"When you can't just "trust the science" because the scientists keep lying to you and then saying, "oh, that was just a noble lie, sorry about that."
Well, not ALL of them get overrun
Bill, at this point I don't see the significance of that Tweet. It's irrelevant. And what does the story about a crazy woman in Gloucestershire prove?"When you can't just "trust the science" because the scientists keep lying to you and then saying, "oh, that was just a noble lie, sorry about that."
"He admitted he knowingly lied about mask use as well - to protect medical supplies."
Well, not ALL of them get overrun
The lady who filmed the video above got arrested...
This data is very misleading because wards were reallocated and routine and non-urgent operations were cancelled. The beds being counted are for non-COVID-19 admissions, meaning there are fewer non-COVID-19 hospitalisations. If you go to the source of where they claim this data is from you'll find this:
It isn't misleading because everyone is aware of the fact that routine surgeries had been cancelled. The fact that the capacity utilization is 80% of last year's capacity shows that the surgeries Shouldn't have been cancelled, and that there had been fewer COVID-19 patients than the authorities had been expecting. It is also showing that the average hospital out there Hasn't been overflowing. This means that the hospitals that had been overflowing (if any) could have sent the patients to be treated elsewhere.
Bill, it's misleading because this line does not include people who have had COVID-19:
Are you saying that the 18% fall in bed utilization doesn't include COVID-19 patients? What is the figure that includes those patients?
I still think that.
How do I explain what? Lower hospital bed utilization doesn't seem to require any reconciliation with the belief that I stated earlier. It sounds like you are talking about something else?
In the US they have been housing COVID-19 patients in seniors' homes. But let's ignore that. I realize that the total deaths will, in fact, be higher in 2020 compared to 2019, 2018, and 2017. What I would like to know is the Variability (standard deviation) of the total deaths figure. Alternatively, knowing the total death figure going back to 1959 (the year of another pandemic) would also allow us to figure out what kind of excess mortality is so high that we normally experience it once every 20 years or so.
I'm laughing at your claims. STOP LYING.
You want more proof? I can post evidence every day if needed. More? Cops in Canada are breaking into people's homes because there's too many family members in the home. Unfreaking real. There's a video of cops breaking into a Gatineau home trying to drag an old man out.
I get your point, Bill. But it seems that the whole world has averted a bigger crisis already twice over by taking "draconian measures" as you call it. We will not find out what the excess mortality would have been had these measures not been taken.
Never have I read more nonsense in one post. Don't listen to me though. Watch what this man has to say about vaccines. I bet he would have taken one if available at the time. The only reason none have to go through what he has suffered with is because of vaccines. Mankind's memory is short-lived it seems.
@PeteJ, why on earth would you rate a post that talks about eight people dying as "funny"? It shows an appalling lack of empathy.
What "bigger crisis"? It is a virus with survival rate that's over 99%!
We have good estimates for mortality rates for each age group. In any case, the argument above can be used to justify anything. "We threw you in jail for 10 years - we will never know how many people you would have killed had we not done that, so you shouldn't complain about having to serve your time."
I've seen the video Pete is referring to: police in Quebec (Canada) break into a home because the occupants had family for Christmas. What part of his post is nonsense?!
The point is that they could have saved a lot more than 1 person for every death we are supposedly avoiding.
The point is that they Shouldn't have mobilized, and a virus with survival rate over 99% isn't a crisis.
Government spending comes at the expense of private spending, and is incredibly less efficient than the private spending. When it isn't your money and you not achieving your stated goals results in your budget being Increased, there isn't much incentive to achieve the goals. So I hope it was a typo and you meant to write "LESS funding".
I am still waiting for your answer to the above, @Ed209.
On second thought, we know exactly how big of a crisis we had avoided. In California they had been doing strict lockdowns, while that hasn't happened in Florida. It is my understanding that California's numbers exceed Florida's numbers on every measure (e.g., per capita COVID-19 deaths, etc), despite there being more seniors in Florida. Likewise up until recently Sweden hasn't had any restrictions and its numbers mortality don't look Hugely higher than that of its neighbours. I am not saying that restrictions are useless, I am saying that COVID-19 mortality is relatively low to begin with and having the draconian measures shaves off something like 20-50% of that low number (with some of the deaths being delayed by several months, instead of actually being prevented). In other words, the experiences of the jurisdictions where they haven't had lockdowns prove that the mortality wouldn't double or triple or go up 10 times without the lockdowns.
Not all COVID-19 cases end up in critical care. Wouldn't you agree that the data for the general and acute beds isn't consistent with your country having an actual Crisis (or with whatever it is the authorities had been anticipating when they freed up the beds were to materialize)?
I would say it does, but there are no data currently for this. The NHS has paused the collection and publication of these data:
Member
Director
