Last updated2020-04-25T17:26:25



752 Paul Cuddon, replying to Paul Cuddon, 26, #1 of 78 🔗

Mainstream media (BBC etc) now running the “no evidence that virus recovery gives immunity” provided by the esteemed World Health Organisation to presumably scare us into staying inside until Bill Gates has developed his vaccine. Have i missed the previous announcements that 1) virus “recovery” means that there was a pretty damned effective immune response in the first place (absent vaccine or anti-viral etc), or 2) the fact that since c.95% of those infected don’t require hospitalisation (source: all the serology tests) would imply that the natural (ie innate) immune response is the most powerful weapon against this “pandemic” or 3) that the innate immune response has been proven to work unequivocally well for the healthy working-age population and 4) those most at risk are being kept in the hospitals and care homes propagating the virus with no chance of escaping? WHO should retake immunology 101.

767 ▶▶ guy153, replying to Paul Cuddon, 22, #2 of 78 🔗

If virus recovery doesn’t give immunity then the vaccine won’t work either, and we will all die. So we might as well enjoy the time we have left.

774 ▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to guy153, 6, #3 of 78 🔗

This is already being countered by the Twitterati – https://twitter.com/ScottishBF/status/1254042275849670656?s=20 – by stating that everyone will need to be vaccinated yearly.

Interest are the comments on the official government Facebook Page’s post heralding the development in the UK of a vaccine. I wonder if the 77th Brigade are out in force on that page, as anyone questioning the vaccine are routinely shouted down, including one response that stated something like “that’s fine, don’t get the vaccine, but don’t expect to participate in any public activity, including work, and don’t expect your children to be allowed to attend school.”

788 ▶▶▶▶ guy153, replying to Mark H, 15, #4 of 78 🔗

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, or at least some proof, not weasel words from the WHO like “there is no evidence the earth is not flat”. If recovery from viruses didn’t give you immunity then life on earth as we know it would not have been able to evolve. SARS-COV2 is not that much different from the other coronaviruses it evolved from and that our immune systems have evolved to deal with. If your body wasn’t able to produce antibodies you would never recover in the first place.

There have been some cases of people testing positive for SARS-COV2 after testing negative but this is easily explained by the fact that the PCR test has a high false negative rate. Whatever the case we can be pretty sure that the vast majority of people infected with this virus who recover are immune.

What limits immunity is mutation of the virus. Coronaviruses in general don’t mutate that much and this one in particular has been studied extensively and it seems to be pretty stable.

A vaccine is a great idea and will save lives but it will probably only need to be given to those in high risk groups (the same people who get flu jabs probably).

809 ▶▶▶ Adam, replying to guy153, 8, #5 of 78 🔗

guy153: Not strictly true, vaccines can be developed to give immunity to viruses which don’t naturally give it. The intended way is to make a vaccine based on a harmless adenovirus, but give that harmless virus the same outer protein as the covid-19 virus has. The body remembers adenovirus immunity better than coronavirus (the whole class of coronaviruses, not just this current one specifically) immunity. But developing such a vaccine could take a LONG time, we need to go out, restart our economy, restore our hard won civil rights, save local businesses, live our noral lives, take reasonable small precautions and get used to the very low risk of a serious case for however long it takes until a vaccine is ready.

823 ▶▶▶▶ Csaba, replying to Adam, #6 of 78 🔗


837 ▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Paul Cuddon, 9, #7 of 78 🔗

“WHO should retake immunology 101.”

Indeed. Throughout this whole pantomime I have been staggered at the apparently orchestrated attempt by the WHO and other “experts”, to virtually deny the existence of the human immune system.

“We have no defence against this virus…..we must await our Saviour, the pharmaceutical industry, to provide our only hope of avoiding certain death….vaccines, vaccines, vaccines” – you get the picture. I think the WHO may have vested interests, unfortunately.

Humanity has survived novel viruses by achieving herd immunity via our wondrous immune system. Dispassionately, one might almost think of viruses as beneficial in a way, since they “cull the herd” and allow the strong to survive. Nature is, and always has been, a mother who dispenses tough love.

“guy153” in his comment below, rightly adds that if we don’t acquire natural immunity we won’t get it from a vaccine either.

My question: WHY ARE IMMUNOLOGISTS NOT SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS NARRATIVE? It seems that we are allowing a climate of fear and helplessness to be created, whereas we should have positive, calming input about our mighty immune systems and natural herd immunity from well-qualified experts. Why are such experts silent? This is the time for their voices to be heard.

754 giblets, replying to giblets, 17, #8 of 78 🔗

Interesting the head of the NHS is now publicly urging people to go to A&E, maybe he’s seen the figures.
Anecdotally, my partners uncle suffered a heart attack over a week ago (at a school none of the staff ordered an ambulance), she picked up his death certificate yesterday, to be told by the registrar they were overwhelmed by the increase … not by Covid cases, but by heart attacks.

775 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to giblets, #9 of 78 🔗

Terrible. Why didn’t they call an ambulance?

785 ▶▶▶ giblets, replying to Mark H, 4, #10 of 78 🔗

Same reason that number of people attending A&E for heart attacks is down 40-70% globally…. they don’t want to put stress on the NHS/ catch COVID/ bullied into not going out etc.

791 ▶▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to giblets, 5, #11 of 78 🔗

Stay home, protect the NHS…but it isn’t saving lives. I had a heart attack 5 years ago at the age of 43. The ambulance didn’t want to come out at first due to my age, I think. But thankfully it did and I got 3 stents to stop the heart attack.

831 ▶▶▶ Charlie, replying to RDawg, 2, #13 of 78 🔗

I don’t usually like the Telegraph, but that’s a very persuasive article and a good starting point to turn people round towards opposing the lockdown. If we value our NHS heroes we need to end the lockdown for their sake.

836 ▶▶▶ Laura, replying to RDawg, 4, #14 of 78 🔗

Imagine if the deadline was as dramatic as COVID-19 headlines – “other deaths SKYROCKETING” etc – People may read it!!

842 ▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to RDawg, 7, #15 of 78 🔗

Totally stunning, my stomach lurched, again and again, reading that article. Some people in my social circle have taken a scorched earth policy with regards to me because I’ve been pointing out for weeks that this lockdown will kill significantly more people than the virus will. I’ve had my mental health questioned, a whisper campaign to “poison the well” has gone on behind my back, because I’ve dared to point out cancer deaths will eclipse CV19 deaths, for example.

Now the “mainstream” is catching on to this…

758 wendyk, replying to wendyk, 8, #16 of 78 🔗

A friend in her 80s- a stickler for distancing etc until now- emailed this morning to say that she’s now had enough: and so say all of us!

Local supermarket is now collecting toiletries for local nursing homes, as the lockdown has led to shortages of the stuff which we all use to keep ourselves clean and reasonably well groomed. So, we able bodied folk are now donating to the food bank network, the animal shelter and the nursing homes . We’re all only to pleased to do so, but I just hope that the nursing homes won’t end up with packets of pet food, while the animals receive talcum powder and soap!

If this continues for much longer, it is quite probable that the UK might witness an epidemic of obsessive compulsive disorder: hand washing, obsessional checking of store cupboards, free floating loo roll anxiety, agoraphobia.

Yes, this is flippant, but this is bound to have lasting behavioural consequences.

And here are the figures from the King’s College Covid tracker:


Going down.

763 ▶▶ Gko, replying to wendyk, -16, #17 of 78 🔗

People in their 80s *are at high risk* – no one is denying that. Your friend should certainly continue distancing.

766 ▶▶▶ Annabel Andrew, replying to Gko, 29, #18 of 78 🔗

She should be able to make her own decision about what she wants to do – whatever her age. We have individual responsibility. We are a democracy and a free nation.

770 ▶▶▶▶ Gko, replying to Annabel Andrew, 7, #19 of 78 🔗

Of course – I am not imposing anything, merely suggesting. But it would be wrong to believe that people in their 80s are not at very high risk (unlike under 65). They are, and she should be made aware of that high risk — and then take their own decision.

772 ▶▶▶▶▶ wendyk, replying to Gko, 5, #20 of 78 🔗

She is Gko, but she wants to see her family and friends again.
A case of lockdown fatigue

776 ▶▶▶▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to wendyk, 2, #21 of 78 🔗

I’m torn about the isolation of the “at-risk” category. Both my parents are in this category and my mum has dementia. She wants to teach my 15-year-old daughter how to knit, and I think this would be a brilliant idea as I’m sure it would help her dementia in some way and help my daughter spend some meaningful time with her grandmother.

But, while I’m a lockdown sceptic, I can’t get my head past any future guilt (mine and my daughter’s) should my mum end up with CV19.

Hope that makes sense.

824 ▶▶▶▶▶▶▶ Csaba, replying to Mark H, #22 of 78 🔗

Mark, I’m a lockdown sceptic as well. But i have no doubt that this bloody virus is very dangerous for older people. They would even much more protection and help. But younger ones should go and work to make the money that is needed to cover the cost.

811 ▶▶▶ Adam, replying to Gko, 4, #23 of 78 🔗

She should keep distancing, 2 metres, wash hands, wear mask… But if she feels that lockdown is doing mroe harm than good she shouldn’t stay cooped up and starving at home. The covid-19 rsk is higher for her, undoubtedly, but if she’d rather take a (at her age) 5 to 10% risk with her live than condemn herself to eternal isolation, she should start living here life again, doing her best to take all the reasonable precautions as strongly as possible. As it’s a 5 to 10% risk overall, NOT a 5 to 10% risk per exposure which would get scary as it mounted up, that is a risk I would likely take in her situation.

761 Gko, 3, #24 of 78 🔗

– Where are our public reports, scientific analysis? Every single developed countries release those on a weekly basis. Why not in the UK?

– I read the Cummings situation differently than you did: that the time it took to get a lockdown / delay was because of him (you read it opposite way as “we got into a lockdown because of him”)

762 Gko, replying to Gko, #25 of 78 🔗

– On the two doctors in Bakersfield – their argument is stupid to me. They extrapolate 20-30% positive tests (it’s that low although we ONLY test severely ill patients) to the rest of the population – how does that even make sense?

777 ▶▶ Mark H, replying to Gko, #26 of 78 🔗

Were there tests randomised?

802 ▶▶ Peter Thompson, replying to Gko, 1, #27 of 78 🔗

Welcome to the lockdown skeptics board although it does seem to attract a lot of lockdown fans ! Would you care to link to what you are referring to ? are you referring to Dr Erickson ?

764 APB, replying to APB, 14, #28 of 78 🔗

If there is increasing evidence that having the virus (ie developing antibodies) does not confer immunity does that not question the value of a vaccine? My understanding was that vaccines work on the principle of artificially accelerating the building of antibodies? Happy to be corrected? If little value of a vaccine anyway, why are we forlornly waiting for one as the route out of this wholly unnecessary and damaging lockdown?

779 ▶▶ SteveB, replying to APB, 9, #29 of 78 🔗

There is no evidence that developing antibodies doesn’t confer immunity. It’s just that there’s no proof that it does, because the disease hasn’t been around long enough to provide that sort of proof.

The WHO has provided a not-very-clear statement saying just this, but the media reports have then twisted this even further. E.g. “no evidence that virus recovery gives immunity” (BBC) should actually read “no proof yet that virus recovery gives immunity, but then we wouldn’t expect there to be at this stage”.

This coronavirus is very very likely to be like all other coronaviruses, in that recovery provides immunity but this can fade to some extent over time, and the virus might mutate every couple of years (usually into something less deadly).

784 ▶▶ Gko, replying to APB, -2, #30 of 78 🔗

The duration is questioned — flu shots have to be renewed each year for instance.

838 ▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Gko, 8, #31 of 78 🔗

In the 2014 flu season there were just short of 24,500 UK deaths. We must remember that most of these, just like the current pandemic, would have been amongst the elderly and ill.

And yet we must also remember that most of these seniors would have had an annual flu shot in the years leading up to 2014! What does that say about vaccine effectiveness?

There have been several studies on flu shots, most of which conclude that they aren’t of much use and that – guess what? – good old natural herd immunity is our best defence!

Here is one such, which concludes:

“We attribute the decline in influenza-related mortality among people aged 65 to 74 years in the decade after the 1968 pandemic to the acquisition of immunity to the emerging A(H3N2) virus. We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group.”

Here’s the full paper:


We seem to have been brainwashed into a cultural mindset, in which our bodies’ natural resources and remarkable ability to “bounce back”, are being downplayed, while the miracle products of big business are being promoted as our only salvation. We simply cannot afford to keep doing this – culturally or financially.

841 ▶▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Gracie Knoll, 7, #32 of 78 🔗

Addendum. For clarity I am NOT an “anti-vaxxer” but I expect such interventions to show clear signs of significant benefit for minimal risk. Many analyses of the effectiveness of flu shots show that – for the over 65s at least – they are of little use. The deaths from flu in 2014 would seem to support this – why so high?

I also have grave concerns that the publicity given to vaccines is promoting the false narrative that they are our “only hope” for pandemics against which the human body would otherwise be utterly defenceless. This simply encourages panic and hysteria amongst the public – “when will the vaccine be ready? Without it we’re ALL GOING TO DIE!” – and IMHO fear mongering is responsible for a large part of the crisis we are now involved in.

787 ▶▶ Barney McGrew, replying to APB, 16, #33 of 78 🔗

Check out the Marr show last weekend. They had vaccines expert Sarah Gilbert on there. She claims that C19 doesn’t leave much of a detectable immune response in humans, but that her vaccine based on adenoviruses(?) does.

I see the WHO has just today declared that having antibodies from catching the virus doesn’t necessarily mean you’re immune. Sorry, but I’m not convinced. This story seems to be being put about just to kill off the herd immunity idea. They are desperate to vaccinate us, probably every year. Real science fiction dystopia stuff, and no doubt worth many, many billions of dollars.

867 ▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Barney McGrew, 1, #34 of 78 🔗

I understand that the WHO receives a great deal of its funding from the Pharma industry, which raises uncomfortable questions as to the impartiality of the information and advice being disseminated by this organisation.


There is an old saying, “he who pays the Piper calls the tune.” Big Business corporations of any stripe do not hand out large sums of money from sheer largesse – they are investing money and expect a return on this investment.

I suspect that ‘return’ may involve a commitment by this particular Piper to play whatever tune the man with the money asks him to play. Such is the world we live in.

769 thnw, #35 of 78 🔗

The media seems not to have connected the stories about vulnerable groups remaining in isolation to protect the NHS with the stories about vulnerability of BAME members of the population to the virus. Not sure the Guardian ‘s gonna like that.

771 Alan Billingsley, 8, #36 of 78 🔗

Can anyone explain this? On a 7 day rolling average of deaths from Covid 19 (Our World in Data), the peak was reached around 15th April. If the average time from infection to death is between 2 to 8 weeks (Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) then is it not right to assume that infections were at their peak around 11th March, nearly 2 weeks before the lockdown was introduced?

The PM announced the lockdown on the 23rd March. It could be assumed, therefore, that the lockdown would start to have an effect around 4 to 5 weeks later, between the 21st to the 28th April. However the death rate was already falling from the 15th April. The highest number of deaths were reported between the 9th and 12th April, just over two weeks from the lockdown! The drop off of deaths reported (Our World in Data) therefore does not appear to be the result of the lockdown.

The deaths reported this week are similar to those in the first week of April. In other words the drop off in death rate is very similar to the rise in death rate. If this trend continues the death rate should be down to double figures by mid May – with or without the lockdown!

773 Mark H, replying to Mark H, 9, #37 of 78 🔗

Riddle me this. A friend in my social circle’s ex-mother-in-law was admitted to hospital a few days ago, sent there by her GP as she had a urine infection. As a side note, she also has dementia. However, upon admittance to hospital she was tested for CV19. And of course, the test came back positive.

The family aren’t allowed to visit, but they’ve been contacted by the hospital several times to be given updates on her status. And it isn’t good, with the last call advising them that she won’t last the day.

Her family report she had no CV19 symptoms, not even a cough. Her GP diagnoses a urine infection. But the hospital diagnosed CV19. She’s been given an oxygen mask and nothing else. And now she’s about to die.

Any idea how a urine infection morphs into acute respiratory disease with no symptoms of respiratory disease in the space of a few hours? What, exactly, are they hospitals doing to the elderly?

781 ▶▶ Michael C, replying to Mark H, 15, #38 of 78 🔗

This awful story brings us to the veracity of the Government’s slogan “stay home, protect our NHS, save lives”. It is not impossible that if the poor woman above had indeed stayed home she would not have endangered her own life. But of course that’s not what the slogan is meant to portray – healthy people need to stay at home to save lives, but that makes little sense. As to the “protect our NHS” part of the slogan, as a taxpayer I thought the NHS was supposed to protect me not the other way round. Here we also seem to be admitting that the NHS is in fact not fit for purpose, and certain to collapse if it comes under severe pressure. None of this is very re-assuring!

782 ▶▶▶ Mark H, replying to Michael C, 7, #39 of 78 🔗

I was stunned at the BBC website running a prominent story about doctors urging people to still present to hospitals if they’re ill. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52417599

It’s interesting that the article has been edited to remove a paragraph that implied it’s the public’s fault if they get ill and die at home while believing they’re protecting the NHS, not the constant repetition of “stay at home, protect the NHS” creating a mindset of “I have chest pains, but I should stay at home to protect the NHS.”

786 ▶▶ giblets, replying to Mark H, 6, #40 of 78 🔗

One of the up to 80% who have no symptoms, but it will be racked up as a COViD death on the charts

813 ▶▶ Peter Thompson, replying to Mark H, 1, #41 of 78 🔗

Many care homes especially EMI ( elderly mentally infirm ) have covid19 cases. Staff are tested as well and many are positive but asymptomatic. Care homes use a lot of bank staff. it is going around just like a nasty flu.

825 ▶▶ Sisterknowitall, replying to Mark H, #42 of 78 🔗

I’m not saying they’re ALL bad, but, we know what they get up to in front of visitors so it is terrifying to contemplate what may be going on when there are no eyes to see.

780 ChrisH29, 8, #43 of 78 🔗

The Left are such incorrigible hypocrites; it’s terrible that an advisor to the PM sits in on a meeting, the purposes of which is to discuss public health, but it is OK for an advisor to rewrite a Security Services dossier for the singular purpose of misleading Parliament and the people in order to take this country to war…

789 Mark H, replying to Mark H, 13, #44 of 78 🔗

Anyone else read this yet:

I’ve screen grabbed the entire page as is, before it gets edited. But either way, it’s the first time I’ve seen the BBC stating actual facts about the severity – or lack thereof – of the virus, including how the mortality from the virus is virtually the same as…mortality…in the UK. It also states that:

“It is also worth pointing out this is all based on those who are infected and show symptoms. There is evidence that significant numbers of people do not show symptoms, and therefore the overall risk of death from coronavirus may be even lower.”

Along with stating that the peak of deaths happened in early April, which is a dog whistle for anyone listening who then figures out the infection peak was BEFORE lockdown.

I’ve shared the screengrab here:

851 ▶▶ Old fred, replying to Mark H, #45 of 78 🔗

Good comments. Interpreting log scales on graphs need a bit of care, of course, but article does seem to put the whole thing into perspective.

790 wendyk, 2, #46 of 78 🔗



See the links for two interesting papers on pathogen evolution, lethality and adaptation.

Fascinating stuff.

796 Oaks79, replying to Oaks79, #47 of 78 🔗

Here is a interview with Prof. Neil Ferguson defending his model etc

869 ▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Oaks79, 1, #48 of 78 🔗

I feel rather sorry for Ferguson. I think he’s going to end up as a scapegoat when there are many other players involved in this debacle.

Ferguson totally cocked up the predictions for at least two previous pandemics, one such cock-up devastated the British farming industry.

As a scientist, Ferguson is nonetheless a fallible human being who – just like the rest of us – can make mistakes. But two huge gaffes imply that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the modelling he’s using. (What that might be, I have no idea: it’s not my field.)

For me, the fundamental question about Dr Ferguson is not that he massively over-estimated the Covid19 risk (I have a lot of sympathy with his statement that it is better to over-estimate risk than the opposite – well yes, within reason) but rather, why did our Govt pick Ferguson as their first choice of advisor for their strategy in the current pandemic, given his poor track record?

907 ▶▶ Joe Smith, replying to Oaks79, #49 of 78 🔗

I was very impressed with how skeptical and critical that interviewer is with Ferguson.

798 RDawg, replying to RDawg, 2, #50 of 78 🔗

And now finally we are seeing confirmation that the lockdown is causing more harm than good:


800 ▶▶ Marcus, replying to RDawg, 3, #51 of 78 🔗

Yet this evening Priti P. claims it would be irresponsible to consider even putting a date on an end to the lockdown! There will I believe be an additional wave – which may look more like a wall – from the inevitable mental health fallout of this unprecedented experiment, taking years to fully materialise and impacting people and the NHS – as the service must surely realise – for decades. Expect the 8 p.m. clap to become a regular fixture as it flails hopelessly against these waves as more and more staff run while the government requests blank cheques from the BoE.

804 ▶▶▶ Ethelred the Unready, replying to Marcus, 2, #52 of 78 🔗

Seals clapping for fish…

807 ▶▶▶ RDawg, replying to Marcus, 3, #53 of 78 🔗

Where do Priti Patel and Matt Hancock draw their expertise from when making such decisions? Do they have medical degrees, an extensive knowledge base of epidemiology, anything at all to justify such radical decision making that is affecting millions of lives? I suspect not.

832 ▶▶▶▶ Charlie, replying to RDawg, 5, #54 of 78 🔗

P. Patel and M. Hancock have experience in managing what looks good and bad in a news headline, “Death spike from COVID-19” gets plastered on front pages, “Massive rise in death rate in general over prolonged period of time due to harm caused by lockdown” gets tucked away in a side column 12 pages in. “Economic chaos will crush the NHS and raise your food prices” gets relegated to the business pages just before the sport section. The lockdown strategy was picked to avoid shocking headlines for a brief period, with no thought to the true consequences for any of the things we hold dear.

801 Oaks79, replying to Oaks79, 1, #55 of 78 🔗

What are people’s thoughts on Wolfgang Wodarg ?

He was one of the first I see to come out on the other side of the debate.


815 ▶▶ Dylan Jones, replying to Oaks79, 10, #56 of 78 🔗

I remember it well. He was and is spot on:

“The corona hype is not based on any extraordinary public health danger. However, it causes considerable damage to our freedom and personal rights through frivolous and unjustified quarantine measures and restrictions. The images in the media are frightening and the traffic in China’s cities seems to be regulated by the clinical thermometer. Evidence-based epidemiological assessment is drowning in the mainstream of fear mongers in labs, media, and ministries.”

816 ▶▶▶ Dylan Jones, replying to Dylan Jones, 9, #57 of 78 🔗

We also had our own Dr Vernon Coleman call it out around the same time:
“Governments around the world are clearly suffering from mass hysteria. It used to be a problem found mainly among groups of teenage girls. It is now a problem affecting national governments and international organisations.”
Coronavirus – the madness of governments

834 ▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to Oaks79, 6, #58 of 78 🔗

John Nicholls, a pathology professor at the University of Hong Kong, was also very sound, Feb 11 2020:

“Three things the virus does not like: 1. Sunlight, 2. Temperature, and 3. Humidity,”

‘”Sunlight will cut the virus’ ability to grow in half so the half-life will be 2.5 minutes and in the dark it’s about 13 to 20 [minutes],” Nicholls said. “Sunlight is really good at killing viruses.”

For that reason, he also added that he doesn’t expect areas such as Australia, Africa and the Southern hemisphere to see high rates of infection because they are in the middle of summer.’

“Compared to SARS and MERS, we are talking about a coronavirus that has a mortality rate of eight to 10 times less deadly to SARS to MERS,” Nicholls said. “So, a correct comparison is not SARS or MERS but a severe cold. Basically, this is a severe form of the cold.”


839 ▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Tim Bidie, 6, #59 of 78 🔗

He should have added (4) – the human immune system.

The elephant in the room.

Listening to the official narrative, you’d think that we humans no longer have one.

805 Ethelred the Unready, replying to Ethelred the Unready, 8, #60 of 78 🔗

The lockdown is clearly beginning to lift itself as more and more people revert to the use of common sense. Perhaps that’s what the Government wants

819 ▶▶ Pete, replying to Ethelred the Unready, 5, #61 of 78 🔗

They won’t lift lockdown unless they think people will actually be “brave” enough to go out, a population trying to live under lockdown while the country tried to get working would be as catastrophic as lockdown itself but without the ability for any single individual or organisation to order an end to it. Like every historical example of new rights being granted, or stolen rights being returned, people must claim their rights by their actions, only then will governments start being persuaded.

840 ▶▶▶ Gracie Knoll, replying to Pete, 2, #62 of 78 🔗

An excellent point.

843 ▶▶ guy153, replying to Ethelred the Unready, 4, #63 of 78 🔗

Polling shows the majority of the public are in favour of the lockdown (having been terrified so much by the media of the virus). I suspect most of the reason we even went into it in the first place was political.

Johnson, who is loving all this NHS stuff and is milking it for all it’s worth especially now that he is a heroic victim himself, will find it hard to resist giving into that popular pressure.

The only hope is that he is balancing that against the thought that the next election is some way off. By then people will have forgotten about the virus and be more concerned about their unemployment, austerity, etc. But you really can’t count on too many traditional “conservative” principles in the current government so I’m not entirely optimistic.

814 swedenborg, 6, #64 of 78 🔗

If you only see one video about Covid-19 see this one from California a pressconference from 2 ER Consultants. They use a very straight forward thinking of the percentage of population pos for Covid-19 in testing equates to the actual infection of the population as whole. They are superb in explaining immunity and the absolute bizarre way of isolating the healthy instead.Compulsory viewing for all our politicians.Really excellent.The best video I’ve seen about this subject from clinicins dealing with this.

817 Dylan Jones, replying to Dylan Jones, #65 of 78 🔗

No surprise that Ofcom is upset, generously funded as it is by Big Wireless.

“Ofcom is committed to a thriving telecoms sector where companies can compete fairly and customers benefit from a broad range of services.”

818 ▶▶ Dylan Jones, replying to Dylan Jones, 1, #66 of 78 🔗

But hands-off free speech Ofcom.

820 ▶▶▶ Charlie, replying to Dylan Jones, 6, #67 of 78 🔗

Hands off free speech indeed, OFCOM have carried out that kind of abuse in the past. But let’s not discuss the delusional “5G causes illness” rubbish here. We need visitors to the site to see that we are rational people who understand that COVID-19 is a nasty disease but disagree with the most hugely damaging of the measures taken in the fight against it. Don’t let bonkers conspiracy theories be used to tar us with the brush of “mad men”, we have nothing against 5G, nothing against vaccines, nothing against hygiene, and everything against lockdowns, authoritarianism and surveillance.

845 ▶▶▶▶ Annabel Andrew, replying to Charlie, 2, #68 of 78 🔗

Absolutely- well said- what is refreshing about this site is that the commentary is not rabid and hysterical. We can write thoughts without trashing other people’s ideas. It is a sane place in a completely bonkers time.

846 ▶▶▶▶ Dylan Jones, replying to Charlie, 1, #69 of 78 🔗

Its not free speech if you can’t discuss and call it out according to your view one way or the other.

822 Farinances, 13, #70 of 78 🔗

A girl I went to school with (in her mid 30s) killed herself the other day. She was grieving after the loss of her mother, and couldn’t take the prolonged social isolation of lockdown. I have absolutely no doubt that had the measures been at worst relaxed, at best undone, on Thursday, she would still be alive today.

We need to end this madness, now.

826 Sophie, 2, #71 of 78 🔗

I wanted to draw your attention to a petition I have started to stop the worldwide lockdowns, I wrote the article thanks to great help of this website (listed all sources). Please sign here: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/community_petitions/world_leaders_stop_the_worldwide_lockdowns/details/

830 Charlie, 8, #72 of 78 🔗

Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, a Mr Piers Corbyn, has been protesting against the lockdown in Glastonbury. Whatever your personal views of the Corbyns in general, if you see any news coverage of it make sure to leave comments explaining calmly why lockdown is doing more harm than good, why simple good hygiene practice would be enough, why it isn’t worth us all paying our freedoms and jobs as a price against a disease which has such a remarkably low (we are SO lucky this isn’t a bird flu pandemic, or an ebola like virus but slower acting so more contagious) death rate. Talking about the events people know have unfolded a few towns down the road is a good way to bring them round to lockdown scepticism and shape the conversation against these damaging lockdown measures. It seems to be featuring as one of the news headlines trending in various places. Add your voices to the piles of opinions, keep calm, keep polite, keep away from pro- or anti-Corbyn comments which would overly focus on the name of the man and put off one half or the other of the audience depending which way you feel, keep away from conspiracy theory sounding territory that might let the average reader of news think we are crazy, but keep on placing the message that lockdown is a step too far.

835 Tim Bidie, 9, #73 of 78 🔗

The state broadcaster changed its narrative yesterday. So the official state panic is now officially over.

What have we learned?

1. We desperately need to depoliticise health. That would set a pattern for depoliticisation in other areas of government like education.

2. We have a real problem with the state broadcaster (incapable of setting any example) which needs root and branch reform

3. We have a real cultural problem with groupthink in the civil service. New (young) people, possibly developed in parallel in new ministries are required to gradually supplant the old ministries where the endemic cultural problems are so entrenched that they cannot be resolved by any other than extreme measures.

4. Last but certainly not least, less time spent in the office, sunshine, fresh air and exercise is good for you; coffee (contains quinine in moderation) and (gin & best quality) tonic water solve many of the problems associated with wintering in cooler climes. But we knew all that already…….just not in Whitehall…….

Now…..time to get back to work to pay for this ruinously expensive shambles……….

844 Raymond Hayes, replying to Raymond Hayes, 3, #74 of 78 🔗

this piece by Scott Atlas, Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, is well worth circulating.


By the way social distancing in France is 1 metre.

847 ▶▶ Tim Bidie, replying to Raymond Hayes, 2, #75 of 78 🔗

A very distinguished individual, I forget who, categorically stated on the state broadcaster yesterday that the 2 metre idea has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever; plucked out of thin air; like so much governmental diktat………..

883 ▶▶ Thomas Pelham, replying to Raymond Hayes, #76 of 78 🔗

I’m still a little bit worried about the Stanford data; the 95% CFI given on the false positive range encompasses an almost entirely false positive result.

That’s not to say that’s definitely the case but with a false positive rate of 2.5% (97.5% specific) you would see 75 cases out of 3000.

882 swedenborg, 3, #77 of 78 🔗

Can someone translate from German this interesting article?
Progressive mass testing gives an illusion of exponential growth of Co-vid 19?
The author makes the interesting observation that the peak in Germany of reported Covid-19 infection was 3rd April but really the peak of the start of the new infection (as onset of the disease) was really 19th March. From then the new infections have declined. However, the progressive rise of testing with PCR started and gave the illusion of progressive rise of new infections overwhelming the health system.
The author also highlights that the peculiar positive Co-vid-19 percentage (8%) of all test for symptomatic patients (only symptomatic patients PCR tested for Covid-19 in Germany). What are the other persons infected with? If that unknown infectious agent declines in time the PCR test positives for Covid-19 in symptomatic patients would be skewed even further.
I am trying to translate, as best as I can, the following part of the article as an illustration of increased testing affecting figures.
“Let us illustrate this with an example. Let us say that we each day hide 10 eggs in the garden (the true number of new infections). The first day our children are allowed out 1 minute and they find 1 egg. The second day they are allowed 2 minutes and they find 2 eggs. The third day they are allowed 4 minutes and they find 4 eggs (the increase of number of tests over time).
The children get the wrong impression that each day exponentially more eggs would be hidden in the garden. But this is just an impression, because in reality the same number of new eggs was added and hidden in the garden (New infection) and the increased find of eggs (new infections) just relate to more attempts to find the eggs (Coronavirus tests).”
I am not a statistician but I think the riddle of Covid-19 spread would be solved by a clever mathematician(not Neil Feguson) rather than a biological scientists .If covid-19 was a never ending exponential growth (30% daily growth)since the Wuhan outbreak the whole world population would have been infected in three months. There are some very talented people in Israel trying to figure out the true path of this pandemic and it looks like the curves are remarkably alike in every country with peak of infection well before any lockdown. This is also compatible with finding of the peak of deaths 21-28 days after the peak of infection which was always before any lockdown.

887 AndyTownsend, #78 of 78 🔗

Excellent read. I think there is a minor typo in the paragraph about Russia. It seems to say “thought it though”, I think that last word is meant to be thRough”


37 users made 78 comments today.

49Mark H6, 0, 5, 7, 2, 0, 9, 7, 13
41guy15322, 15, 4
34Gracie Knoll9, 8, 7, 1, 1, 6, 2
31Annabel Andrew29, 2
27giblets17, 4, 6
26Paul Cuddon26
21Charlie82, 5, 6
21Dylan Jones10, 9, 0, 1, 1
17Tim Bidie96, 2
16Barney McGrew16
15Michael C15
15wendyk28, 5
10Ethelred the Unready2, 8
9swedenborg6, 3
8Alan Billingsley8
6RDawg1, 2, 3
3Raymond Hayes3
2Peter Thompson1, 1
1Oaks790, 1
0Joe Smith0
0Old fred0
0Thomas Pelham0
0Csaba0, 0
-8Gko3-16, 7, 0, -2