Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

You are the one who has consistently said over and over and over that the covid-19 death figures are inaccurate, that medical professionals were putting covid-19 as cause of death when covid-19 was not cause of death.

But I have never said that have I? It is just another of your lies...

Some of the times you have questioned numbers or shown support for those doing so to date.

cyprus47300-520.html#p895195
cyprus47300-520.html#p895196
cyprus47300-550.html#p895260
cyprus47300-670.html#p895411
cyprus47300-720.html#p895484
cyprus47300-1180.html#p896382

I've always relied on the World-wide figures - I'll state them again for the hard of understanding...

That is not exactly true either. When the ONS total death figures all causes gave the right result you used those to support your argument. When they stopped showing what you needed you stopped referring to them. Of course you prefer to use the world wide global figures, because they better suit your argument by included places where the infection is only just starting to dilute the numbers in places where it is more advanced and allow you to interject doubt that some of the deaths attributed to covid-19 are in fact not from covid-19 anyway. That is WHY you now do not like or use the ONS figures for total deaths all causes, where as before you did. Because they now show the 'wrong' results and because you can not introduce any doubt as to if someone is dead or not.

My argument (and that of very many others) has always been that the numbers don't justify destroying the economy, locking people in their homes and denying the sick (who don't have the virus) treatment.

So how high would these numbers have to go before you think some damage to the economy is justified ? Why not just answer this question ?

My argument (and that of very many others) is that there is little difference between Lockdown and no Lockdown and the measures are therefore unjustifiable.

And at the 'extremes' your argument is that where I am, where we have had not had a new positive test in over 22 days straight, lock down made no difference.

[Kikapu]

You are the one who has consistently said over and over and over that the covid-19 death figures are inaccurate, that medical professionals were putting covid-19 as cause of death when covid-19 was not cause of death.

But I have never said that have I? It is just another of your lies...

My argument has always been that the numbers don't justify the action taken.

I've always relied on the World-wide figures - I'll state them again for the hard of understanding...

WW population, ~7bn

Number infected, 4.3m - call it 5m for arguments sake.

Number of dead, 292,000 - heck lets call it 500,000...

My argument (and that of very many others) has always been that the numbers don't justify destroying the economy, locking people in their homes and denying the sick (who don't have the virus) treatment.

My argument (and that of very many others) is that there is little difference between Lockdown and no Lockdown and the measures are therefore unjustifiable.

The only way the economy would not have been affected very much was for the world leaders to conspire to keep the Covid-19 pandemic quiet and let people get infected and die and then blame the cause on influenza, pneumonia and the common cold.

Would that have made you happy?

So what do you think it was going to happen when people would have realized that their governments kept the Covid-19 a secret from them and that many of their family members and friends died. Do you think people would continue as normal and that the economy would not suffer? Really?

When there is a contagious disease around that not much is known about it, what the hell did you expect the governments to do, just not act at all?

So the economy took a hit as it always does when ever there are major crisis and then it comes back bigger and stronger than before. I thought you were old enough to know of past economic crises, including the WWII. Stop with the hysteria that the economic sky has fallen in. It hasn’t.

[erolz66]

CG your overall position really is, at almost every level and to maximal degree, this stupid.

We do not know how bad this outbreak is going to be. Therefore we should / must wait and see how bad it is first and then should it turn out to be really bad we can decide what the appropriate and proportional preventative measures to take are.

Literally that stupid.

[erolz66]

Question for Tim

On April 15 you wrote

In short, what is happening now with this virus, which is still having a miniscule effect compared to the flu of 1968 in terms of death numbers, is nothing out of the realm of the unusual. A particularly bad virus has always gone round every decade or so and always will do so.

So talking about the UK specifically and in light of the ONS numbers we now currently have on total deaths all causes , do you think this assertion, this claim, this certainty warrants any revision or update ? Yes or no ?

Same question to CG and Londonrake who both 'enthusiastically' supported this original assertion by Tim when it was made.

[Tim Drayton]

Question for Tim

On April 15 you wrote

In short, what is happening now with this virus, which is still having a miniscule effect compared to the flu of 1968 in terms of death numbers, is nothing out of the realm of the unusual. A particularly bad virus has always gone round every decade or so and always will do so.

So talking about the UK specifically and in light of the ONS numbers we now currently have on total deaths all causes , do you think this assertion, this claim, this certainty warrants any revision or update ? Yes or no ?

Same question to CG and Londonrake who both 'enthusiastically' supported this original assertion by Tim when it was made.

The 1968 flu epidemic claimed 80,000 lives in the UK as far as I know.

[Tim Drayton]

A chart that may help to put things into context:

[erolz66]

Question for Tim

On April 15 you wrote

In short, what is happening now with this virus, which is still having a miniscule effect compared to the flu of 1968 in terms of death numbers, is nothing out of the realm of the unusual. A particularly bad virus has always gone round every decade or so and always will do so.

So talking about the UK specifically and in light of the ONS numbers we now currently have on total deaths all causes , do you think this assertion, this claim, this certainty warrants any revision or update ? Yes or no ?

Same question to CG and Londonrake who both 'enthusiastically' supported this original assertion by Tim when it was made.

The 1968 flu epidemic claimed 80,000 lives in the UK as far as I know.

You really are shameless. So no need to revise THIS part specifically , in light of ONS numbers. Not even a comment. Not even a hint of embarrassment.

In short, what is happening now with this virus,[snip]is nothing out of the realm of the unusual. A particularly bad virus has always gone round every decade or so and always will do so.

A clearer indication that having made your mind up as far back as April 15th, you are now incapable of revising your position in light of new factual numbers like ONS ones on total deaths from all causes, would be hard to imagine. Having made your mind up any new numbers have to be forced in to prior conclusions, any discrepancies avoided, ignored or swerved. That is exactly what you show.

Your April 15th claim that 'what is happening now' is similar to flu outbreaks that go round every decade or so, is clearly proven to be wrong by actual facts we now have. The ONS numbers. You inability to acknowledge this in any way just proves my prior theory and allegations.

As for you un source numbers and chart re 1968 flu - itself NOT a 'flu outbreaks that go round every decade or so' - they could be easily and seriously challenged. What would the point be. Your mind will not change. It will not change if and when excess deaths in UK have exceeded 80,000 (that number is estimated deaths of that outbreak over TWO consecutive years and even then is on the high end of the range of such estimates). It will not change if and when John Hopkins reports 80k UK deaths from the virus. You made you mind up.

So blatant. So shameless

[cyprusgrump]

You are the one who has consistently said over and over and over that the covid-19 death figures are inaccurate, that medical professionals were putting covid-19 as cause of death when covid-19 was not cause of death.

But I have never said that have I? It is just another of your lies...

Some of the times you have questioned numbers or shown support for those doing so to date.

cyprus47300-520.html#p895195
cyprus47300-520.html#p895196
cyprus47300-550.html#p895260
cyprus47300-670.html#p895411
cyprus47300-720.html#p895484
cyprus47300-1180.html#p896382

I've always relied on the World-wide figures - I'll state them again for the hard of understanding...

That is not exactly true either. When the ONS total death figures all causes gave the right result you used those to support your argument. When they stopped showing what you needed you stopped referring to them. Of course you prefer to use the world wide global figures, because they better suit your argument by included places where the infection is only just starting to dilute the numbers in places where it is more advanced and allow you to interject doubt that some of the deaths attributed to covid-19 are in fact not from covid-19 anyway. That is WHY you now do not like or use the ONS figures for total deaths all causes, where as before you did. Because they now show the 'wrong' results and because you can not introduce any doubt as to if someone is dead or not.

My argument (and that of very many others) has always been that the numbers don't justify destroying the economy, locking people in their homes and denying the sick (who don't have the virus) treatment.

So how high would these numbers have to go before you think some damage to the economy is justified ? Why not just answer this question ?

My argument (and that of very many others) is that there is little difference between Lockdown and no Lockdown and the measures are therefore unjustifiable.

And at the 'extremes' your argument is that where I am, where we have had not had a new positive test in over 22 days straight, lock down made no difference.

I just clicked the first example of your 'proof' of what I said...

...and of course it turns out to be an utter lie...

Who would have guessed - apart from everybody!

[Tim Drayton]

It seems the first anti-lockdown protests are taking place at multiple venues this weekend in the UK:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... urday.html

[erolz66]

I just clicked the first example of your 'proof' of what I said...

...and of course it turns out to be an utter lie...

Who would have guessed - apart from everybody!

For the hard of understanding

Note the letter about the 98 y/o whose cause of death was recorded as Covid.

Then you say things like

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

When it suits you 'cause of deaths' is dubious. When it suits you 'cause of death' is definitive. QED