Last updated2020-04-24T10:29:42



626 RS @ home, replying to RS @ home, 4, #1 of 80 🔗

Here is an article https://www.maurice.nl/2020/04/23/thats-how-big-the-impact-of-super-spread-events-is/ from a Dutch social geographer who studies the effect of so called “super spreader events”: events where many people got infected due to a special set of circumstances and behaviours. These events seem to have a very important role in the spread of the virus.
If we can avoid super spreader events, we can keep R0 down. Apparently, one of the things to avoid is loud singing or shouting in confined spaces, as it brings aerosols into the air spreading the virus very quickly.

636 ▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to RS @ home, 9, #2 of 80 🔗

Ending the lockdown would certainly greatly reduce the amount of shouting in this household.

646 ▶▶ Jez, replying to RS @ home, 1, #3 of 80 🔗

Our 138,078 could have been arrived at by 550 super gregarious people spreading it to 10 others, those 10 to 4 others, to 3, to 2, who each then infected just 1.

This is the formula:

Obviously it didn’t happen like that… but it does show that just sorting out a few super spreaders could have obviated the need for this hysterical overreaction based on “science” – actually just ivory tower guessers loving their moment in the limelight.

703 ▶▶ A Radcliffe, replying to RS @ home, 3, #4 of 80 🔗

Keep on adding to the bank of common sense. Simple measures such as hand washing, social distancing etc, can cause the transmission rate to fall without this ridiculous confinement.

627 RS @ home, replying to RS @ home, -1, #5 of 80 🔗

Another interesting point in this work https://www.maurice.nl/2020/04/23/thats-how-big-the-impact-of-super-spread-events-is/ are the detailed graphs and charts of the spread of the virus. Death rates in the worst affected areas are running at over 400 per million inhabitants and still climbing, i.e. herd immunity has not been reached.
I’m interested to see responses to this line of thinking:
By the time heard immunity is reached, one would expect death rates to be quite similar in all areas, with some variations for demographics, method of counting, and effectiveness of shielding vulnerable groups. Right?
Death rates in most areas (in Italy, the Netherlands and also the UK) are well below 400 per million, so does that pour cold water on the idea that we might be close to herd immunity already?

628 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to RS @ home, 22, #6 of 80 🔗

Not sure, wouldn’t it mean that the virus isn’t as deadly as first thought? That certainly seems to be the news coming out of California where randomised testing, extrapolated out to the entire population, puts the IFR down to 0.03%.

We already know the data on who is most likely to die from the virus. So an on-going policy to recommend this demographic shields itself is the way forward, coupled with raised awareness of good hand hygiene etc, would keep deaths low. But, of course, that was the UK’s strategy at the outside before the baying mobs demanded our freedoms be surrendered and our jobs be sacrificed at the altar of “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”.

630 ▶▶▶ Laura, replying to Mark H, 4, #7 of 80 🔗

Baying mobs – such a great description.

696 ▶▶▶▶ BayOrBaa, replying to Laura, 5, #8 of 80 🔗

Baying might be the wrong word for this context, how a baa-ing, as a herd of could-be-immune-but-too-scared sheep.

645 ▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to RS @ home, 3, #9 of 80 🔗

There is no consistency in cause of death recording so the data is not much help:

“The intent is … if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that,”

Dr Deborah Birx White House coronavirus task force response coordinator

‘Currently we have a huge bias in the numbers coming from different countries – therefore the data are not directly comparable’

Dietrich Rothenbacher, Director of the Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry at the University of Ulm in Germany.

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus. … On re-evaluation by the NIH,” he says, “only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88% of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many two or three.”

Prof. Walter Ricciardi, scientific advisor to Italy’s minister of health

So you can pretty much pluck any number out of the air to suit whatever point you would like to make.

But more and more data points to large numbers of infections with mortality rates by age similar to figures for a bad influenza year. If infections started after Chinese students returned to British Universities 25 September 2019 then we achieved herd immunity some time ago.

654 ▶▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to Tim Bidie, #10 of 80 🔗

The problem with that article is that we clearly have excess deaths now – and not before. So why all the excess death now?

660 ▶▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to Thomas Pelham, 8, #11 of 80 🔗

People dying at home from other illnesses or diseases. That’s what the agreed consensus is. Around half of the excess deaths don’t mention CV19 on the death certificate, meaning they died of something else. But I suppose that’s a byproduct of the NHS’s obsession with “clear the wards”, which sent around 37,000 home from the hospital.

Oh, that, and the postponed cancer tests and treatments.

677 ▶▶▶▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to Mark H, #12 of 80 🔗

Can we be certain they’re not undercounting? Don’t get me wrong, I’m seriously skeptical of the lockdown – I just wonder whether this is a sensible argument to pursue – in as much as it’s perfectly possible to argue against the lockdown from more solid positions than this.

678 ▶▶▶▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to Thomas Pelham, 5, #13 of 80 🔗

Under counting? They’re already adding CV19 to death certificates even if the dead person didn’t have a test and was never physically examined by a doctor. No, it would seem they’re over counting.

682 ▶▶▶▶▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to Thomas Pelham, #14 of 80 🔗

Have you seen this discussion of excess deaths?


710 ▶▶▶▶▶▶▶ giblets, replying to Tim Bidie, 4, #16 of 80 🔗

People attending A&E for heart attacks and stokes have dropped by 40-70%here. the US and Spain, Lombardy. Those people are still dying …

686 ▶▶▶▶▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to Thomas Pelham, #17 of 80 🔗

Another study now indicating that the initial modelling assumptions, panicked by poor data from China and Italy (deaths ‘from’ Covid 19 admitted to be only 12% of total Covid 19 figure) used to justify the lockdown were way off beam regarding infection numbers, numbers of deaths from Covid 19 and so mortality rates.


But you are no doubt correct. Any admission of that will be politically unacceptable, so our get out of jail free (not) card looks like being the high cost of the lockdown in collateral deaths outside hospital.

The private medical sector in the U.S. demonstrates what happens to healthcare when it doesn’t get paid for:


Or is postponed, deemed non essential:

‘If millions suffering from joint pain cannot get treatment, many will lose employment due to disability, develop opioid dependence or addiction while managing pain, succumb to depression or mental health disease, or worse, die of a blood clot due to immobility. These dire consequences cannot be ignored, and treatment cannot simply be pushed aside as “elective.”‘


There is a slightly different crisis brewing here:

‘A Scottish Government spokeswoman admitted the crisis had seen addiction services disrupted. She added: “Covid-19 presents a serious threat to the lives of people with underlying health conditions, including those whose health has been badly affected by drug use.’


702 ▶▶▶▶▶▶ Ryan, replying to Thomas Pelham, #18 of 80 🔗

Doctors are noting COVID-19 on a lot of death certificates, we don’t really know to what extent they are over attributing deaths to COVID-19, perhaps not by much, but they certainly aren’t under-attributing by looking a cases which could be COVID-19 related and marking them as not-COVID-19. The ONS death figures also show the fraction of deaths with “respiratory” related causes, any COVID-19 death is certain to be one of those, but subtracting respiratory deaths from the total still gives a rise in non-respiratory ones.

700 ▶▶▶▶▶ Ryan, replying to Mark H, 2, #19 of 80 🔗

I’ve checked the official ONS stats webpages and the source data spreadsheets they link to. You can clearly see that subtracting COVID -19 deaths (of which some won’t actually be caused by COVID-19) from the total. What remains is still rather higher than for this time of year in any previous year, and by a difference rather larger than the usual range of variability for the weekly death tolls in spring. It’s more like a third than a half, but given what we understand about its causes we can expect the proportion to keep rising until the lockdown ends, and then keep rising still as the slower deaths-by-lockdown start to appear. There is a definite sign in the data that non-coronavirus deaths have risen in lockdown. How long before people as a whole realise the harm lockdown is doing? It is our duty to point out these stats to everyone we know.

670 ▶▶▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to Thomas Pelham, 3, #20 of 80 🔗

Thomas. How are you defining “excess deaths” ?

A weekly comparison of the latest ONS data for week 15 up to 10 April shows many excess deaths above the 5 year average for that week, many of which have been coded with WHO mandated mortality CV codes of U07.1 ( tested ) or U07.2 ( untested or presumed ) and many have not, which are still requiring explanation.

As the article states vis the InProprotion charts, “the the number of deaths in Week 15 of 2020 were lower than they were in some previous flu seasons”.

The cumulative, year to date 2020 all cause mortality from the same ONS data up to week 15 on April 10 shows the following :

2015 = 179,622
2016 = 167,458
2017 = 172,191
2018 = 187,720
2019 = 166,435
2020 = 184,960

2015 to 2020 5 year average : 174,685 or 174,693

So, as at the end of Week 15 on April 10th, the total all cause mortality exceeded every year since 2015 except 2018 and is c10k ( 5.8% ) above the 5 year average for week 15 and yet it still did not show significant excess mortality overall.

Why was the world not shut down in 2018 ?

There’s also this to consider, writ large ,…

Joanne Charles

My husband was called in to be with his mum 36 hours before she died.
She was not in the COVID ward and the nurse in her room was not wearing a mask- yet here it is in black and white. Gutted.

12:48 pm · 17 Apr 2020

See the death Certificate images & causes of death …


a sample reply :

Gilet Jaunes and the Direct Democracy
Replying to @JoanneC52191646 and @Ian56789

Upper Gastro Intestinal Bleed! Yet CV19 on certificate! Blood loss is the problem here. It sounded sudden too…sorry to hear.

9:47 pm · 23 Apr 2020


MG :

9. Cause of Death

I. (a) Upper GI bleed

II. Covid-19, AF, IHD, CKD


Upper Gi Bleed
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is gastrointestinal bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract, commonly defined as bleeding arising from the esophagus, stomach, or duodenum.

AF = Atrial fibrillation
Atrial fibrillation is a heart condition that causes an irregular and often abnormally fast heart rate.

IHD = Ischemic Heart Disease
Coronary artery disease (CAD), also known as coronary heart disease (CHD) or ischemic heart disease (IHD),[13] involves the reduction of blood flow to the heart muscle due to build-up of plaque in the arteries of the heart.[5][14][6] It is the most common of the cardiovascular diseases.[15] Types include stable angina, unstable angina, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death.[16]

CKD = Chronic Kidney Disease
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition where the kidneys don’t work as well as they should.

In spite of all of the above, this death will be counted among the Covid-19 number, coded as either U07.1 = Tested or U07.2 = Not tested or inconclusive or presumed because it was judged to have been a contributory factor …

Under these “extreme circumstances”, I consider this opinion to be appropriate …


666 ▶▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to Tim Bidie, 2, #21 of 80 🔗

Dr Jenny Harries UK DCMO: 5 April 2020

CV-19 recorded deaths are not all due to CV-19 …


629 giblets, replying to giblets, 1, #22 of 80 🔗

Think we need another week to really show if the Swedish figures follow or contradict Ferguson, the peaks do start to rise, so important to see if the latest trough is more consistent or leads to a much bigger peak.

634 ▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to giblets, 7, #23 of 80 🔗

The peaks are artificial, caused by the reporting of deaths. Weekends drop really low. – check out the deaths by date, it’s pretty obvious they’re out of the exponential stage of the virus, and possibly declining. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

It might leap up again, but not showing signs of that thus far – the numbers in intensive care would have to leap first and they haven’t.

637 ▶▶▶ giblets, replying to Thomas Pelham, 2, #24 of 80 🔗

Cheers, I think it will be very interesting to compare his predictions with reality, the really interesting graph I picked up is his mad cow predictions vs reality, which might be exceptionally close to the Swedish model if it continues, showing that existing controls already have the disease under control (just like the UK where the plateau is due to pre lockdown restrictions)

644 ▶▶▶▶ mogg42, replying to giblets, #25 of 80 🔗

Doesn’t that show the Imperial model was about right? The policy adopted was represented by line C

653 ▶▶▶▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to mogg42, 1, #26 of 80 🔗

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

655 ▶▶▶▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to mogg42, 4, #27 of 80 🔗

It became known as ‘Carnage by computer’

The title of the accompanying article begins: ‘Wrong but useful……..’

‘…..reconstructions of the epidemic indicate that the rate at which new infections were arising peaked between 19 March and 21 March, and the number of reported cases peaked on 26 March – before these new policy measures were implemented. Therefore, the switch to more stringent control procedures could not have been responsible for this initial reduction.’

There was another view:

‘The course of an outbreak can be critically affected by minor and inherently unpredictable events, such as a single livestock movement. For this reason, predictive disease models, which depend on statistical probabilities of transmission, have not met with much success in predicting the spread of FMD from herd to herd, and still less the impact of control measures.’

‘The UK experience provides a salutary warning of how models can be abused in the interests of scientific opportunism’


661 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to giblets, 5, #28 of 80 🔗
684 ▶▶ BoneyKnee, replying to giblets, -1, #29 of 80 🔗

I think comparing Ferguson with his data at the beginning with the status now would be wrong. Not that much was known when he first started modelling. Let’s see what it says now. The fact it was “wrong” at the outset is not a surprise or a huge issue. The knowledge base is increasing all the time. For me, it is about what we do now knowing what we know now. Not worrying about misforecasting at the outset.

704 ▶▶▶ Wilfred, replying to BoneyKnee, 2, #30 of 80 🔗

Lets not blame the scientists who made the dodgy predictions, it is easy to do with incomplete data. Finding good data on something as rapidly evolving as a pandemic is damn hard. Blame the politicians who chose to panic based on the models and failed to ask questions beyond the death toll (economic impacts, harms to civil liberties, deaths from non-covid-19 diseases, lost quality-adjusted life-years due to health conditions going untreated…) before taking action.

742 ▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to BoneyKnee, 7, #31 of 80 🔗

@ BoneyKnee. I agree – a month ago we had no decent stats on how deadly this bug is. Ferguson could be excused for this, but it’s not the first time his modelling of possible outcomes was incorrect by orders of magnitude.

What I CAN’T excuse is the appointment of THIS particular “expert” to be a major Govt advisor for potentially the worst health crisis this country has seen for several generations.

If the electrician you employed to put in a couple of new plug sockets did an utterly crap job, would he be the first name on your list when your house needed a complete re-wire?

(And I am rather disturbed by emerging connections between Ferguson’s workplace, Imperial College, the latter institution’s receipt of considerable donations from the Gates Foundation, that Foundation’s links with the (staggeringly corrupt) pharma industry, that industry’s Holy Grail of COMPULSORY vaccination, and the latter’s removal of one of our fundamental rights – that of sovereignty over our own bodies – which opens the door to increasing Governmental control of our lives.)

What do we do now, knowing what we know?

Unless there’s a rapid change in the picture, a number of things are becoming clear:

1) Covid19 is not the Black Death. Its mortality is similar to a severe flu, and most deaths are amongst the elderly and already ill. As Professor John Ioanaddis said, ” for the healthy under-65s, the risk of dying from Covid19 is negligible – about the same as dying from a road accident on your daily trip to work.”

To me, this is vital information. We don’t close the world down for a severe flu (and yes, I know the taxonomy of Covid19 is not that of a flu virus, but that’s irrelevant) so now that we have good reason to believe this critter is no more dangerous, why are we still hiding under our comfort blankets, sucking our thumbs and clutching our teddy bears?

2) The stats from several sources, both academic analysts eg Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel) and independent statisticians, are starting to show that lockdowns are having little to no effect. The virus does what it does, and seems to rise and decline in much the same way whatever action is taken.

3) We appear to have adequate capacity within the NHS to cope with a spike in cases.

4) The potential health catastrophe awaiting us if we don’t restart the economy VERY soon, will utterly dwarf anything this virus could ever do. (Total collapse of the NHS for example.)

Unless something changes rapidly, I would have thought that what we do now is – get the hell back to work ASAP, whilst sheltering those remaining vulnerable.

I will watch the emerging picture with interest and not a little trepidation.

793 ▶▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to Gracie Knoll, 2, #32 of 80 🔗

On March 19th the 4 British public health bodies noted that COVID-19 should not be classed as a high consequence infectious disease. Here are their reasons:
“Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.”


So, they knew enough about CV19 on the 19th of March, but still went ahead and announced the lockdown on the 23rd.

631 Peter Thompson, replying to Peter Thompson, 9, #33 of 80 🔗

I wonder if they have really thought through the policy of containment with contact tracing ? This seems to be UK plc s latest strategy . If you are going to maintain this until a vaccine comes ( unlikely despite all the noise from the media ) or a cure ( very unlikely ) then to be actually effective anyone coming into the UK will need to go into 2 weeks quarantine. This is the policy at present of NZ and Australia . Are you going to visit Australia next year if you have to spend the first two weeks in some dodgy accommodation in quarantine?
Contact tracing barely works for STI s but most people can remember the names and identities of their sexual partners. It certainly won’t work for a respiratory virus… I was in the third or fourth carriage of the tube train somewhere around 9 am.

664 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to Peter Thompson, 5, #34 of 80 🔗

When I hear this talk of a vaccine, I’m reminded that COVID-19 is from the same family of viruses that cause the common cold, which takes me back to my childhood and asking “why isn’t there a cure for the cold?”. How CV19 will respond differently to a vaccine is puzzling.

667 ▶▶▶ Barney McGrew, replying to Mark H, 4, #35 of 80 🔗

There’s never been a more confident interviewee on Andrew Marr’s programme than Sarah Gilbert last weekend. She is 100% certain that her vaccine will work. Not only that, it will have no unwanted side effects because we understand exactly how it works, apparently. And as a bonus, it will generate lots of lovely antibodies that can be measured in tests for years afterwards.

She gave no doubt that if the upcoming global government suggested vaccinating seven billion people with it, she would sign on the dotted line without hesitating and not lose a moment’s sleep.

It seemed to contradict all those stories about the virus being ‘novel’ and something we know nothing about, that may mutate in unexpected ways and react with previous antibodies producing dire outcomes etc. Such talk is for losers.

679 ▶▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to Barney McGrew, 1, #36 of 80 🔗

I suppose her confidence is matched by the Government’s £120,000 one-off payout for the side effects of vaccines.

705 ▶▶▶ JosephJames, replying to Mark H, #37 of 80 🔗

Cold can’t be cured because it mutates SO FAST. Flu needs a new vacine per year as it chanegs quite fast. COVID-19 comes in two strains and fortunately neither had yet been seen to mutate any further, for a virus which has caused millions of infections all around the world this is very slow to mutate. A vaccine is still atleast 6 months from mass production even if initial trials go perfectly, I would be very impressed by them working well first time without atleast some tweaking, from experience in non-medical scientific projects I can say that success without a few rounds of tinkering is something reserved only for those who are both very lucky and very skilled. We need to accept living as close to normally as possible (mild social distancing, better hygiene, less very big crowds, no extreme measures) with the small COVID-19 risk to life until such a vaccine can be rolled out.

632 mogg42, #38 of 80 🔗

The IFR for NYC with earlier, onset would be between 0.6-0.8%. This also needs to be interpreted with the caveats of the testing location, but Cuomo also indicated that the numerator was an understimate as it excluded home deaths. So something around 0.7% may be about right.

Incidentally, a)stopped being Governor on NY in 1994 b) died in 2015

638 GLT, replying to GLT, 8, #39 of 80 🔗

I have also been wondering about the willingness of the population to surrender their freedoms. I know many who are intelligent, with inquiring minds, who have happily acquiesced without question. I think Jonathan Sumption hit the nail on the head when he described how tyranny often begins with the willing handover of freedom in return for protection from a perceived external threat.

My family of 5 have (probably) all experienced the virus and my experience of dealing with the health authorities early in March was such a debacle that I realised there was no centralised understanding of the experience of the general population or even any way of monitoring simple data. (The 111 health line could not even track repeat callers and had no record of the length or type of symptoms.) This personal experience informed me early on that the government was acting blindly and was making no real attempt to gather wide-ranging data to inform its decision-making. Indeed, a randomised population sample has only just been initiated.

It is not a comfortable position to realise the inadequacies of our national response when the consequences of either action or inaction are so grave. In the absence of a direct experience, many people, already dealing with the mental discomfort of a loss of control, prefer to trust what they hear.

671 ▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to GLT, #40 of 80 🔗

GLT : “I have also been wondering about the willingness of the population to surrender their freedoms.”

Same reason as you surrendered yours probably …


707 ▶▶▶ Sarah, replying to Mark Gobell, #41 of 80 🔗

surrendered freedoms: Because we can’t see a way to claim them all back, single acts alone and ignored don’t achieve anything, if someone could start organising on actually doing something at scale then the rest of us could follow.

642 RDawg, replying to RDawg, 32, #42 of 80 🔗

The Myth Of Protecting Our NHS…

One of the biggest myths being pedalled by the government and mainstream media is the great delusion that we are “protecting our NHS” by implementing the current lockdown measures. Are people forgetting how the NHS is funded? The NHS is largely paid for from general taxation, with a small amount being contributed by National Insurance payments, and from fees levied in accordance with recent changes in the Immigration Act 2014.

So what happens to general taxation and NI payments when we shut down the economy? They fall. Sky News reported yesterday that economic activity in the UK has fallen to what they described as probably “the worst economic slump since the beginning of capitalism”. We are not talking the 2008 financial crash. We are not talking about the two world wars. We are talking about the worst financial slump recorded ever. Ever! In history! The current shutdown measures are estimated to be costing the UK £2.4 billion per day in borrowing. To put this into perspective that is enough to hire 28,235* doctors for a year, 66,667 nurses, or build 26 hospitals (including the necessary infrastructure) for EVERY SINGLE day that we are shutting down the economy. This is mind-blowing!

We are accruing borrowing estimated to be in the region of £350 to £500 billion by the end of 2020 in order to manage this “crisis”. That’s half a trillion pounds! Does Joe Public understand the ramifications this will have on daily life for the next few years, possibly decades? The only way we can pay back this colossal debt will be through severe austerity measures, higher taxes and quantitative easing (aka printing money) which of course leads to hyper inflation.

The UK (and most of the democratic world) is now willingly implementing one of the worst man-made, yet completely avoidable recessions since records began. Are people really that naive to appreciate what impact this will have on our healthcare, as a consequence? Mass unemployment, multiple businesses failing, a huge reliance on universal credit and state benefits, will all lead to one of the biggest deficits the government has ever had to deal with in living memory.

So where will the money come from to now pay for our “great NHS” once the Covid curve has flattened? Are we actually “protecting our NHS” by locking down and and setting it up for catastrophic underfunding, overwhelm from the economic and austerity fallout measures, and placing the lives of millions of future generations into years of suffering? I don’t even want to think about it. Once you then add in the thousands of missed cancer screenings (around 50,000 excess deaths predicted by Oncologist Karol Sikora), the excess suicides from mental health crises (around 10,000 UK suicides from the 2008 financial crash), not to mention the thousands who die from being too terrified to seek treatment from their GP or at their hospital emergency department, we start to see that perhaps we are not “protecting our NHS” or “saving lives” at all. So, as they say in America, go figure!

*Based on average UK salary of doctors on £85,000, nurses on £36,679 and a hospital build cost of £90 million.

665 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to RDawg, 3, #43 of 80 🔗

A few of us on the sceptical side of the hysterical mob are wondering if this is all about a giant reset button being pushed, or a ctrl-alt-delete of global proportions.

672 ▶▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to Mark H, 1, #44 of 80 🔗

Indeed. Looks very much like it to me.

746 ▶▶ Michael C, replying to RDawg, 3, #45 of 80 🔗

The Government is going to come under increasing pressure to raise NHS salaries across the board after the pandemic has passed. This at a time when millions of people have had their salaries and benefits much reduced or in many cases lost completely. The bravery of NHS frontline staff is clear but they cannot be excluded from the sacrifices that ALL will have to make as we bring the economy back from the brink. NHS staff can at least take some comfort from the fact that their salaries and benefits are being paid and protected as the pandemic rages.

747 ▶▶▶ RDawg, replying to Michael C, 2, #46 of 80 🔗

Exactly. And how does the government think it is going to fund its payroll of more than a million NHS workers sustainably? The lockdown is causing more harm than good.

648 Dylan Jones, 6, #47 of 80 🔗

Roll on LOXIT

650 Marcus, replying to Marcus, 16, #48 of 80 🔗

How will 8.8 million elderly – or any other – voters take revenge at the next election as the author of the letter in the Telegraph suggests? A hole so deep has been dug that any major party will not dare to seriously question the lockdown position either in the near future or at the time of the next GE, merely chipping away at the edges of the policy as Starmer is doing currently (inevitably given a more extreme policy than present is almost impossible). Who will someone concerned about the obliteration of liberties (of people of all ages), willing to distinguish between the pandemic and lockdown and scrutinise the government, vote for? Unless there is a massive shift in public perception, which will need a mainstream media shift which can now essentially be prevented by government, I can not envisage an anti-lockdown or sceptic option on the next ballot paper.

It is this cross-demographic and cross-party nature of this ‘there is no alternative’ insanity which has presumably led to desperation for many finding near-totalitarianism insufferable (‘dare I question this with anyone in real life…?’). Lets hope the sceptic voice grows through outlets such as this one.

657 ▶▶ GLT, replying to Marcus, 1, #49 of 80 🔗

It may end up being questioned in our courts by individuals and organisations who have sustained substantial loss as a result of the government’s lockdown policy. Unfortunately if government decisions are effectively challenged in this arena we will collectively pay the price.

673 ▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to Marcus, #50 of 80 🔗

The 2021 elections have already been suspended. One has to admire The Telegraph’s correspondent’s optimism, both for their own longevity and a functioning democracy in 2025 …

708 ▶▶ Mick, replying to Marcus, 7, #51 of 80 🔗

DO tell people in real life. A lot more than publically admit it think the lockdown is wrong, they just need the confidence of seeing others come out to dissent it to get them to admit that they are against the lockdown. Start them slowly on talking about how they’ve suffered, bring up the subject of incidents of serious injustices with overzealous policing especially directed against NHS workers that they’ve been idolising, make hints towards the health consequences of lockdown and then get them thinking about how useful their local shops and takeaways are and how sad they’d be to lose the option to buy things there. Don’t mention anything which sounds like a conspiracy theory, focus on effects they can see, not speculation about causes.

656 nowhereman, replying to nowhereman, 6, #52 of 80 🔗

Hmm, looking closely at the two Ferguson graphs, it seems that the “moderate” numbers were obtained by using the very sophisticated modelling approach of dividing the “do nothing” numbers by two. Expertise indeed…

674 ▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to nowhereman, 1, #53 of 80 🔗

Prof Neil Ferguson’s “computer model” – thousands of lines of undocumented, 13 year old code …

See also : Neil Ferguson’s antecedents in :

Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?


659 wendyk, replying to wendyk, 12, #54 of 80 🔗

“No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.“

Clause 39 from Magna Carta

675 ▶▶ Mark Gobell, replying to wendyk, 6, #55 of 80 🔗

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants” — Albert Camus

662 RDawg, replying to RDawg, 10, #56 of 80 🔗

Has anyone seen Dr Erickson‘s Covid-19 press briefing on 23 ABC News yet? Mind blowing!

He says, “ In Kern County, we’ve tested, 5,213 people and we have 340 positive COVID cases. Well that’s 6.5 percent of the population. Which would indicate a widespread viral infection similar to the flu,” Dr. Erickson said. He continued, “So if you look at California, these numbers are from yesterday, we have 33,865 COVID cases out of a total of 280,900 total tested that’s 12 percent of Californian’s were positive for COVID. The initial models were woefully inaccurate.”


691 ▶▶ John Bradley, replying to RDawg, 1, #57 of 80 🔗

Thank you RDawg. Agree! Never heard so much common sense in one place. I liked the way they said what ‘the science’ was the evidence, not the modelling, and that ‘the science’ should change as you get more evidence. In mid-March we knew diddly squat about the virus but the government was spooked by the so-called science that said we were dealing with Spanish flu type of virus. However, we are where we are and the important thing now is to base what we do on the emerging evidence and not stick to earlier preconceived ideas. In particular what is the appropriate IFR to assume going forward? Based on the evidence in this video and other data emerging over the last month or so I would argue that it is nowhere near as high as the 0.9% assumed by Ferguson (see the vigorous debate elsewhere on this website).
By the way, do you know whether the testing numbers they were quoting were representative samples or biased towards those who might have the virus?

709 ▶▶▶ RDawg, replying to John Bradley, 4, #58 of 80 🔗

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately they do not say if those who were tested were a randomised sample of the population, or only those who showed symptoms. Without randomised testing with large sample sizes, it makes it harder to get a reliable IFR prediction and thus extrapolation of data to the population as a whole.

Also I don’t understand their comment of having a “0.01 chance of dying from Covid“. Does this mean a 0.01 PER CENT chance, OR are they saying you have a 0.01 out of 1 chance (which equates to a 1% chance of dying)? This is pretty important!!

Neil Ferguson, as with his previous predictions, is now starting to look incredibly stupid. He has a history of doomsday modelling and getting it catastrophically wrong, yet the government still listen to him. Why? This really baffles me!

His model predicted a mortality rate of 0.9% and it is now starting to look a lot closer to 0.1%, which as we know is about the same as seasonal flu. Also his model did not consider the building of the extra Nightingale hospitals (which have been largely empty or unused) or that hospitals could effectively double their ICU capacity by re-utilising existing resources available to them.

676 Mark Gobell, replying to Mark Gobell, #60 of 80 🔗

Why are some of the provisions of the Mental health Act 1983, being changed by Schedule 8 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 ?

How do we explain the same changes being applied in the Republic of Ireland’s legislation ?


680 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to Mark Gobell, 4, #61 of 80 🔗

In a worse case, dystopian dictatorship, you could imagine someone refusing the vaccine being classed as “mentally impaired” upon on the word of one “health care professional”, being forcibly removed from his home and taken to an “isolation centre”.

Oh wait, no, that’s actually the law now.

711 ▶▶▶ Fred, replying to Mark H, 2, #62 of 80 🔗

Its what was done in the soviet union, psychiatrists had a diagnosis for a form of symptomless schizophrenia which they diagnosed in anyone who was anti-communist. That said this won’t be used againsy vaccine refusers, the state doesn’t have the time to be all that bothered by those few. Far more conceringly this will be used against political opponents.

688 swedenborg, replying to swedenborg, 17, #63 of 80 🔗

The figures from Sweden. One of the most disputed issue on twitter threads or blogs is the reporting from Sweden. The absolute majority is using the worldometer which is of very doubtful value especially as regards deaths which is not recorded on the day of death but reporting date.
The most important figures are always the date of maximum deaths and date of maximum use of intensive care. There is a predicted time lag from infection peak to COVID deaths peak of approximately 21 to 28 days. The peak of intensive care is most likely a week before peak of deaths.
I recommend everyone to got to the Swedish Public Health website and you can see for yourself update each day https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
When you see the map of Sweden on that web site you should click below on “information om datakallor”
There you would be able to download an excel file with daily updated figures for day of death (avlidna) and day of intensive care.
Today you can see the most likely day of maximum deaths is most likely 8th April or in the week after. There is a clear downward trend the last 5 days. The day of maximum new intensive care cases seems to be around 2nd April and it also seem to be a downward trend the last days.
On the general website you can see that of the 2152 deaths (Swedish population 10 mil) 87% are over 70 years in fact a staggering 24% of all corona virus deaths are 90 years and over (Life expectancy Sweden 82 years). There are no deaths under 20 and only 36 deaths under 50.
Although flu also kills many in older age groups there are always deaths in younger. Look at CDC US https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
You can see that 78 children and teenagers have died of flu compared to 3 deaths of coronavirus.
In calculating costs, the most important factor is years of life lost rather than lives. Flu, even in normal seasons kills a substantial number of young persons. All pandemic planning in the world was done on an assumption of a new flu virus like Spanish flu with high death rate among young.
It is a disgrace to call the Swedish corona virus response an experiment or Darwinistic exercise. They have used all traditional methods of social distancing but wisely (see figures above) did not close schools and preschool facilities. They did not impose a shelter in place, a unique instrument never used before in the world history, quarantined the healthy instead of the sick.
In fact, the experiment has been done by all other countries using the lockdown measures and not Sweden.

692 ▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to swedenborg, #64 of 80 🔗

May I ask how deaths regarding Covid 19 are recorded in Sweden? Are the numbers deaths ‘with’ Covid 19 or deaths ‘from’ Covid 19?

701 ▶▶▶ swedenborg, replying to Tim Bidie, 2, #65 of 80 🔗

I cannot give you an exact answer but every death certificate must be signed by a medical practioner and I assume any mention of Covid-19 on it would be registered thus with Covid-19

706 ▶▶▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to swedenborg, #66 of 80 🔗

Many thanks.

712 ▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to swedenborg, #67 of 80 🔗

I don’t dispute that they’ve peaked, but be wary of the last 5 days; they are liable to be revised upwards the most.

690 John Ballard, 13, #68 of 80 🔗

I wonder what the nhs hospital beds occupation rate is as told my local hospital is very quiet and far quieter than normal. Why no stats anywhere as we do not all live in London but have the same lockdown. Politicians deciding policy based on poor data and not all of us cram onto tubes every day. A big chunk of the country is being shutdown for little reason.

698 Catherine, 1, #69 of 80 🔗

Hi Toby
Thanks so much for your work
I would like to draw your attention to a couple of other websites doing excellent work:-

Off Guardian – lots of really good coverage. https://off-guardian.org
Great article yesterday ‘Why you can’t trust the UK’s “daily” Covid19 updates’, about how the daily death figures are calculated – using the NHS own accounting complete with the following proviso “Deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had tested positive for Covid-19 at time of death. All deaths are recorded against the date of death rather than the day the deaths were announced.” It seems that the daily figure also covers deaths from a lot of other days!!

Another good website is:
This gives an overview and then is updated every day or two, so worth keeping an eye on. They put links to all their sources. I think I may have come to your site through them.

699 A Radcliffe, 3, #70 of 80 🔗

Have you noticed no one has died from influenza in the last two months. I believe it has been eradicated by my old friend Corona. I liken the whole thing to a King Kong v Godzilla movie where one leviathan takes out the other. Maybe the next Chinese import will defeat our current plague. The next blockbuster movie if you like. Coming to a cinema near you no time soon.

714 Gracie Knoll, replying to Gracie Knoll, 15, #71 of 80 🔗


Have we all gone totally, absolutely, utterly, friggin’ insane?

Takeaway from this article:

“Mario Cuomo, the Governor of New York, puts the IFR at 0.5%, but in all likelihood it will turn out to be lower.”

Two days ago, John Ioannidis, Professor of medicine at Stanford, put the Covid19 mortality rate “in the range of seasonal flu” and stated that “for the healthy under-65s, the risk of mortality is negligible”. Ioannidis is basing his public statement on the latest test results; I doubt he would put his career and reputation on the line unless he was pretty damn sure of his facts.

Note the word: NEGLIGIBLE. So small it can be neglected, just like the mortality rate for healthy under-65s exposed to a seasonal flu. You may get it, you may have no symptoms, mild symptoms, or absolutely bloody awful symptoms for a couple of weeks, then you will recover and have acquired immunity.

What a sane UK would do is to:

1) Keep the vulnerable under restriction for the time being.

2) Make sure we have NHS capacity – by all accounts the Nightingale hospitals are largely empty – to cope with any incoming wave of new cases.

(But why would we have a tidal wave of critical patients if the vulnerable are protected and the healthy under 65s are at “negligible” risk? I don’t get it. At all!)

3) Let every who is healthy and under 65 back to work!

Within a couple of months the virus would go through the healthy population, come up against the mighty human immune system, get defeated, fade out, and the herd would then have immunity.

At that point the oldsters could come out to play because the pandemic would be over and there would be no active virus to infect them.

This is how the human race has dealt with viruses since our species began! I’m sick and tired of hearing this idea that “we have no defence against this virus”. If humans had zero defence against any novel viruses, humanity would not exist. Am I missing something? Did our immune systems suddenly get switched off a few months ago? Was my A level biology textbook describing a nonexistent system? (A levels were a long time ago, so maybe the human body was very different back then!)

We’re at the point where the main danger to lives in the UK is the lockdown. Just today the eminent oncologist Professor Karol Sikora said that 6 months more lockdown might result in 50,000 needless cancer deaths from people unable to get early diagnosis and rapid treatment. Factor in deaths from inadequately treated heart disease and many more ailments, and add the suicides and the massive mental health crisis that will result from the lockdown, and Covid19 will start to look like a vicarage tea party.

The more I look at this the more insane it seems. We have something going round that’s about as deadly as flu. We have spare capacity in most hospitals. According to the latest evidence we could wrap this whole thing up tomorrow.

I suspect there are agendas.

Perhaps our Government is allowing – or even aiding and abetting – a severe recession to happen NOW, so they can blame “the virus” for one that would inevitably occur fairly soon.

Perhaps the Government is saving face – they have to string this out to make the lockdown seem the right action to have taken (and perhaps it actually was at the start – mortality rates for this bug were very uncertain at that stage.)

Perhaps vested interests – the Pharma industry and its associated moguls such as Bill Gates, are veritably salivating over the profits to be made from their Holy Grail of COMPULSORY vaccination; perhaps these guys are putting pressure on their tame politicians to keep the fear-porn going until they can rush a product through. (For God’s sake, don’t let the plebs get herd immunity! Naturally immune plebs make lousy customers!)

(Note – COMPULSORY vaccination is a Rubicon we do not want to cross. Legally, it would give the State OWNERSHIP of your body. And by extension, the Pharma industry would own you too.

I must be missing something or maybe many things; can anyone enlighten me?

743 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to Gracie Knoll, #72 of 80 🔗

Under the new coronavirus act, the state can enter your home and take biological samples and remove you to an isolation facility at their will. That would suggest the State already believes it owns our bodies.

744 ▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Mark H, 2, #73 of 80 🔗

I didn’t know that, Mark. Truly scary. Are there any lawyers of high reputation who will take up the cudgels against all these infringements of our liberties? Or is that another blind spot amongst the British citizenry today?

715 giblets, 1, #74 of 80 🔗

Reading the FT, along side the huge increase in non covid deaths, there has been an explosion in people dying at home, so we have the cause of deaths for all people?! Be interesting to see how much of a leap in other causes (ie heart attacks could be measured), this would clearly show that the lockdown is killing people.

718 Old fred, replying to Old fred, 11, #75 of 80 🔗

A few days ago I came across up a very sensible, unemotional, analysis of the current hysteria surrounding Covid19. It was written last month by Craig Murray and is well worth reading; see link below


In his article, Craig refers to the Hong Kong Flu that arrived in the UK in late 1968 and caused the death of 80,000 people. A bit of googling on my part has shown that the UK population at the time was around 55 million and there were two waves of this flu – over the winters of ‘68/’69 and ‘69/’70.

As a 17 year old in 1968, Craig’s article made me stand back and think if I could remember anything from that period about bad winters and flu deaths – but nothing has come to mind. Similarly, my sisters cannot remember anything unusual from then regarding winter flu (and no – none of us are suffering from memory loss, senility, or dementia etc. (not at the moment, at least!)).

To see how newsworthy it was at the time I thought it would be interesting to look up the newspaper headlines covering that period (all readily available online) but, again, there seems to be little reference to it – perhaps I have not dug deep enough?

Why am I saying all this?

Well, essentially it is to make a simple observation and comparison between what happened 50 yrs ago and what is happening at the moment with Covid19.

As Craig Murray says in his article “we would have just called it flu” …. and got on with life.

745 ▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Old fred, 6, #76 of 80 🔗

Same experience here. I have a vague memory of it being in the news, but no panic, no fear mongering media; I don’t remember it affecting life at all.

Here’s the difference in Brits at the time of WW2 and Brits now:

June 1940. Government and media: KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON
April 2020. Government and media: PANIC AND SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN

783 ▶▶▶ Old fred, replying to Gracie Knoll, 2, #77 of 80 🔗

Good to read your reply – fortunately there are some pockets of sense and proportion still around! I am at a loss to understand why the UK, and indeed most of the world, have done what they have wrt. this virus. Rather than talking about ‘herd immunity’, I think it is time for a discussion about the ‘herd insanity’ that has got us in to this mess.

For info. I stumbled across a few graphs today (somewhere on the internet, can’t remember where precisely). They showed the build-up and decline of deaths due to UK Hong Kong Flu back then; it seems the outbreak lasted for 3 months over the winter of ’69/’70 and then disappeared by itself – and all of this without a lockdown!

Stay Safe! – oh, sorry, couldn’t help that!

751 ▶▶ Peter Thompson, replying to Old fred, 1, #78 of 80 🔗

I remember it as a young child. I actually was unwell with it and sadly my grandfather a WW1 veteran died with it. It was a part of life and may have made a paragraph or two in the newspapers but that was it.

722 Tony Rattray, 8, #79 of 80 🔗

Captive state. We clearly need an independent public inquiry into what has transpired over the last four weeks+ (and what remains of this lockdown), where the uk population has far too easily given up its liberty (the most important of all human endeavours) based upon half-baked scientific predictions. As well as a full and accurate comparative analysis of the data during this period, the inquiry must record the true cost of this lockdown on the health and wellbeing of the nation from the economy (yes it is part of our health and wellbeing chancellor!) to the impact it will have on the future funding of essential services.

794 Tony Rattray, 2, #80 of 80 🔗

Unlike napoleon (abba reference!), the swedes did not simply surrender their liberty…[refer to website link below]…

Time to move to sweden where the population still believes in LIBERTY and taking a PRAGMATIC APPROACH. Note their figures also include care home deaths (unlike the uk), the population is building up immunity and they did not trash their economy. It also again confirms that care homes / older people with underlying health conditions should have been the real focus for a ‘lockdown’, not the whole population. But of course I’m not a medical expert (‘who should not be questioned’) and the uk government (currently devoid of leadership) knows best. Thank you ‘big brother’ for giving me a 5 weeks and counting experience of living in a totalitarian state where you simply do what your told with no dialogue (consensus) reached with wider society.



35 users made 80 comments today.

55Mark H22, 8, 5, 5, 2, 5, 1, 3, 4, 0
48RDawg32, 2, 10, 4
30Gracie Knoll7, 15, 2, 6
19swedenborg17, 2
17Tim Bidie9, 3, 0, 1, 0, 4, 0, 0
13John Ballard13
13Old fred11, 2
13Mark Gobell3, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 6, 0
10Peter Thompson9, 1
10Tony Rattray8, 2
9GLT8, 1
8giblets14, 1, 2
8Thomas Pelham0, 0, 7, 1, 0
6Dylan Jones6
6A Radcliffe33
4Barney McGrew4
3Michael C3
3RS @ home4, -1
1John Bradley1