Justified & Ancient
- Jan 10, 2021
- Reaction score
I can only assume its down to the amout of time and effort it would take to sort through all the death certificates to sort out the ones who wete shot/run over/committed suicide etc from the ones that actually died as a direct result of covid, i cant imagine, as i said earlier, the the amount of people dying of 'other' causes, after being diagnosed with covid is a very large percentage of the total, probably under 1%Yeah I get the UK system, which appears to have been designed by people without reasoning facility. Really? not very serious covid symptoms, tests positive but run over by a bus?
Hmmm is it? We don't have the data to know that, do we?I can only assume its down to the amout of time and effort it would take to sort through all the death certificates to sort out the ones who wete shot/run over/committed suicide etc from the ones that actually died as a direct result of covid, i cant imagine, as i said earlier, the the amount of people dying of 'other' causes, after being diagnosed with covid is a very large percentage of the total, probably under 1%
Makes sense if the enemy is demographics.The whole point of a bioweapon is to use it against your enemy, if you are using a virus with the capability of becoming pandemic, you make damn sure you have a vaccination in place for your own population BEFORE you release it, to use a virus that is so virulent is a really bad idea for a bioweapon otherwise, the fact that it has limited effect on people under 30 (not saying it has no effect), and is most deadly against the older and clinically vulnerable, is also a really bad bioweapon, ideally you would want a virus that effects people who are capable of fighting ie soldiers, it make ni military swnse to kill off the aging and sick population of your enemy, whilst leavung the strong and fit perfectly able to fight, some might say that it would aid your enemy to kill off the infirm and freeing up resourses fir the health, so in summing up, COVID19 is a really bad bioweapon.
This BBC article has a breakdown of different ways to measure deaths. Scroll down towards the bottom to see the graphic. There is very little difference between the three figures. This was as of 26th January.Yep goes down as a covid victim in the stats lol
There is or was an NHS spreadsheet that gives a breakdown of deaths from covid by comorbidly. Last time I saw it just before Xmas there were under 3000 covid deaths with no comorbidity. This of course doesn't mean that all of the others would have died even if there had been no covid - for many the covid may have been the last straw.
As opposed to getting accused of hiding the truth?Never going to happen.
The govt would be too worried that it would be used as a stick to beat them with.
Yeah it's true that there's a subset of the population that are going to be in the casualty figures soon and the question is what kills them rather than when. Flu, Covid-19, the common cold? Some people fear all of them.You have to take into consideration when comparing year on year figures, that influenza and covid tend to be fatal to the same age group, so 2020 influenza deaths were more than likely down year on year but the same people who may have died from flu may have died from covid.
Yeah, but... how often does the general public actually buy plausible deniability? Especially when the official version is wrong?It is a hell of a lot easier to engage the 'plausible deniability' on that though, instead of saying 'look, here are our honest official figures!' then just waiting for the inevitable shit to hit ones fan.
I fear it is going to take a very long time for the full truth of the consequences of our reaction to this virus to be ascertained and acted on.Yeah, but... how often does the general public actually buy plausible deniability? Especially when the official version is wrong?
I've theorised for some time that the virus didn't start in China. For example,Fairly unequivocal stance here on a particularly popular theory...
WHO team says lab virus leak theory extremely unlikely (rte.ie)
"Experts from the World Health Organization have all but eliminated a controversial theory that Covid-19 came from a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
"The laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain the introduction of the virus into the human population," said Dr Peter Ben Embarek, the head of the WHO mission.
"Therefore is not in the hypotheses that we will suggest for future studies."
He said the team's investigation had uncovered new information but had not dramatically changed the picture of the outbreak
Dr Ben Embarek also told a press briefing that work to identify the origins of the coronavirus points to a natural reservoir in bats, but it is unlikely that they were in Wuhan.
Earlier, the head of the China team said studies showed the virus "can be carried long-distance on cold chain products," appearing to nudge towards the possible importation of the virus - a theory that has abounded in China in recent months.
Liang Wannian also said there was "no indication" the sickness was in circulation in Wuhan before December 2019 when the first official cases have been recorded."
Three points.I've theorised for some time that the virus didn't start in China. For example,
14% of a group of Italian blood samples preserved from September 2019 have antibodies to Sars Cov2. The samples were from 959 people enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial.
I'd just say on the second point though - who would have been looking for it back then? Initially there would have been no reason to look for it. (It was 2019, BTW, not 2018)Three points.
Firstly the CCP delayed the WHO inspection visit for so very long that any incriminating evidence (or potential whistle-blowers) would have been eradicated many months ago.
The report that there is no evidence of Covid-19 existing elsewhere before being officially reported by China on 19th December in Wuhan surely diminishes the obfuscating claims that it may have already been circulating in other countries (Italy?) back in 2018.
Lastly, given the WHO's close affiliation with the CCP and reluctance to say anything that may displease China, the impartiality of the report will inevitably be questioned.
I would have far more confidence in the report if Bellingcat were conducting the investigation!
Absolutely fair comment and sorry about the typo - guess I'm losing track of the years these days!I'd just say on the second point though - who would have been looking for it back then? Initially there would have been no reason to look for it. (It was 2019, BTW, not 2018)
And there are or were certain people who might have seen advantage in blaming China. I'm absolutely no fan of China - terrible regime - but that doesn't automatically mean they are responsible.
I agree with you about trust (or lack of) in the WHO inspection - indeed there are reasons to distrust the WHO all along. They are , to say the least, strongly subject to outside influences which I'm sure we shouldn't discuss here
The idea of dumping stuff and moving on is one of the things not helping the environment. Today it costs more to fix something than by a new one. We need to stop the move that you must have a shiny new one every five minutes.It used to be that 'built to last' was seen as a positive thing. Well, it was a positive thing, and probably still is for the 'consumer'.
But not for the 'producer'. The producer wants to make things that last only just as long as necessary to prevent them getting a bad name for shoddy manufacturing and/or poor build quality, but not so long so as to prevent them selling more of a thing.
E.G. car makers. Take your average Ford Fruitcake, a new one is pretty much made to last 10 years. Any less and they would have to start covering things under warranty, and/or get a reputation for making cars that were pretty crappy (crappier). Any longer and it reduces the ongoing opportunity to flog more cars.
This is why car companies have a redesign of a model every 5 or 6 years, so that the model range is fresh for when people buy a new car.
And also why phone makers make phones that get new features added incrementally instead of all at the same time, so that newer phones can be bought more frequently.
But then on the other hand you have people who’s bodies have been destroyed by COVID but might die because of it but out of the 28 days.What @gordonrutter and myself are saying is, that if you are on record as being diagnosed with covid19, regardless of the severity (if any) of the symptoms, and are then subsequently killed or die of any cause, be that accident, murder, pre-existing medical condition etc, within 28 days of your positive covid19 test (all test results are kept centrally by the NHS in the UK), your death goes on to the statistic of a covid related deaths, its not right but as i said earlier, the cases where covid19 is not the actual cause of death are a small percentage of the total, but are none the less a percentage of the total.