Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

https://world.einnews.com/pr_news/52228 ... nt=article

...a face mask which kills the SARS virus on it.

[repulsewarrior]

...for the record.

[cyprusgrump]

Interesting article from The Lancet...

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes

Findings
Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

[Tim Drayton]

Could Del Bigtree be right? Shouldn't there be open debate about the pros and cons before a rushed vaccine is forcibly imposed on the whole of humanity? If so, why are such voices censored?

https://cdn.lbryplayer.xyz/api/v3/strea ... 0b9/9e48eb

[cyprusgrump]

Nobody posts the ONS Weekly Death figures on here any more, I wonder why that is...?

Main points
The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 10 July 2020 (Week 28) was 8,690, this was 450 deaths fewer than Week 27.

In Week 28, the number of deaths registered was 6.1% below the five-year average (560 deaths fewer), this is the fourth consecutive week that deaths have been below the five-year average; the number of deaths in care homes, hospitals and other communal establishments were also fewer than the five-year average, while the number of deaths in private homes was 706 deaths higher than the five-year average.

Of the deaths registered in Week 28, 366 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, the lowest number of deaths involving COVID-19 in the last 16 weeks and a 31.2% decrease compared with Week 27 (532 deaths), accounting for 4.2% of all deaths in England and Wales.

In Week 28, the proportion of deaths occurring in care homes decreased to 19.0% while deaths involving COVID-19 as a percentage of all deaths in care homes decreased to 5.8%.

The number of deaths involving COVID-19 decreased across all English regions, with all regions having fewer overall deaths than the five-year average, apart from the East of England, which had 2 more deaths.

Oh...

[Tim Drayton]

Biophysicist and professor of structural biology at Stanford University, Michael Levitt, has some interesting and controversial views about the science behind the lockdown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqu0_qT ... jFOPGmaUmo

[Tim Drayton]

Economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig discusses what he sees as being the agenda behind the pandemic in the following interview:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-the ... ts/5718752

[cyprusgrump]

Warning of 'cancer deaths tsunami' as disease claims almost 1,000 more lives at home in lockdown

Screening programmes have been suspended during the pandemic, with 400,000 checks cancelled

[repulsewarrior]

Who is credible?



...WHO is not.

[cyprusgrump]

The Models Were Wildly Wrong about Reopening Too

...

To illustrate this pattern, the ICL team presented three scenarios based on the expected change in human mobility in each state after the lifting of lockdown restrictions. The first scenario kept the lockdowns in place, assuming that mobility would remain constant at its severely reduced post-lockdown rate. Under the other two scenarios, the ICL team assumed a 20% and 40% increase of mobility corresponding with the reopening process.

In both of these reopening scenarios, the model depicted a catastrophic rebound of COVID-19 fatalities. As the ICL team itself put it, their model “illustrate[s] the potential consequences of increasing mobility across the general population: in almost all cases, after 8 weeks, a 40% return to baseline [mobility] leads to an epidemic larger than the current wave.” Media reports at the time touted the study’s dire warnings as reasons to stall the reopening process – even at its sluggish pace of recurring 2-week delays and extensions.

More than 8 weeks have passed since the publication of the ICL team’s warnings against reopening, meaning we can now see how their model performed.

As with other examples of ICL COVID modeling, their attempt to predict the effects of a US reopening can only be described as an embarrassing scientific failure.

...

As with other predictions from the ICL team, the May paper likely faltered due to a fundamental error in its underlying code. These flawed ICL models begin with an unproven assumption, namely that lockdowns are effective at combating the coronavirus. The models are therefore automatically calibrated to produce a sharp spike in deaths after the removal of lockdowns or any move toward reopening.

As we’re now seeing in actual data however, that assumption is grossly exaggerated. As a result, the predictive ability of Imperial College’s COVID epidemiology modeling amounts to little more than an exercise in statistical astrology.