Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, finlo said:

I was chatting with someone yesterday who told me there was radio program that stated that the true death count in the UK from Covid was 307 all the rest were people who just happened to have it while actually dieing from an unrelated cause. How true that is I have no idea.

I think that was for deaths under 60 with no pre existing conditions. It's 308 here.

 

IMG_20200921_002838.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Can you guys start a separate thread titled "Jersey is ace - oh no it isn't" and leave this one to a discussion on IOM and the coronavirus?

...and I so wanted a long illustrious career at the DHSC   I run my own company so my involvement with the DHSC to set up and keep the COVID19 lab running wasn't exactly in the professional caree

I'll put a big disclaimer here that I'm not the person who decides who gets tested and when.  Saying that, I am a scientist who understands that if you test someone on the day they arrive and the

Posted Images

54 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Fine PK, whatever. So the death rate from covid is over 10% and it’s entirely the fault of serial philanderer totally amoral narcisistic bungling brexiteer bozo and his Eton chums. You’re right - I only wish you’d pointed this out sooner, but I’m convinced now :rolleyes:

As was once said in Father Ted - "now that's sarcasm" :D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dilligaf said:

It isn’t for the cars Derek, it is for the freight. You know that thing that keeps the SPCo afloat ?

Tesco alone must be laying £10,000 each day for trailers.

 

7 hours ago, dilligaf said:

Wow.

See my previous post. I know a bit more than Flinty about freight 

As you’ve proven time and time again Dilli, you know more on most things than everyone. 

7 hours ago, finlo said:

If I was a betting man I'd suggest he witnessed a sailing bereft of trailers?

Two sailings. Watched both being loaded and unloaded and there was very little on them. My point is, with the very low numbers of cars that excess deck space could be filled with trailers and one crossing rather than 2 a day be completed. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t that cabinet office insist that there would be 2 sailings a day even when nobody was sailing for ‘a sense of normality’

turning back to Dilli; 

What would be the carbon saving, and overall tonnage burn in heavy oil on a return sailing to Heysham on the Ben? As a supplementary what would that cost in pound notes? 

I’d ask a shipping expert but it seems pointless seeing as you are on here already. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all arguing based on mythical figures created to forward whatever action each govt. wants to put to the population. All the figures are based on different calculation methods throughout the world and of course not all cases are known about and not all attributed deaths are actually covid related just as some non attributed actually are covid caused.

Soooooo, why are we all arguing about which govt. has done the, 'best', when our arguments are based on myths. All we really know is that there have been many more deaths in populations reportedly caused by a new disease.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banker said:

Here’s a headline for all the Covid panickers like you spreading hysteria 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12722140/coronavirus-disaster-top-scientists-tv-message/

As I posted earlier here are the true figures as collated by PHE. Ignore at your peril!

You can see from the graph on England that deaths from Covid-19 have increased the UK annual death rate by some 20%. That's a big number and a lot of people.

Also, despite Bozo et al trying to massage the figures, they are responsible for 65,000 excess deaths.

The website is also very comprehensive and tries to make sense of the situation.

11 hours ago, P.K. said:

As I understand it for all the above reasons "excess deaths" measure the true cost.

For example some folks may not have been able to get the treatment they needed and succumbed to their condition as a result. But, even though they did not catch the virus, it was ultimately the pandemic that caused their demise.

The UK was very lucky in that despite having the (now) seventh largest economy due to years of cuts our NHS capability was second from last in the EU. But unlike Italy and Spain for example our ICU's were not completely overwhelmed.

But that came at a cost of dropping pretty much everything else.

If they had not done that then the fatalities from contracting Covid could have been higher with an NHS overwhelmed.

This site from PHE is trying to build a comprehensive picture. This graph gives a good idea of the situation.

From 20/3/20 to 4/9/20 there were approx 270k registered deaths in England. There were 53,318 excess deaths with 93.1% where Covid was mentioned. Thats a lot of folks dying from the virus.

image.thumb.png.a1cb7e996ad58bb6d20c0c988beed8a5.png

See:

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html

 

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

As I posted earlier here are the true figures as collated by PHE. Ignore at your peril!

You can see from the graph on England that deaths from Covid-19 have increased the UK annual death rate by some 20%. That's a big number and a lot of people.

Also, despite Bozo et al trying to massage the figures, they are responsible for 65,000 excess deaths.

The website is also very comprehensive and tries to make sense of the situation.

 

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, and those with pre existing conditions. A society should protect the elderly and vulnerable in society, but it is foolish to inflict massive and long term damage on that society with blunt, all encompassing measures, that invariably lead to future issues for all, including those we were initially trying to protect. There has to be a better way to deal with this virus than lock down. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, and those with pre existing conditions. A society should protect the elderly and vulnerable in society, but it is foolish to inflict massive and long term damage on that society with blunt, all encompassing measures, that invariably lead to future issues for all, including those we were initially trying to protect. There has to be a better way to deal with this virus than lock down. 

Sure it hits the elderly hardest.

But they have a right to life just like everybody else.

It's also very obvious that the rise in excess deaths are lives cut short by Covid.

You would have to have a total lack of human empathy not to be concerned by that...

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, and those with pre existing conditions. A society should protect the elderly and vulnerable in society, but it is foolish to inflict massive and long term damage on that society with blunt, all encompassing measures, that invariably lead to future issues for all, including those we were initially trying to protect. There has to be a better way to deal with this virus than lock down. 

It is this with bells on & nobody can realistically argue against it.

We must get on now with the absolute focus on protecting the vulnerable.

It really is that simple.

We know who it hits & how to deal with it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

What is also very apparent in the figures is that deaths are almost exclusively those above 75, 

You've been tuning into fake news mate. Yes the figures are very much swayed to the over 75s but not "very apparent" and not "almost exclusively" at all. 

Here's an example graph from BBC, but there are 1000s more out there of course:

 

 

1986045883___Coviddeathsbyage0327000.png.5ce31683fbe67caa788af25d67b42a18.png

Edited by Barlow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Barlow said:

You've been tuning into fake news mate. Yes the figures are very much swayed to the over 75s but not "very apparent" and not "almost exclusively" at all. 

Here's an example graph from BBC, but there are 1000s more out there of course:

 

 

1986045883___Coviddeathsbyage0327000.png.5ce31683fbe67caa788af25d67b42a18.png

I was referring to Public Health England’s ‘fake news’. PK  - I agree, and if you reread my post I stated the the old and the vulnerable should be protected. I personally empathise with this demographic, but also empathise with the businesses, youth and all of the others effected by the non targeted restrictions. 

Edited by Out of the blue
typo
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Out of the blue said:

I was referring to Public Health England’s ‘fake news’. PK  - I agree, and if you reread my post I stated the the old and the vulnerable should be protected. I personally empathise with this demographic, but also empathise with the businesses, youth and all of the others effected by the non targeted restrictions. 

Why call into question the PHE figures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weeks ago the UK government death stats showed well over 40,000 deaths from Covid-19. Today they show less than 30,000. So the figures have already been "massaged". One wonders what they really are.
In the past week 2 people under 60 have died of this disease - no comments as to their co-morbidities.
Apparently 2019 was a year of very few deaths from many of the "expected" causes and left a lot of "elderly" people on the planet who had not been expected to still be here...........they form a large part of those "excess deaths". Death rates have been falling steadily since 1980 and are still well below those between 1950-1970. See here

UK death rates

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...