death from cancer is also .37%....or even much much less at .0000000037%. Sadly, this is not the reality and ONLY hard numbers of cancer patients matter and those who die from it, no different than with Covid-19 hard numbers globally collected by John Hopkins University.

As for the world leaders destroying the world's economy using Covid-19 as a catalyst to bring about "The Fourth Industrial Revolution", does that then mean we can all sit at home, get free money and food as the government will take care of all our needs or will we all become hard labour slaves? I will be happy with the former to be honest!

Which is it, Tim?

[Tim Drayton]

Another one of “my” experts?

Dr. Steven Shapiro, chief medical and scientific officer of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center made some interesting comments about reopening the economy, as reported here:

https://inside.upmc.com/shapiro-economy-roundtable/

[Tim Drayton]

Kikapu,
Oops, I may have confused CFR and IFR above. The result you are going to get depends on what you put into the denominator, of course, so if you enter anyone who shows signs of having contracted the virus you will get a lower result and if you only enter the people who present with severe symptoms at hospitals you will get a far higher figure. As far as I know, the Santa Clara and Heinsberg studies are the first serious scientific studies to work with large random samples taken from the population. This surely gives you the most reliable results. The argument you make about cancer could equally be used with influenza. If you only put people who become seriously ill with influenza, rather than all those who contract the virus, into the denominator, you will also get a scary mortality rate. The figures need to be handled with caution.