31st May 2020
[This article was first published on RT.com, and can be seen there at https://www.rt.com/op-ed/490006-death-certificates-COVID-19-do-not-trust/]
As a doctor working in the midst of the COVID chaos, I’ve seen people die and be listed as a victim of coronavirus without ever being tested for it. But unless we have accurate data, we won’t know which has killed more: the disease or the lockdown
I suppose most people would be somewhat surprised to know that the cause of death, as written on death certificates, is often little more than an educated guess. Most people die when they are old, often over eighty. A post-mortem is very rarely carried out.
Which means that, as a doctor, you have a think about the patient’s symptoms in the last two weeks of life or so. You go back over the notes to look for existing medical conditions. Previous stroke, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, angina, dementia and suchlike. Then you talk to the relatives and carers and try to find out what they saw. Did they struggle for breath, were they gradually going downhill, not eating or drinking?
If I saw them in the last two weeks of life, what do I think was the most likely cause of death? There are, of course, other factors. Did they fall, did they break a leg and have an operation – in which case a post-mortem would more likely be carried out to find out if the operation was a cause.
However, out in the community, death certification is certainly not an exact science. Never was, never will be. It’s true that things are somewhat more accurate in hospitals, where there are more tests and scans, and suchlike.
Then, along comes COVID-19, and many of the rules – such as they were – went straight out of the window. At one point, it was even suggested that relatives could fill in death certificates, if no-one else was available. Though I am not sure this ever happened,
What were we now supposed to do? If an elderly person died in a care home, or at home, did they die of COVID? Well, frankly, who knows? Especially if they didn’t have a test for COVID – which for several weeks was not even allowed. Only patients entering hospital were deemed worthy of a test. No-one else.
What advice was given? It varied throughout the country, and from coroner to coroner – and from day to day. Was every person in a care home now to be diagnosed as dying of COVID? Well, that was certainly the advice given in several parts of the UK.
Where I work, things were left more open. I discussed things with colleagues and there was very little consensus. I put COVID on a couple of certificates, and not on a couple of others. Based on how the person seemed to die.
I do know that other doctors put down COVID on anyone who died from early March onwards. I didn’t. What can be made of the statistics created from data like these? And does it matter?
It matters greatly for two main reasons. First, if we vastly overestimate deaths from COVID, we will greatly underestimate the harm caused by the lockdown. This issue was looked at in a recent article published in the BMJ, The British Medical Journal. It stated: “Only a third of the excess deaths seen in the community in England and Wales can be explained by COVID-19.
“…David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, said that COVID-19 did not explain the high number of deaths taking place in the community.
“At a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre on 12 May he explained that, over the past five weeks, care homes and other community settings had had to deal with a “staggering burden” of 30 000 more deaths than would normally be expected, as patients were moved out of hospitals that were anticipating high demand for beds.
“Of those 30 000, only 10 000 have had COVID-19 specified on the death certificate. While Spiegelhalter acknowledged that some of these ‘excess deaths’ might be the result of underdiagnosis, ‘the huge number of unexplained extra deaths in homes and care homes is extraordinary. When we look back . . . this rise in non-COVID extra deaths outside the hospital is something I hope will be given really severe attention.’
He added that many of these deaths would be among people ‘who may well have lived longer if they had managed to get to hospital.’”
What Speigelhalter is saying here is that people may well be dying ‘because of’ COVID, or rather, because of the lockdown. Because they are not going to hospital to be treated for conditions other than COVID. We know that A&E attendances have fallen by over fifty per-cent since lockdown. Admissions with chest pain have dropped by over fifty per-cent. Did these people just die at home?
From my own perspective, I have certainly found it extremely difficult to get elderly patients admitted to hospital. I recently managed with one old chap who was found to have sepsis, not COVID. Had he died in the Care Home; he would almost certainly have been diagnosed as “dying of COVID”.
The bottom line here is that, if we do not diagnose deaths accurately, we will never know how many died “of” COVID, or ‘because of’ the COVID lockdown. Those supporting lockdown, and advising Governments, can point to how deadly COVID was, and say we were right to do what we did. When it may have been that lockdown itself was just as deadly. Directing care away from everything else, to deal with a single condition. Keeping sick, ill, vulnerable people away from hospitals.
The other reason why having accurate statistics is vitally important is in planning for the future. We have to accurately know what happened this time, in order to plan for the next pandemic, which seems almost inevitable as the world grows more crowded. What are the benefits of lockdown, what are the harms? What should we do next time a deadly virus strikes?
If COVID killed 30,000, and lockdown killed the other 30,000, then the lockdown was a complete and utter waste of time. and should never happen again. The great fear is that this would be a message this Government does not want to hear – so they will do everything possible not to hear it.
It will be decreed that all the excess deaths we have seen this year were due to COVID. That escape route will be made far easier if no-one has any real idea who actually died of COVID, and who did not. Yes, the data on COVID deaths really matters.
This is a cover-up! Even my parents aged 70 can see there’s something screwy with the whole thing. Somebody told hospitals GLOBALLY to mark as many deaths as possible to Covid19.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: they’re trying to reduce the population. Who’s “they”? Maybe start with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and check out WHO they’re funding.
EVEN your parents aged 70? Are you being a little ageist?
Looking forward from 40, 70 does seem a long way off. Looking back “where the hell did the years go?”
That would be most of the SAGE team for starters.
Also check out Anthony Fauci.
Well if you ‘follow the money’ as they say just look to see who the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded, public health England $9m, Imperial College $288m, LSHTM (Where Whitty was) $363m, the WHO $3.6bn, the BBC and BBC Media Action $55m, The Guardian $9m plus has sponsored its ‘global’ pages for 10 years, works hand in hand with DFID for over a decade and DHSC and so is firmly embedded in our governemnt and Gates seems to be directing the outcome that we can’t go back to normal until the vaccine (he started the vaccine alliance GAVI) is ready.
Is not the great conundrum that if we don’t lock down next time and half a million die but only 10,000 die of ‘lockdown’ there would be outrage. 50 / 50 this time round looks pretty good. I do not envy those making the decisions.
There are many, many, yet to die from the effects of lockdown.
Then there are the people who take their own lives as a result of the lockdown additional to those who don’t attend ED because of fear of catching CoViD19. Then there are alcohol related cases, AA have already indicated that there has been a 50% increase in people accessing their website. Finally there are the patients with long term conditions that need primary care management but are unable to access their surgery for whatever reason and deteriorate.
You may find these interesting https://www.nicholaslewis.org/when-does-government-intervention-make-sense-for-covid-19/
It’s a little false to attribute the figures for suicide and alcoholism, to the coronavirus.
People who take their own lives, would have done so eventually, lockdown is just a trigger, there will be many triggers in each life, if we are susceptible to depression and/or suicidal thoughts, it will happen.
Likewise with alcoholics, if a person is an alcoholic, it’s there for life, before and after Covid. Again, the virus is merely a trigger.
More people accessing the AA website is a very positive outcome from those suffering from alcoholism, perhaps the loneliness brought about by the lockdown made that happen. Whatever the reason it’s a great thing for people to accept they have a problem and seek help.
Figures of the above problems should not impact on the Covid statistics. They exist already and will always.
This is incorrect thinking. If you create conditions that exacerbate peoples’ issues you can not not blame those conditions for exacerbating them.
“This is incorrect thinking. If you create conditions that exacerbate peoples’ issues you can not not blame those conditions for exacerbating” Sasha.
I am not blaming the conditions, quite the opposite. If a person has low coping mechanisms, then the slightest worry can trigger whatever illness they are suffering from, anxiety, depression, etc. I’m saying that Covid can’t be held responsible for suicide, alcoholism or any other psychiatric manifestation, as the problem exists already. Therefore these problems should not be included in the statistics.
The argument being made is that extreme lockdown measures exacerbate peoples’ issues. The stats for suicide, abuse, etc go up. They can’t not go up. Therefore, they should be included in the statistics.
Yes I accept that, But what we have is two sets of conditions. One set for pre-existing conditions and one set for problems due to the coronavirus only.
I think therefore that the statistics will be distorted because of this.
I believe you are wrong. People living under worse conditions, more stress and less support do much worse. The stiff upper lip goes only so far. When people run out of strength, then they can no longer hold up. What you are saying is that you could just keep people or children in an inadequate environment and it shouldn’t make any difference to their life happiness or ability to function.
And the funny thing is, apparently multiple studies have shown that stress is actually the biggest contributor to death from all sorts of conditions, from depression to heart attacks and cancer.
Absolutely not, I’m not saying that.
I agree totally that stressful conditions lead to mental health problems, there can be no denial about that. What I’m saying is that, these conditions were there anyway and if they haven’t been treated, then the condition will certainly get worse under lockdown. OR any other stress that may come along, so to attribute the problem just to Covid and the lockdown is wrong. If left untreated the condition will rear its head at some time, lockdown or other stress.
All I’m pointing out is that to include these figures in statistics about the virus, may be misleading.
Person is immunosuppressed and gets infected with Covid and dies. As they were immunosuppressed they could easily have been killed by any other infection. So, it is misleading to say that they were killed by Covid?
No, not at all, so long as they go into statistics as people with underlying conditions. My fear is that because the underlying conditions aren’t physical, things may get skewed.
We have already too many inaccuracies, as you say.
It would be misleading NOT to fully characterize an outcome: immunosuppressed, leaving the patient open to COVID death.
There should be room to accommodate such a rudimentary nuance in this context.
The virus isn’t a trigger for these deaths! The virus has caused fewer deaths than any yearly influenza. It’s the lockdown that’s doing all the damage and the idiots who mix up the two are the biggest part of the problem.
So your OK with killing gran then
brainunwashed, to whom are you directing your comment? It is a pointless collection of words, can you form it into something meaningful?
It sounds rather like a typical, possibly automated, troll comment. Its purpose would be nothing more than to stir up disagreement and ill will, and in that context its rudeness would be quite useful.
Excuse me for saying so, but that is a stupid comment.
To make it clear, my above comment was directed at brainunwashed.
Surely, jeremy, the onus should be on those who predict a huge death toll of half a million (or any other figure plucked out of thin air) to prove that their estimate is correct.
After all, most of the evidence – such as it is – suggests that Covid-19 is about as deadly as seasonal flu. (Which does kill an awful lot of people – but nobody makes big song and dance about it).
There is a thing in science called the “null hypothesis”. In the case of Covid-19, or any other epidemic that does not obviously and quickly cause extreme numbers of deaths, the null hypothesis might be that “Covid-19 is about as severe a disease as flu”. Anyone (such as Dr Ferguson) who challenges that null hypothesis should be asked to provide ample and powerful evidence for his alternative hypothesis.
“The null hypothesis, H0, is an essential part of any research design, and is always tested, even indirectly.
“The simplistic definition of the null is as the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, H1, although the principle is a little more complex than that.
“The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
“The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon”.
0n 25 March I did a FOI (Ref- 202000022419) Gov- measurments on COVID-19: are its reasons sufficienetly verified? On 25 May the Scottish health cabinet provide a ‘respond’ that did prove the 0 Hypothesis (H0); So they admit that covid19 is no more than a severe winter flu, and that their measurements killed more people than covid19, and that it was like a geronticide (75% of the ‘covid19 mortality’ was over age 75; of which 46% died in a care home without them being tested, atopsy or ay other form of verification.
Quote from a Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt when questioning Imperial’s Epidemiology team during a webinar: “… Epidemiologists don’t think
anything’s wrong with being a factor of 10 too high, but are dead
scared to be a factor of 10% too low… the number of deaths caused by
the lockdown is way higher than anything that will be caused by COVID
unless you assume exponential growth for ever… You guys are gonna
have a very hard time when Sweden plateaus at 6000 deaths … the fact
remains the plateau rate of population reached by England, New York
City, Lombardy, France is basically around one months’ of natural
death, Ferguson said ‘a year of natural death’—that is horrible!
That is an error that cost the world many many many trillions of
dollars! It isn’t a joke…” https://youtu.be/_1u_yworTco?t=7245
this terrible phrase “lockdown”: it is what they do in American jails when the prisoners riot;
so many citizens of the UK seem to have meekly accepted this tag; and the same conditions.
Slightly better than ‘lock up’ though Terry? ‘Lock up’ sort of implies a very long sentence still to be endured.
I tend to refer to it as the lockup and I worry that my instinct was right.
That’s what I was thinking
Here is comprehensive data driven analysis by JB Handley on “lockdown lunacy.”
Thanks! A truly superb collection of data that really crushes the life out of the lockdown policy.
This is a key passage:
“I’m going to start with a source that you might consider unusual, the global bank JP Morgan. Of all the facts I have covered, this one about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns has become the most politicized, because it’s being used to begin playing the blame game. JP Morgan, on the other hand, creates their analysis to do something very nonpartisan: make money. Their analysts crunch data to see which economies are likely to restart first, and you shouldn’t be surprised at this point to discover three things: 1) the least damaged economies are the ones that did the [least] onerous lockdowns, 2) lifting lockdowns has had no negative impact on deaths or hospitalizations, and 3) lifting lockdowns had not increased viral transmission”.
Marjorie – thank you for the link, very interesting.
Once again it is worth the quote from The Plague
“All I maintain is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims, and it’s up to us, so far as possible, not to join forces with the pestilences.”
Albert Camus, The Plague
Dr. Kendrick, as you say, it’s almost certain that governments will try to blame as many deaths as possible on Covid, to justify this lockdown, but we’ll have to insist that they then explain why there were so few deaths related to heart attack, stroke, seasonal flu, pneumonia, etc. and why there are people now showing up with later stages of cancer than in previous years? I’m not suggesting that everyone manages to get to their doctor’s office when their cancer is still in stage 1 and highly treatable, but anyone who suspected they may have it back in late 2019 thru May 2020, would be kept waiting for a diagnosis and may well be in a later stage by the time their specialist confirms the worst. And of course, those cases will be harder to reverse because of its later stage. No matter how they try to spin it, the government will still have a lot to answer for, imho.At least, that’s my hope.
I find this reassuring and not surprising.
2 of my Grandchildren are going back to school tomorrow with what looks like a huge amount of preparation by the school.
None of my other Grandma friends grandchildren are returning until September which has made me feel a bit uneasy.
Why are the ‘numbers’ so much higher for the U.K. than other affected countries. Do they record causes of death differently than we do….?
If terminal cancer patients who die in hospices are said to die of covid, what would you conclude?
However, if we hadn’t locked down, the exponential spread of Covid have continued and could well have overwhelmed the health service, as it did in Italy and China, being much more infectious than flu. As well as deaths recorded as Covid-19, many other deaths caused by the virus have not mentioned the disease on the death certificate as this article from China mentions. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3050311/its-pneumonia-everybody-china-knows-about-many-deaths-will-never
It’s difficult to be sure of proportions of deaths from different causes here, with the woeful lack of testing through the peak of the disease that there’s been has been in this country.
We locked down the country and threw elderly vulnerable Covid positive patients out of hospitals and into care homes. I know, I was there and I watched them do it – although a complained mightily and did my best to stop this lunacy. This was Govt policy. I have never suggested that Covid is not a very serious infection for the elderly with multimorbidity. However, in order to free up the hospitals we exported Covid into homes containing THE most vulnerable group of people. In this way the lockdown – and associated Govt activity – vastly increased the number who died. Those deaths are a direct result of lockdown. Did they stop a spike? I don’t know. There was only an overwhelmed hospital system in a part of Italy – certainly not the whole of Italy.
Sweden did not get overwhelmed. Japan did not get overwhelmed (no lockdown). A theoretical spike was prevented by killing thousands in care homes. Good job.
Sweden did not get overwhelmed since our strategy obviously was to protect the system rather than the people, ultimately by triage. It came with an adverse effect, morbidity.
If modelling had predicted 4k deaths in Sweden by this point would that have been justification for a lockdown and all the negative side effects that come with it?
If modelling had predicted 4k deaths in Sweden at this point would that have been justification for a lockdown and all the associated negative side effects?
People seem to think a death toll is too high simply because another country managed to keep theirs low. Look at Norway and how they are now saying a lockdown was unnecessary or Denmark where they are finding that a lockdown was against the recommendations of thier health services.
And Belarus did not lock down, giving a fine contrast with neighbouring Russia. (Belarus means literally “White Russia”, and was an integral part of Russia for 1,000 years).
Russia has had 405,843 cases and 4,693 deaths for a rate of 32 deaths per million population.
Belarus has had 42,556 cases and 235 deaths for a rate of 25 deaths per million population.
Speaking of “overwhelming,” there was a study done in NYC  of 5700 hospitalised patients, and 88% of COVID-19 hospitalisations had multiple (read: at least two) comorbidities (see table 2). I wonder what “hospitalisation” criteria Ferguson et al used in their model to speculate the “overwhelming”…
My thoughts on the Care Home fiasco are that the main beneficiary is the Treasury with IHT.
So the Treasury should come out of it only a few trillion down.
Gordon Brown could have *given away* all our gold, and it would have cost about one-hundredth as much.
In 1931/33 the UK and the USA replaced the gold as the backup for their currency with that of the electro roll: enabling them to increase their fiat currency/ money of account as a preparation for WOII; as a preparation for their banks being the Economic World Order.
In 2009 Gordon Brown ‘gave away all our gold’: Now he advises the One (Economic) World Order. The UK and USA (having decreased their pension burden) provided their banks with trillions: Covid19 with its Lockdown is used for the Global Reboot
I quite agree that what was done about care homes was appalling. There was a failure to plan how to keep people safe in care homes, but that doesn’t mean locking down in itself was a wrong thing to do. New Zealand locked down when there were only 1oo cases, and put in place the test, trace etc plan, and have had no new cases for 10 days and a total of 22 deaths. So their lockdown has been able to be much shorter and cases have never risen to a level where services were put under pressure.
Sadly Sweden has had 32% excess deaths, while Norway, a similar country, if a lower population, which did lock down, has had just 4% excess deaths. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
The countries that didn’t lock down and have succeeded at keeping cases low, have tested, traced, tracked and isolated – which it seems we were ill equipped to do. We still seem to be having trouble in putting a track and trace system in place.
Liz – suggestions are that CV19 in Sweden had been particularly active among immigrant populations, mainly Eastern African. Combined issues of low VitD levels & stressful living conditions may be considered. Lower immigrant levels and greater disparity of norwegian population would be difficult to quantify as a factor but worth considering.
During the election campaign, if you remember, NHS hospitals were overwhelmed with cases of flu. However, the government did not our democratic freedoms and trash the economy by preventing people to work and businesses to operate. In fact, squeezing past the people suffering on trolleys in the corridors, was a steady throughput of gurning politicians surrounded by eager press crowds.
No nurses doing well-rehearsed dance routines though!
In no country in the entire world was the increase in Covid-19 cases or deaths exponential, even for a short time. There was a rapid rise, certainly, but after a relatively short time the curve always flattens out. This is known as a “logistic curve” and is typical of very many natural phenomena. Indeed, a true exponential curve, by its very nature, cannot last long. Sooner or later, and usually sooner, some obstacle stops it.
For example, a single bacterium placed in a Petri dish of nutrient does multiply exponentially – until it consumes all the nutrient, after which all the bacteria die. One day half the dish is covered with bacteria. Next day the whole dish is covered. On the third day they all die.
The main reason why testing has been “woefully lacking” is that there are no reliable tests. RN-PCR is extremely unreliable, and is explicitly declared to be inappropriate for diagnosis. And the serology test for antibodies fails because (1) antibodies against the common cold may defeat Covid-19, (2) antibodies against Covid-19 rapidly decrease after the disease is defeated.
Doctors diagnose most diseases by recognizable symptoms. Unfortunately the symptoms of Covid-19 are often indistinguishable from those of the common cold or flu. That throws much more responsibility onto testing – but testing for viruses is beset with problems. Viruses are so tiny and insidious that they often leak into the air of laboratories and other places. Hence the scandal of the test kits sent out by the US CDC that were pre-contaminated with Covid-19; if used, they would always have given positive results.
Gompertz curve is a far better fit to current data than the logistic curve, according to Michael Levitt (and he shows his work): https://youtu.be/_1u_yworTco?t=1721
I expect you are right about the Gompertz curve. My only point was that a plain exponential curve never applies to any infection – if it ever does, we shall all die very soon.
You’re spot on, but I suspect that’s presisely the perversion used to justify the lockdown: “to flatten the curve we need to change the gradient otherwise it’d just keep going ad infinitum, the only sure way of doing it is “the lockdown,” and you will see the gradient drop off rapidly!”
Back in the real world, as you point out, the contiguous exponential growth is even more of a risible concept, but people have real issues deathing with maths, so they just trust “the gods” that tell them what to do… And the use of Gompertz curve would’ve been highly “inconvenient” if you wanted your model to justify the need for “intervention” (such as the lockdown) to “flatten the curve” simply because the Gompertz curve is self-flattening—so the curve would’ve flattened itself anyway regardless of any intervention!
IMoz, sorry, but nothing goes as Infinitum. Something always limits it.
AhNotepad, that’s the point and hence why I called it a “perversion” 😉
I think we are all in agreement once we got past my ignorance! And Imoz is absolutely right about the innumerate citizenry. One of the worst things that has been done by steadily worsening public (state) education has been the loss of mathematical skills and understanding that were once relatively widespread.
“Span of time is important; the 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots”.
– Robert A Heinlein, “The Happy Days Ahead” in Expanded Universe
There is zero evidence that lockdowns anywhere have saved lives in the way you describe. Now we know that our lockdown was applied after the peak of infections and only 2 weeks before peak deaths (8th April). On the 19th March the High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) group lowered C-19 to NOT a High Consequence virus and there it still remains. I think that decision was taken because they saw we were passed peak infections.
C-19 in the UK was already passed any exponential increase before lockdown.
A good look through this empirical based website of official data gives a realistic view – look at the 4th graph on the front page.
Spot the exponential rise in deaths in Sweden for not locking down? Now Norway has admitted their lockdown was not necessary. Worst of all is the released SAGE minutes (on Friday) tend to show that the decision to lockdown was political and NOT science based. That’s probably why some scientists are not happy with the excuse that “we are following the science”. A lot of finger pointing is likely going forward.
On top of all that is the care home/nursing home fiasco that Doc Kendrick describes, and has posted about before. In some homes people died without family and without palliative care. Staff in care homes without medical training and proper PPE were left to struggle on – they deserve our gratitude.
89% of deaths over 65, 95% of all deaths with co-morbidities. Old folks like me (75) would rather risk dying from C-19 than watch our country be ruined economically. Not in my name.
“Worst of all is the released SAGE minutes (on Friday) tend to show that the decision to lockdown was political and NOT science based”.
Surely, any decision reached by a committee is bound to be political to some degree. The whole point of a committee is to air different views (and of course dilute responsibility). The more the views differ, the greater the need for compromise. Compromise and “consensus” are of course the exact antithesis of science.
If the government did not want a political decision, they would not have given the matter to a committee. They should have chosen a very competent scientist with a practical bent, and asked her to decide – perhaps with the help of some assistants and a research team, but without any dissipation of responsibility.
Just imagine if they had appointed someone like Richard Feynman. He would have cut through all the nonsense and waffle in about five miniutes, and come up with a sensible course of action.
But how on earth can anyone know what would have happened without a lockdown? (Apart from the fact that countries like Sweden and Belarus that didn’t lock down have fared no worse than the UK – in fact hardly anyone has fared worse than the UK if you believe the government’s figures).
This article explains the logic very clearly: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-fallen-state-of-experts/
“Think if it were you. You’re an epidemiologist and the prime minister calls to ask you how many will die if we don’t have a lockdown. What do you tell him? You can’t just look up the number. The pandemic is only now taking off and your knowledge of it is correspondingly sketchy. It’s hard to say. Every number is a guess. If you give the prime minister a low number, there will be no lockdown. What if he accepts your low number and we have no lockdown? Maybe everything will be fine. But maybe there will be many more deaths than you predicted. You will get blamed. People will shame you as a bad scientist. And, because you are a good and decent person, you will feel guilty. Blame, shame, and guilt. This is a bad outcome.
“If you give him a high number, there will be lockdown. No one will ever be able to say that your estimate was too high, because your estimate assumed no lockdown. Even if a lot of people die during the lockdown you can say, “See? Think how much worse it would have been without the lockdown.” Thus, if you give the prime minister a high number, you will get credit for saving lives. You will be able to take pride in your sterling reputation as a scientist. And you won’t have to feel guilty about lost lives. Praise, pride, and innocence. This is a good outcome. The logic of the situation is clear. You have every incentive to predict doom and gloom if no lockdown is ordered”.
The logical conclusion to be drawn from that scenario is that an honest scientist would say, “I really can’t say. Maybe in a few weeks we will have some reliable information”.
Having asked his question and been given that answer, a sensible politician would reason, “We should assume, until proven otherwise, that this outbreak of respiratory disease will behave much like other ones”. So treat it like a bad flu season – always keeping both ears to the ground for any new, disturbing and RELIABLE scientific results.
What has happened is what could be expected when both scientists and politicians were mostly concerned with their own reputations and future prospects, and not at all with the welfare of the people.
Spot on Tom
Do we have any sensible politicians, in a position to have to take decisions?
If we didn’t have the prior experience of Wuhan and the Po Valley then the correct approach would surely be to immediately instigate a lockdown until you knew enough about the disease caused by the virus to know that, say, it killed less than 10% of those infected.
Without that knowledge, and in the face of an unknown pathogen, it would be utterly reckless to take an action that risked millions of deaths in the UK.
Fortunately we seem to have ‘lucky’ rather than sensible politicians – this time. The next escapee from a BSL4 lab may well be far more virulent.
Steve, there should be no more of these Bloody Silly Loony (BSL) 4 viruses anyway. It is an illegal activity developing them. If Nutter Fauci had not pushed the research funding we might not where we are now.
The PM met Neil Ferguson, covid19 positive; then Chris Whitty advised the PM to be tested, so he had to go into Hospital: so, losing common sense he handed his reigns over to his scientific advisors who all have a stake in the vaccine industry or received funds from Bill Gates who also funds the Guardian and the BBC: and so we got into the Lockdown.
“However, if we hadn’t locked down, the exponential spread of Covid have continued and could well have overwhelmed the health service,”
…. Liz: you are just chanting govt propaganda; most everyone else is sick of it …
AhNotepad – yes indeed. Sick of it, with it and because of it. I’m too old for this. I want my life back before it’s too late. MY life.
Hear hear Terry!
SarsCov-2 has obeyed Farr’s Law (epidemics/pandemics decline at a mathematically predictable rate). It is not exponential, never was and western governments knew it BEFORE the lockdowns. Here in the UK we had already peaked and the typical “hockey stick” curl over is seen around the globe, notwithstanding the deliberate falsification of stats.
You write, “If COVID killed 30,000, and lockdown killed the other 30,000, then the lockdown was a complete and utter waste of time. and should never happen again.” Do you deny that the lockdown saved some from death from COVID? It seems more logical to say, although it isn’t very helpful to say it:If COVID without a lockdown would kill 30,000, and a lockdown would kill another 30,000, then the lockdown would be a complete and utter waste of time and should not happen.
These ‘what if’s’ are for what purpose?
I have read that in places where doctors can strike, the death toll goes down when they do.
However the belief that doctors save lives and are a bulwark against terror of death and disease is so deep set that no mere facts will make the slightest difference.
I now move from personal reply to general reflection.
We are in a time in which we can witness such deep set terrors in operation.
I read this morning a section of J Chilton Pearce (The Biology of Transcendence) on his childhood night terrors – which unlike nightmares always ran their full course and could not be interfered with by ‘reality’ – ie parents attempts to calm or reason an open eyed screaming child, for all stimuli fed the terror and became part of it. The terror eventually ran its course and left a complete amnesia accompanied by a dread of being alone.
At a certain age he determined to allow go into the dream and remember it, which was the capacity to observe the event from a perspective outside its drama – and release it.
Terrors from the deep are very real in their effects – not least in our defences set up against them,
The main difference I see in our current collective terror – which is not really about an infectious virus but the activation of ancient fear, is that it was summoned or invoked by design. I recognise the cock-up theory offers a masking mitigation against such unthinkable or unbearable malice – but is not our recoil from this the ‘blind eye’ by which it operates as ‘private agenda’?
The need to seek and find diversion by which to avoid being alone with what we cannot bear will drive all kinds of agenda – but the willingness and readiness to go into it as the desire and determination to be free of running and hiding from it – is a development of character and consciousness of love of life – rather than clinging to fears.
Deaths are inherent to a realm of birth and unfolding experience, but killing is an intent that has repercussions on the giver and receiver that generate trauma that – unless truly addressed – does energetically manifest negative symptoms in the families and societies of its context.
This post continues at:
Binra – I understand what you’re saying but i don’t know what you mean. Or is it the other way round ??
I think Birna is trying to say that it’s time to grow a pair, stop hiding under the bed and get out into a world with no anti-social distancing and no muzzles.
However, the language is so opaque that I can’t guarantee my translation is accurate.
This question is going to bedevil analysis of the pandemic for years to come. Scientists can come to a pretty good understanding of something, provided they have good data. But with no clear definition and tally of Covid deaths there will never be agreement on what happened or the best course of action to follow.
I wonder what would have happened had the UK gone it alone and refused to lockdown. No doubt there would have been a sharper peak in COVID deaths and some hospitals may have been overwhelmed, like those scary scenes we saw from Italy. Yet now we know that the UK has suffered just as many deaths as Italy and the daily number of reported deaths is still over 100. We could have avoided putting millions of people out of work and forcing thousands of businesses into bankruptcy. But there would still have been an economic downturn because of the reduction in trade with other countries, nearly all of whom were enforcing some degree of lockdown. Personally I would have supported the “no lockdown” position, but I think it would have been political suicide for the government.
How about holding the Media to account?
There would have been no pandemic without the lockstep media.
The hope of a political sovereignty in our political class or system is misplaced.
Financial parameters operate the ability to favour or choke back almost everything now – including global food supply and permission to leave your house or earn a living.
Financial and social restructuring is the underlying purpose of the pretext that works it intended purpose. The basis of our ‘economics’ is fraud and all else is necessarily captured or subverted to run and protect a society running on deceit – which can only operate destructively in self-reinforcing loop.
Curiously there seems to be absolutely no way of “holding the media to account”. If they really are the Fourth Estate, they are a lot freer than the first three.
In the old days the advice was to vote with your wallet – just don’t buy the paper, or subscribe to the magazine or channel.
But nowadays advertisers provide 95% of their income, and government is ready and eager to supply the rest in return for a little stenography.
Work is seriously over-rated in my opinion. Having gradually retired as work dried up due to the politically driven anti-hydrocarbon hysteria, I have been able to live on less and less, thanks primarily to no longer needing to pay rent/mortgage or children’s university fees.
As a result of the lockdown, I rather expect that many in what is tantamount to wage-slavery will be questioning why they will have to go back to working all hours to just about keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, while relying on grandparents for providing day-care for children they only see when they are too tired to parent adequately or with much enjoyment.
Interestingly, a survey across the EU asking about the state payment of UBI got over 70% support in the EU and just under 70% in the UK, but it has been quietly ignored by our lords and masters. Despite this it has the potential to reshape us as a much healthier and happier, and a more equal and less divisive society – as was demonstrated in Finland. Mental ill-health is strongly correlated with a lack of control of your life (Robert Sapolsky) causing high levels of stress, and UBI, while not providing everyone with what I heard once described as ‘fuck you’ money, would reduce wage-slavery and all the associated ills it engenders in society.
So if everyone goes on govt welfare, who is going to do those jobs and where then will the taxes come from to pay the UBI?
I think we’re all overlooking the point that lockdown might have seemed sensible in March but has absolutely no justification right now. So why the governmental foot-dragging?
Obviously there is no reason for accuracy when the statistics will be used later on to justify the shutdown.
Of course, some people think COVID deaths have been under-counted as well (people dying at home, for example). Perhaps the two mis-countings cancel each other out. Who will ever know?
I worked for a company that closed the facility I worked in. Management could point to hard dollars in cost savings. But the work done in the facility didn’t go away. It was absorbed by other facilities. There were costs associated with training, transition, ineffective customer service, overworked employees, etc etc. These costs are not so visible, because they’re part and parcel of “regular business” They are “squishy”. But they are costs nonetheless.
The COVID-deaths-vs-lockdown-deaths controversy is much like that. Government leaders claim “lives saved.” Maybe.
I find this reassuring as 2 of my Grandchildren are returning to school tomorrow. The measures the school has put in in their Village School sound excellent and I take my hat off to the staff who have worked tirelessly during this lockdown.
None of my friends Grandchildren are going back probably until September. All think it’s not safe ….
Why are the Covid death figures so much higher in the U.K. than in the other affected countries?
Do they have a different way of recording deaths or are we (as suspected) being misled by a so called ‘greater power’ The Government .
Brainwashed by the scary news bulletins and filming inside ITU deps making us too scared to make our own decisions.
I live on the South Coast and there is no way most locals would swarm to the crowded beaches on a day like today. Most of us wait until the rabble have gone home.
So ‘Global Pandemic’ or not you’ll find us in our garden, and strolling on the beach in the evening.
“All think it’s not safe”
benjab – yes, but I hope there are some parents who think it psychologically damaging to make little children keep 2 metres apart from their friends.
Enjoy your strolling!
It’s the psychological effects that worry me more tbh. When you see on the News schools preparing to welcome children back into Infant and Primary schools.
The ‘black and yellow’ tape everywhere cordoning off areas that used to be a little haven for them ( like the book corner)
School should be a place for children to feel safe and secure to enable them to thrive and learn.
A friend came by with her daughter. We kept our distance and only talked outside as we had been doing yard work anyway, and she said she could only stay for a very short hello. Her daughter had to use the bathroom, but was absolutely terrified and kept wanting to just go home to use it there. She finally had to go, so her mom took her, but she was terrified the whole time. Children who were previously happy-go-lucky are now deeply frightened to use a familiar bathroom at a friend’s house. This should never have happened. I also noticed when grocery shopping that not only are people keeping their distance with their bodies, but they’re afraid to even LOOK at others to smile or nod hello. It’s almost creepy how distant people are from each other in every conceivable way, but worse, it’s just sad.
benjab4aolcom, what measures have been put in place? Round here, all the reception class schools have taken all the shared materials away. No soft furnishings or toys, no sand, no lego etc. They are going to keep the children 2m apart, and there will be obsessive hand satanising (no, that wasn’t a spelling mistake). If people did this sort of thing at home they would no doubt be talked to by social services, and quite reasonably so. A friend of mine’s child came home with skin on the hands red from this washing obsession. Children’s skin can’t take the punishment that adults can, and anything put on the skin (adults too) goes through. That redness I see as dermatitis.
Dermatitis was, and probably still is, a constant problem for nurses, who have to wash their hands at a minimum between each patient. Hospital soap aggravated the problem, and we used a lot of (our own supply) of hand cream.
It also increases the infection risk. The skin, if undamaged, is a good barrier against pathogens; but If it’s broken, they can gain entry and cause problems. if the problem was serious, one was not allowed to work until one’s skin had healed.
AhNotepad, that redness is effectively child abuse.
Benjab, each member of ‘the rabble’ is an individual, trying to grab an hour’s sunshine and a breath of fresh air. If you won’t find them ‘in our gardens or strolling on the beach in the evening’ it might be because they live in a city tower block. ‘Rabble’ are people too!
I’m Sorry for using the term ‘Rabble‘ I didn’t mean to be offensive.
I have 2 grown up sons, who both live in first floor flats with their girlfriends and neither have gardens, or outside space. I fully appreciate the problems and my heart goes out to those families with children especially,who have been trapped inside for weeks.
I refer more to the influx of day trippers who come to the coast and leave a trail of rubbish, excrement in peoples gardens as the public toilets aren’t open,and youngsters who think jumping from Durdle Door might be fun ….
Benjab, I’m sure youngsters have been jumping from Durdle Door for centuries. As for the excrement and the litter, I’m sure your council is a huge part of that problem.
Once again, a terrific column from Dr. K! He’s as frustrated with the Medical Profession as I was with the Dental Profession. After 40 years of full time private practice, I still could not believe that Periodontal (gum) Infection was still treated so cavalierly and so improperly by my Profession! Things either never change or change so slowly that we won’t live to see the change! Keep up the good work, Malcol. We are rooting for you!Dr. Tom Baldwin USASent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet
Dr Tom Baldwin, excuse my impertinence in “teaching my grandmother to suck eggs” – but since I stopped eating all grains ten years ago (or so), I have not needed to visit the dentist or the dental hygienist. The dentist kept giving my teeth and gums a clean bill of health (for the first time in my life) and eventually I just stopped going.
Incidentally, my personal conclusion is that my dental caries and tartar were caused by grains, not just sugar. I still eat chocolate regularly and a fair amount of fruit and the occasional dessert – but I have no problems. It was cutting out bread, cake, biscuits and cereals that did the trick.
See “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Dr Weston A. Price, passim.
Interesting Tom, I found the same, though I did not stop 10 years ago. However the build up of scale on my teeth went to near zero.
I get these emails from a british GP who normally blogs about nutrition and heart disease but he’s been writing up stuff about covid too. Cheers. Phil.
While you’re on COVID, Dr. Kendrick, what do you think of Mandeep Mehra’s linking of statins with higher rates of COVID survival?
“The good news is that if Covid-19 is a vascular disease, there are existing drugs that can help protect against endothelial cell damage. In another New England Journal of Medicine paper that looked at nearly 9,000 people with Covid-19 [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621],
Mehra showed that the use of statins and ACE inhibitors were linked to higher rates of survival. Statins reduce the risk of heart attacks not only by lowering cholesterol or preventing plaque, they also stabilize existing plaque, meaning they’re less likely to rupture if someone is on the drugs.
“It turns out that both statins and ACE inhibitors are extremely protective on vascular dysfunction,” Mehra says. “Most of their benefit in the continuum of cardiovascular illness — be it high blood pressure, be it stroke, be it heart attack, be it arrhythmia, be it heart failure — in any situation the mechanism by which they protect the cardiovascular system starts with their ability to stabilize the endothelial cells.”
Mehra continues, “What we’re saying is that maybe the best antiviral therapy is not actually an antiviral therapy. The best therapy might actually be a drug that stabilizes the vascular endothelial. We’re building a drastically different concept.”
Interesting, thoughts I have seen before. I was diagnosed T2 diabetic and prescribed a statin. I bought and read Dr Kendrick’s book and decided against taking that statin. Then I was diagnosed with a blocked artery and my vascular specialist prescribed a statin to help stabilize the plaque, which I now take. I do believe that statins are largely a big con but there are a few who benefit by varying degrees. Perhaps there are now, according to Mehra, many more people who would benefit?
I felt duped after my T2 diagnosis – medication, medication was the answer from the health professionals. Turns out, in my case at least, to be rubbish. I control my T2 with lifestyle.
I’m saying this to show that I try and manage my own health as much as I can. There are many more like me. The irony is that it wasn’t my health team who helped but my own research (including Dr Kendrick). This relates to a disease we have known about for many years and we’re still getting duff advice.
I don’t feel duped YET over COVID. The jury is out.
I didn’t hear objections to lockdown six weeks ago but now we’re getting near the point where hindsight comes into the equation it’s much easier to criticize decisions taken early on. But finger-pointing among the higher-ups indicates mistakes may have been made and / or ‘interests’ protected.
“Mandeep Mehra’s linking of statins with higher rates of”
I think many folks would love to know who pays how much money to Mandeep: and just how readily he is for hire;
have a read at the article below: you could suggest he was distinctly dodgy; of course, I couldn’t possibly comment;
Any day on here there are at least three or four doctors cited with publications. I have usually never heard of them. You have performed a very useful service to me in giving me the details of one of them, but I have no time to do the same on the others,
Thanks for that.
This may be of interest. Posted on these pages yesterday.
Secwhistle – See Dr Kendrick’s Blog, under Covid-19 Update. I put a whole raft of information there, which was followed by discussions various. There are more links including the BMJ link : take home message – stuff the statins, statins are a precursor for NO, Nitric Oxide = L’Arginine – m-Citrulline as apparently better absorbed – Take L’Arginine or the Citrulline. The body needs cholesterol, statins bring cholesterol down, those who were tested who had succumbed to the C-19 virus, or died from, were found to be low to very low in cholesterol. Stuff the statins, take L’Arginie or the citrulline. AND judicious use of supplements / vitamins. Bingo – done and sorted, statins can be removed from the scene ! (And God knows ‘what’ they were trying to do to bring it in anyway !! Or, mebbe we do know, only too well…)
Secwhistle – Seems Mandeep Mehra’s reputation has taken a hit. This from Barrons – published by Dow Jones.
“Among the signatories of the letter questioning the research were clinicians, epidemiologists and other researchers from around the world, from Harvard to Imperial College London.
Francois Balloux of University College London, said he believed it was his “duty” to add his name to calls for answers to questions about the study and for greater transparency.”
secwhistle, my impression has been that the people most vulnerable to covid are the ones most likely to be routinely prescribed statins.
Thank you Dr. Kendrick. So welcome to hear a voice of reason and some good old common sense. Insanity has definitely reigned and it’s frightening to know that some folk will be suffering the consequences well into the future. I fear for our grand children, in fact for all children goodness knows what harm this may have caused them. My personal opinion is that there has definitely been some other agenda afoot because no matter which way I try to look at it nothing adds up. Have been doing a bit of research myself and all roads to seem to go in one direction and I’m sure other people on this site know exactly where it’s going.
Isn’t there another way that the COVID-19 statistics have presumably been inflated? I mean if someone is close to death and maybe with a suppressed immune system, does it make sense to say they died of whatever it was that finally killed them? I remember you said a while back that in that case the death certificate would state they died of COVID-19 or whatever, rather than the real reason for their deaths.
Some years ago, a friend of mine got a nameless bug, and so did his wife. However his wife had been lingering on with cancer, having repeated chemotherapy treatment. While he threw off hibug in the usual way, she was on oxygen in hospital, and eventually he was asked to agree to them turning off the oxygen.
I am grateful that you continue to post. I am sure the lockdown was a terrible mistake and feel for the younger generation (I am 71) who will be bearing the brunt of the consequences as well as for the families who will have to cope with the ill health caused by it all.
The common theme throughout has been the failure of government. Nobody but a government would be mad enough to “research” something so stupidly dangerous. When, inevitably, the Chinese government’s safety program failed, the Chicoms lied about it and locked-down Wuhan while letting people fly in and out, spreading it all over the world. Their bought-and-paid-for friends in the WHO helped with the cover up, laughing off the preposterous idea that it could be spread from human to human.
The airlines meanwhile connived, knowing full well that they would be protected by government with bailouts and legal immunity for their role in knowingly spreading the disease round the world. Western leaders, lacking the backbone to do anything else, “go with the science”: in plain English, abnegate making a decision and run with the output of some risible software model from Imperial College, so badly written that it barely compiles and which the authors are still too ashamed of to publish. Handing over profound and difficult moral decisions to “the science” to cover your own arse is not what was required.
Then there’s the immoral stimulus packages. Trillions of dollars fire-hosed at those with political influence, which the unborn will one day be expected to pay for. Oh and switching off the global economy to boot.
Throughout of course, government must pretend to be in control and to have the answers, confidently telling us what’s what about ventilators, masks, social distancing, lock-downs…none of which anybody seems to have a clue about whether they are good or bad.
The quiet tearing up of the US Constitution, coercive “temporary” (yeah right, just like income tax!) laws and levels of censorship previously thought impossible on social media. Goodness only knows what “solutions” are still to come. Maybe a cashless society combined with a social credit system a la China and if things are really bad, the Gates Foundation’s proposal for a mandatory vaccine with no liability for the vaccine companies. What could go wrong, eh?
No prizes for guessing I don’t much like government but the one thing they could have done but so abjectly failed – and are even now failing – to do: close the darn borders! But no, the leftist media would cry racist! so that’s out of the question.
I would blame academia even more than governments. Ever since I was briefly in academia (if doing a post doc counts), I have watched academia become more arrogant, less tolerant of internal dissent, and too fond of money. In a way, it was predictable that they would cause a disaster sooner or later.
Very parochial America there.
Most of the science being carried out in the Wuhan BSL4 was being controlled by the same scientists who are giving advice to the US Pharmaceutical companies and the US military, not only that but the US is paying a chunk of the bills too, and this because of lax bio security at e.g. Fort Detrick that lead to the Obama temporarily shutting down the ‘Gain of Function’ virus research in the US. The because here was that some of the aforementioned scientist controllers didn’t want the research to be halted so ignored the Obama Administrations requirement to have it shut down (for a while).
Masca Ridens, I was totally with you till you had to end with the “leftist media” remark. I wish you’d have left that out, even if it’s true that some have cried, “racist” so often in the past. However, they weren’t doing it when Trump finally closed the borders. (and for the record, I think the ‘far left’ progressives are every bit as bad as the far right, so let’s not have any misunderstandings on that point) but Trump and the right–especially the far right–are calling the shots now with a majority government, so I hope you’re also complaining to them about going along with the lockdown and not just blaming the media. Trump has admitted having objections to having to follow the Constitution, and the media are the ones who keep reminding him that it’s the very foundation of the U.S. and forms the Rule of Law. It’s the Conservative media who has no problem ripping up the Constitution and implementing “emergency measures” that take away our basic rights. Nobody held a gun to the Trump Administration’s head to lockdown the country, and we all know that Trump does what HE thinks best and never worries about his advisor’s opinions. Perhaps it’s the looming election that has caused him to kowtow to the ‘medical experts’ or maybe it’s his campaign advisors, who knows? But the so-called “leftist media” has no problem keeping the borders closed tightly right now because they’ve completely bought into the fear-mongering by the WHO, the CDC and the “medical experts” the Administration leaning on for guidance right now.
I rather think that Trump cares too much for advice. I wish he had stuck to his guns.
According to anyone he’s ever worked with, who were all supporters at one time, Trump detests listening to advice and won’t even read the daily briefing given to every single president in office. They have to inject his name into any important document that they need him to read just to hold his interest. It’s more likely that he’s impulsive and speaks too soon, then when he realizes he’s mistaken about something, he changes his tune yet again. The one time that I know he chose to listen to someone was Bill Gates when Trump wanted to form a Safety Commission on vaccine safety. He mentioned this to Gates who told him that it was a ‘dead end’ and a waste of money, so Trump dropped it. Gates went on to make fun of Trump whenever he discussed that meeting with him, so I’m surprised he didn’t go ahead and form the commission just to spite Gates.
It’s tough to say why Trump didn’t hold the line of not locking down the country because he made it clear he didn’t like the idea. Maybe he decided to start listening to those advisors more than he did previously, I don’t know..
Thanks, will read tomorrow
Hi Dr Kendrick
I came across this while doing some financial research and it mentions “endothelial cells” and “statins”, so naturally I thought of you.
I have a funny feeling that I’ve had covid (wife in a school that had at least 100 kids go off with high temperatures during the week before lockdown). My toes went really red and nasty; blistered peeling skin. I do get this by cycling in the winter but not in April. I’ve also now had the smell of smoke for the last 3 weeks. I tested negative by pcr test 2 weeks ago but no idea about antibodies as testing’s not available.
Just posted as thought it was interesting.
Just an observation…my mother died in Hospital 20 years ago following a serious fall and complications
They logged cause of death as “Pneumonia” when i queried this i was told it was easier for all concerned ..as they did actually care for her and were kind i let it go
But it has bothered me ever since …now is this a familiar stance ?
” i was told it was easier for all” … special new rules mean it is much easier to just write someone up as “corona” if they were to so choose; and it makes it all simpler, it would seem …… I can try and find chapter and verse on this if you demand it …..
Robbie L, if she had pneumonia set in as a result of her fall and the necessary bed rest to heal, I imagine that’s why they felt that it was the pneumonia that caused her to pass. My grandfather spent his last years in a nursing home because of his Alzheimer’s Disease, but he finally succumbed to pneumonia, and that’s what was put on the death certificate.
JDPatten: The final word on masks:
Gary, FWIW: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/01/top-journal-retracts-study-claiming-masks-ineffective-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/
teedee126: Unfortunately, the other 50% of worthless papers never get retracted.
That’s right, or they spread like wildfire and keep spreading long after retraction, anyway. I’m afraid that confirmation bias is going to be a part of the discourse for as long as we live and people will believe what they want, regardless of the quality of evidence to the contrary.
Dr Jeannette Young is the Queensland (Australia) Chief Health Officer. She has stated, about a recent case of a man who died, “Whether or not COVID-19 was the precipitating cause for his death, that’s how we report it, and no matter what, we need to go and contact trace.”
“Any person who dies, who is infected with COVID-19, we declare it as a COVID-19 related death.”
So that is an explicit statement that even if a person dies from non-COVID causes, the reason as declared to be a COVID death if the virus is detected. Surely that can’t help the accuracy of statistics.
The chief medical person in Queensland, Dr Young, said she knew schools were low risk. The reason she closed them was to send a message. I think she meant to scare people into accepting the restrictions. She cried wolf. The population in Queensland is a bit over 5 million. We have had seven deaths. The recent death was recorded as COVID. The patient had two tests. One was positive. One was negative.
Jillm, these space wasters that claim to be “sending a message” ought to be sent the bill for the cost of their reckless actions. Instead of being a stupid politician, they could have been a trusted statesman.
@Bob I totally agree that it can’t help the accuracy of statistics. I followed the case of the gentleman in regional QLD closely. I could not believe that the guy had COVID, let alone died from it. And in the wake of the ‘false positive’ first test some 500 people in that regional community were tested and the authorities were even sifting through the town’s sewage (maybe another definition of muck-raking) to see whether there was a COVID problem.
In Belgium, the reason why they had the highest per capita death rates from COVID is that all deaths that were merely suspected of being COVID were counted, regardless of whether they were confirmed or not. Given the generic nature of COVID symptoms, they could have died from any number of common infections.
Like others have said….having accurate data is paramount.
Those who dare to suggest that perhaps there are wider considerations needed than just to singularly focus on preventing COVID deaths are howled down.
In April, Economist Professor Gigi Foster appeared on the ABC’s Q&A Program and was roundly criticised over the following comments:
“I reject the idea it’s lives versus the economy. It’s lives versus lives. The economy is about lives…..What frustrates me is when people talk about the economic costs of the lockdown they often don’t think in detail in terms of counting lives, as we do with the epidemiological models….Has anyone thought about how would you get a measure of the traded lives when we lock an economy down? What are we sacrificing in terms of lives? Economists have tried to do that and we try to do that in currencies like the value of a statistical life … and those quantities enable you to think about lives on one side versus lives on the other. If you do that kind of calculus you realise very quickly that even with a very, very extreme epidemic, in Australia, we are still potentially better off not having an economic lockdown in the first place because of the incredible effects that you see not just in a short-run way but in many years to come.”
I personally think she was bang on the money.
Thank you, Dr. Kendrick
What criteria did the US use to determine that a virus could not cross a space of 6 feet and why is the Australian government different in reckoning that 4 feet and 11.05512 inches is a distance a virus can not cross.
Virus Propaganda & the One World Lockdown
Nina Teicholz on the latest and greatest, 2020 food guide pyramid (hold your breath!). Science, what is science?:
Thanks,Gary, it shows the government still isn’t willing to shift its loyalties to the people anytime soon. They’re still doing the bidding of Big Agri/Big Food and Big Pharma/The AMA.
Here’s some of Nina’s links for diet and C-19 and blood glucose levels in relation to C-19 for anyone just starting out with a LC lifestyle:
*Those with metabolic conditions are more likely to suffer worsened Covid-19 outcomes*
Glucose control closely linked to poor Covid-19 outcomes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188620/ (see, also, references)
You are a shining light of reason in these strange times!!
James Foster Boudicca Brewery
Thanks for writing, Doctor Kendrick.
About the raised probability of more pandemics due to the world becoming more crowded.
Back in February, I read something about exterminating all bats in the world. The rationale was simple: if we eliminate the carrier (vector) of the virus, then no more pandemic (of that virus) would hit us. Problems: bats and rodents (rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, etc.) carry viruses of many kinds. These animals are not apex predators. If we disrupt the food chain, their predators will suffer, which will cause other animals below them, whom may be beneficial to humans, to either become extinct or to over-reproduce, affecting plants and insects, perhaps the climate.
Big, fearsome black-swans await us if we just go tweaking nature drunk with our good intentions.
Similarly, if we reduce human population, perhaps we could see less contagiousness, as humans are vectors of disease to each other. But it could also be the other way around: reducing human population may cause changes in other species and in the climate, which may hurt humans. Also, as it is very well known, some disease prevention strategies create an evolutionary pressure for pathogens, which may explain greater virulence and faster mutations.
Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not against prevention, I’m just against the bad outcomes of prevention. I am in favor of refinement and optimization for the welfare of humans.
In conclusion, nothing is ever as simple as we fancy it is.
The knee-jerk bat-exterminators probably haven’t understood that plenty of viruses jump from species to species. The Great Russian Flu of 1890-2 (now circulating seasonally in humans as OC43) was a bovine coronavirus that jumped and caused over 100,000 deaths in the UK peaking in 1891.
The impact on Mental health services has been huge too. Working in a community mental health team, people that used to be worked with intensely were suddenly told there would be no input for 3 months due to Covid. They are feeling abandoned, worthless and the staff frustrated at having to try and explain this when we don’t believe it is right.
We need to learn fro, this and find a better way for next time!
It would be useful to see this a a trial run for future pandemics, which given the expansion of intensive poultry and pig factory farming, are inevitable. We have an unfit population with high rates of obesity, metabolic problems and other co-morbidities and a society riddled with inequality and racism. We have low spending on health and lots of risk factors. The lessons of C19 are many and varied. Here in Devon our mortality is very low despite an ageing population (this has to be due to the lockdown) and emphasises the need for local decision making and infrastructure, exactly to opposite of what has happened. We need a different society or this will be seen as just another stepping stone to catastrophe. The driest three months of my life hints at the next, and for deeper crisis. It wont be bog rolls we crave, it will be food.
colinbannonC, where is the evidence for an increase in future pandemics from pig and poultry farming? Would this be a comuter model by any chance? The world has seen worse pandemics, when there was no intensive pig and poultry farming, and the population was less than a quarter of what it is now. How does racism fit into the progress of a pathogen? How has the lockdown done anything to affect infection rates? It will be interesting for you to look up Dolores Cahill and see what she has to say. I won’t post a link then I cannot be accused of bias in cherry picking information. Also look up Neil Ferguson, as he is a recognised authority on epidemic predictions. 😉
I think you need to do a bit more research on swine and bird flu, for the effect of COVID on BAME groups, look at https://www.drbannonsblog.com.
If that was your blog, Was it based on research into general disease reduction way before vaccines came about? The hope for a vaccine for covid 19 (which no one has managed for any previous corona virus) is even downplayed and cautioned against by vaccine proponents such as Offit and Hotex amongst others.
Where is the data for pig and poultry which says we are going to get a pandemic? Ferguson tried this previously with swine flu and that was only good for selling huge stocks of Tamiflu as far as I can see.
God bless you Colin; with the greatest of respect, you need to learn a wee bit about innate immunity; that seems very lacking in your coverage; your very detailed blog does not mention it at all; this is a good primer, that Dr K recommended to us all, a few blogs back; https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29
Ivor Cummins is due to post a blog in a day or two; talking to immunologists all about innate immunity; if I post a link when that appears; when we have good Vit D levels, our innate immunity is up-regulated; and our adaptive system is down-regulated; so when healthy, (just been to Greece for a month in the sun); you make fewer antibodies, and produce less fever; yes.
A propos the huge expansion of intensive pig and poultry farming – and actually everything else, from cattle to almonds – we are now being told that meat is too expensive and too damging to “the environment”.
The reason such hideous, dangerous “farms” (animal concentration camps) emerged was the huge demand for meat – regardless, almost, of taste, quality or healthiness. It’s the soulless cash nexus, as usual, destroying everything it touches. Some economist or government official decides that meat should be “fungible” – so the only thing that matters is the price per kilo. Pork is pork, beef is beef, chicken is chicken. Of course, we know that that is absolutely untrue. Quite apart from their propensity for spawning new and deadly diseases, those “farms” produce meat that is quite likely dangerous in many ways. Possibly diseased, loaded with antibiotics to suppress the symptoms of disease, full of weird unnatural fats created by feeding the animals vile soy or sea-bottom muck. But good enough for the proles. As good as Soylent anyway.
Anyone who wants details and has a strong stomach is referred to the book “Farmageddon”. But don’t say I didn’t warn you!
And why is there such huge demand for meat and other foods? Overpopulation. When I was born, in 1948, the world’s population was about 2.5 billion. Today it is approaching 8 billion, and showing no signs of slowing down much – although some areas have shrinking populations, others continue to grow hand over fist.
Yet there are still people who insist that “there is plenty of room”.
Tom, I certainly won’t argue about most of what you said about overpopulation (agree!) and conditions in some feedlots. There is much room for improvement, and population control has got to be the focus of changes for our planet before it’s too late. However, one area I hope we can move past is the blaming of cattle, or any other livestock, for the health of the environment. It’s simply not been shown that raising livestock negatively impacts the environment: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
I must have expressed myself unclearly. I am all for eating meat – and consequently, raising cattle. That should be done in the most natural way possible, on rolling expanses of open grassland like those where ungulates evolved.
I am a big fan of Allan Savory:
And the world urgently needs to return to the best traditional farming methods – after all, they have worked for thousands of years.
Lastly, read the book “Farmageddon” and you will be in no doubt as to which way is up and what needs to be done (and stopped).
I appreciate the clarification, Tom. Ruminants are very beneficial to the soil and therefore the environment and it’s tough to get that message out when some factions insist that they harm the environment, instead. Mono-cropping should be sending up the red flags, not traditional cattle or sheep ranches..
Tom Welsh: I had the distinct honor to attend a talk by Alan Savory in 2015. His insights about the nature of grassland ecosystems are profound and exceedingly important in healing our ailing Earth. More grazers, more concentrated vegetables, better health.
Tom, your first post did sound as if you were a proponent for the ridiculous EAT-lancet nonsense. Glad you clarified that! Traditional pasture farming is what could save the planet. Alan Savoury is brilliant and Farmageddon very clearly defines the serious problems caused by Big Ag.
Colin, re. (this has to be due to the lockdown)
Lots of us think the virus was here in the south-west in early December, long before lockdown.
Interesting point about “because of”. What should have been done about so called care homes where I know many were locked in their rooms for days on end. A programme to improve the health of the over 70s? Be more alert as to where the problems might come as a lesson for the future?
Following up my thoughts about “if only we could hire Richard Feynman”…
1. Fire all administrators and managers in the NHS who are not also working doctors or nurses (or radiosgraphers or other necessary medical staff). Go back to the old system whereby the working medical staff did what administration was needed. Let them hire managers, but only on condition that those managers remain absolutely the most junior grade in the NHS, and cannot be promoted above it.
2. Take the billions of pounds thus saved, and use them to upgrade the care homes, provide them with trained medical staff and equipment, ensure the inmates get very good nutrition and as much exercise as practical, etc.
Oh, it would be necessary to nationalize the care homes and make them part of the NHS.
Just a little jailbird humour, Chris. Although I did rack my brains for a while trying to find the appropriate noun. They’re not “patients”. Oh, of course! They are “residents” – just as if care homes were nice seaside hotels.
I was for the lockdown as I thought it would stop an explosion of cases. Ive changed my mind. In this pandemic it was clear early on that the most vulnerable were the elderly. Now we know diabetes and obesity are also higher risk. It makes sense to include the immunosupressed and those with chest complaints, though Im not sure if the data backs this up? So asking these people to take precautions makes sense and let the rest keep society and the economy going. In the future I am worried about a pandemic with a virus that affects the young more than the elderly. As bad as this virus has been that would be truly scary.
Hi Fergl00: “It makes sense to include the immunosupressed”
This is where it all gets stupid: Ferg: we know a person taking an immunosuppressive for a bowel disorder; he is active in his local church; goes to endless meetings; went skiing in Jan; works hard at the office all day; worked through the recent winter: exposed to all sorts of bugs: to put him under house arrest is madness surely: as Jonathon Sumption says, adults should be left to make their own decisions:
writing rules is rubbish: eg Mr Chris writes above: “care homes where I know many were locked in their rooms for days on end” …… well this “protects” them doesn’t it? Isn’t that what everyone has been demanding? Cut them off from all human contact: no risk: superb. Our consummate goal. Feed them food through hatches in their door; have robots convey the food: this is a superb way to protect them: that’s what we want isn’t it? Isolate them for six months; no human contact at all, of any sort; protect them; our goal.
Read “The Machine Stops” by E.M.Forster.
Thank you for stating the truth about what is happening in this PLANDEMIC! We have been locked down since February and the Italian authorities then said a couple of weeks ago that anyone over the age of 60 could not go out!!! This whole worldwide fiasco is not about health there are other agendas being played out. The stupidity of relying on one man’s computer modelling is bad enough but, conveniently the governments are not telling you the dangers of wearing masks (hypoxia and hypercapnia, meaning people are losing consciousness from lack of oxygen and continuously breathing in their own CO2. Add to that, increased cardiovascular risk and cerebravascular risk and lowered immunity. The masks mean that the virus (or other viruses) go into the nasal cavity and have a possibility of infiltrating the brain via the olfactory nerve (see Dr Russell Blaylock Eminent Neurosurgeon’s report).
I was so suprised when my father died suddenly but not unexpectedly at home, that the local GP just popped up a day or two later and had a chat with my Mum about what she thought should go on the death certificate! My poor father had multiple health issues when he died, so they picked the one that seemed the most likely and that was what went on his death cert. I asked a GP friend at the time and she told me that this was not uncommon at all, it was very often just a best guess.
I realise that individual experiences are not indicative of a wider trend, but of my circle of friends, colleagues and acquaintances, of three deaths I’m aware of in the last 10 weeks, I only know one elderly lady who possibly died of Covid-19. She was in a care home and deteriorating fast before March, again with multiple health issues, so when she died at the end of March, they noted her death as Covid19. I know her son well and he said “they asked Dad and he said that they should note it as Covid”! However, I know of two other deaths during this time and they are both suicides, which is desperately sad. I think deaths because of the Covid crisis, rather than of Covid itself, will indeed prove remarkably high.
My only consolation is that the shit here is marginally less bad than the shit in the US at the moment. However, it still stinks.
Having just read this, I thought you might be interested. Kindest regards Dr Rob Evans( dentist retired)
On Sun, 31 May 2020, 18:22 Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, wrote:
> Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: “31st May 2020 [This article was first > published on RT.com, and can be seen there at > https://www.rt.com/op-ed/490006-death-certificates-COVID-19-do-not-trust/%5D > As a doctor working in the midst of the COVID chaos, I’ve seen people die > and be listed as” >
“My only consolation is that the shit here is marginally less bad than the shit in the US at the moment. However, it still stinks”.
And for the same reason: money.
Quite apart from valid counts, are valid tests, for valid conditions or established fact.
Science shifted from empiricism to the computer model, and from empirically validated standards to convenient (model supporting) mathematical abstracts.
We (mostly) take on trust that a ‘novel’ (?) virus was ‘discovered’ in serum taken from a very very few suffering extreme respiratory reactions to extreme air pollution. Despite the fact that viral expressions (they come from living cells) constantly mutate – and are thus ‘new’ as a matter of course – and yet share the same basic profiles of symptom as other flus, colds, and coronaviral infections/expressions.
So where in all this is a 100% solid ground from which to begin science – rather than applying scientific processes to pet theories or subconscious fears given funding?
Zoom out and see that overall cause of death has more correlation with the lockdown – and so the scientific idea (if you need proof) is to challenge the correlation so as to disprove causation – yes? However, death is generally the result of a series of breakdowns of life support – which are personal (psychic-emotional) as well as social and environmental – now compounded by social and political hysteria which is none the less keeping an iron grip regardless any appeal to reason or call to account.
Like a game of musical chairs, when the music re-starts, there is less support for living. Initially this is those who die from their fear and isolation – and from the measures undertaken as defence. That this is a top-down orchestration is simply evident.
The idea of a mainstream ‘reality’ as a management system, that insiders are aware of as partial or false is part of any masked private agenda. A restructuring … (Continued on)
Excellent Dr K.
May I recommend a look at Nick Pineault’s analysis, this is part 3 by the way.
Tom Welsh and your thoughts to fix the NHS…
it reminded me of the BBC’s TV series called “Troubleshooter”. The second presenter – Sir Gerry Robinson – had this challenge way back.
Maybe worth a google but here’s a link:
Thanks, Charles! The OU, eh? I’m flattened.
Seriously, though, I have come to believe that management culture has become a social cancer that is destroying our countries. I choose the analogy with cancer advisedly: those are people who get into positions of influence, power and responsibility and then merely serve their own selfish interests. (And sometimes those of their pals, on a mutual basis).
Eventually, the organization dies.
Dies ? Not if its publicly funded.
Well, maybe it depends on your definition of “dies”!
It’s stone cold dead as far as accomplishing any useful work is concerned.
But it’s thriving as far as housing lots of well-paid employees is concerned – and generating tons of useless bumph.
Sort of a corporate zombie.
Jason Christoff has put together a comprehensive collection of info on Covid-19 at:
Government and Media Proven to Be Lying To Public About COVID Pandemic | Jason Christoff https://jchristoff.com/government-and-media-proven-to-be-lying-to-public-about-covid-pandemic/
That’s a remarkably long list. Some of the links I can vouch for. Some go to Facebook, so less reliable.
More on sunshine this time from Mark Sissons:
OK everyone, put on your costume Scientist hats and pull this to shreds. (Should be fun, yeah?)
Or maybe you’re too busy formulating and expounding your own notions. After all, everyone’s time is limited.
I posted this for a different article here earlier, but worth repeating:- HSE “did some sciences” back in 2008, and empirical results prove that surgical masks (let alone cloth ones) are useless for coronaviruses: https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr619.pdf
As a philosophycal side-note, you simply can’t beat the nature, no matter what you do, if anything is set on infecting you, it will, and most often it will come back with a vengence! Prime example: overuse of anti-biotics has lead to the rise of multi-drug resitant bacteria.
It has been pointed out that any mask with a fine enough filter to keep viruses out or in will suffocate the wearer.
Moreover, it has been shown that if you are cooped up indoors with an infected person you are very likely to be infected yourself – mask or no mask.
While it is incredibly hard to get infected out of doors under any circumstances – mask or no mask.
See the common factor there? Mask or no mask – it makes no difference.
Tom, is that true about ‘incredibly hard to get infected outdoors … ‘? That’s good news I think, although not always possible for those working indoors or having to travel in tube trains etc. i’m lucky enough to be able to take advantage of that fact, and I will. Thank you.
ShirleyKate, the most authoritative source is “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1
I found a link to that in J.B. Handley’s comprehensive post “LOCKDOWN LUNACY: the thinking person’s guide” https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/lockdownlunacy
“In a study titled ‘Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2’ and published on April 2, 2020, scientists studied outbreaks of 3 or more people in 320 separate towns in China over a five-week period beginning in January 2020 trying to determine WHERE outbreaks started: in the home, workplace, outside, etc.? What’d they discover? Almost 80% of outbreaks happened in the home environment. The rest happened in crowded buses and trains. But what about outdoors? The scientists wrote:
‘All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk’.
Of course, whatever a scientist or team says after careful research (or a lifetime of experience) there will always be panic-spreaders who denounce their methods and motives. You just have to weigh the assertions and use your common sense.
Indeed, this goes with our earlier point about people not being able to comprehend the maths (or scale).
The size of SARS-CoV-2 is under 100nm . Given that the trainsmission is not airborne but aerosolised, we need to consider resiratory droplets. A sneeze generates ca. 40k “droplets” of 0.5–12 microns in size, while a caugh—about 3k droplets (same number as talking for five minutes!)  (Let’s take a moment to consider what breating through a filter medium >> 0.5 microns!)
Now, let’s do some more fun maths! There are 10 lots of 100nm in 1 micron, and given the viruses burst cells to saturate the surrounding (unlike parasites that individually crawl to inhabit, or bacteria that expand colonies to consume), it’s plausible that a 0.5 micron droplet nucleus would have at least 1–3 viruses in it (recall the virus size is sub-100nm). Let’s suppose the 0.5–5 micron droplet nuclei account for about 20% of the expelled droplets (5+ microns droplets are uninteresting because they rapidly drop down under gravity ). That’s “a lot!” (term of art 😉 ) of viruses from one infected person who is caughing and intermittenly likely to sneeze, yet they are not infecting every single passer by (and that after the uncubation period)! In fact, SAGE estimated that being “locked down” with an infected member of your household merely increased the risk of infection by 20% (to 70% from 50%, with “50%” I am guessing meaning “can’t really say, could go either way”) .
Now, the important question: why are people (especially those who ought to know better) obessing over the arbitrary 2m “social distancing” and the utterly useless face masks???
3. para 9 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888784/S0384_Sixteenth_SAGE_meeting_on_Wuhan_Coronavirus__Covid-19__.pdf
Over-eager HTML formatting seems to have eaten a part of my comment, so here’s what para.2 should’ve finished with (sans less-than signs):
Let’s take a moment to consider what breating through a filter medium less than 0.5 micron, given that people have beed murdered or accidentally asphyxiated with pillows over their faces, and the particle gap in feather-filled pillows is way greater than 0.5 microns!
JDPatten: Again, they’re asking the wrong question. Hopefully we’ve all learned from the wisdom of Dr. Kendrick that the overall mortality rate is the key metric in all medical interventions. The correct question would be, “Does mask-wearing by the public improve human health, have no effect, or make it worse?” Fortunately for me, while my city is insisting that all retail customers wear a mask, our neighboring city does not. They have my business. A bit more fossil fuel burned (don’t tell Greta), but not much, as it has become basically a suburb. Exactly the same stores in both cities.
Every doctor who has to deal with Covid patients demands a mask as part of PPE. So clearly medics believe masks are necessary.
Countries where masks were promptly and widely adopted, e.g. Hong Kong, have fared much better than countries where mask-wearing is less prevalent.
Universities in Asia have proven that masks are effective.
My conclusion is that it’s pretty obvious that wearing a mask is a Good Thing.
Yet Western academics assert that masks are ineffective or even dangerous to the wearer. How can this be, I wondered? Until I started following the money.
Firstly, Western governments were caught with their pants around their ankles. They had not maintained emergency stocks of masks at the levels their own experts had recommended. How to wriggle out of this one? Why, proclaim that masks are ineffective, maybe even harmful, so not having masks on hand is no biggie, maybe even a life-saver. And academics who rely on government funding are happy to provide the “proof”.
Secondly, in the USA anyway, hospitals depended on a good supply of Covid-infected patients to survive financially, since they were denied their usual sources of income. One way to increase the supply of infected is to discourage the wearing of masks.
Thirdly, governments and their pet advisors needed a lot of Covid infections to justify their decision to impose lockdowns. hence the need to discourage the wearing of masks.
Just as plausible an explanation as I’ve ever heard anyone else give, Martin.
“My conclusion is that it’s pretty obvious that wearing a mask is a Good Thing”
You are entitled to wear a mask if you wish, but don’t be surprised if it has effects you did not expect. The “scientific” evidence for masks in normal outdoor situations is woefully weak.
I agree that wearing a mask in the wide open spaces, or alone in your own motor car, is a bit ridiculous (although I do — it’s the law here). But in a confined or crowded areas it must make a difference.
I was not referring to the wide open spaces, but shopping sort of situations etc. The evidence is weak, and the detriments are significant enough to indicate that mask wearing borders on virtue signalling.
If governments have been saying masks are not needed so people don’t buy all the stocks because they wouldn’t be available for medical fields, that is no fault of anyone but the ones who are spouting the lies.
Martin Back, feel free to wear a mask if you so desire.
And leave me free to choose for myself.
• COVID-19 is spread mainly via saliva/mucus droplets containing a virus load by people who don’t know they’re infected.
• The wearing of masks by everyone out in public is NOT to protect the wearer, but to keep enough of POSSIBLY contaminated saliva droplets within the WEARER’s mask.
• Pretty much any mask is going to be quite effective at that – provided it’s actually worn.
• No one is trying to keep individual viruses from passing through. It’s the droplets. Breathe easy.
• You must go indoors to do regular food shopping. Mask or no mask? How is anyone certain that they’re NOT a silent carrier? If we’re learning anything, it’s that there are more cases than anyone ever thought
Because. You. Can’t. Know. Tests? Pff.
• So, what you all want to do is exercise your freedom to possibly personally spread this thing around as much as you can, not knowing if you’re giving it to those who will be silent carriers themselves or those who will die or become disabled.
• Where’s your conscience? How many dead on your behalf?
You’ll never know.
• Right. You’re probably not a silent shedder.
You’ll never know.
“• Where’s your conscience? How many dead on your behalf?”
Mamaaaa, I just killed a man,
I didn’t stay inside in bed,
I walked past him now he’s dead.
Mamaaaa, Life was so much fun,
But now I’ve got this unforgiving plague
Mamaaaa, Ooooo oooo oooo oo ooo
I didn’t mean to make them die,
If I’m not back to work this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on as if people didn’t matter
The question I ask, if this horrendous pathogen is so pathogenic, how is it I see the same till operators in supermarkets, week after week, who have hundreds of people walking past them every day, handing over goods, money, cards, and I haven’t managed to kill them all by doing reckless things like. er, breathing?
Notepad, you’ve mentioned before that you see lots of cashiers/till operators not wearing any PPE whatsoever, and they’ve been just fine, but that’s not the experience for most of us. I’m not sure where you live, but in Canada, you can’t find a single cashier/till operator or any store employee who is not wearing PPE to protect themselves from overexposure to the virus. So you can keep singing songs and mocking those who wear PPE, but that doesn’t mean your position is always the correct one.Some people may suspect their immune system isn’t as stellar as yours, or perhaps they live with someone at home who could be compromised, and they have every right to take precautions without ridicule from those who don’t believe PPE is necessary.
teedee126, i was replying to JDP’s implied suggestion that those not following all the questionable lockdown “rules” of the various authoritarian governments, have no conscience, and anything we do otherwise is killing people. The wearing of masks may give the wearers comfort, but that does not mean they are being protected.
Notepad, I guess it all depends on your perspective when discussing masks. You feel that people who wear masks are doing it to protect themselves, while some believe it’s to protect others. It’s true that some are wearing them in hopes of protecting themselves if they feel they’re vulnerable to a severe case, while some of us who feel good about our chances of having only a mild case may wear one on occasion hoping to protect others, or to make someone fearful feel more comfortable around us. Those wearing masks may be completely mistaken that they do anything protective at all, but there’s really no proof that not wearing one is the better choice for everyone. People are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ based on whether or not they wear a mask; they just have a different perspective, or opinions about C-19 and masks. To each his own, but we can do without insulting or belittling each other when discussing it.
Should anyone have the impression their governments are looking after them, just digest this https://youtu.be/vnM0KOm4KQo
You can’t see it. You just don’t know.
People die of it; from it – what you will.
Not in overwhelming percentages,
but they’re still dead-and-gone.
You don’t see it. You just don’t know.
The lives that are lost directly due to it –
you don’t see. You just don’t know.
They mean nothing to you? Or you think it doesn’t happen?
You just don’t know.
You don’t see it, therefore it doesn’t happen?
Such a small, small world you live in.
People die from a lot of other things as well. I suspect many more people will soon be dying sooner than they might from several treatable conditions for which the treatment has been stopped by government edict. What do you think of that in such a small, small world? Easily fixed though, with the Gates’ “as perfect as possible vaccine”.
Yes, AhNotepad, we all die. There are almost none who get to choose the circumstances or the timing. Or the dignity it might proceed with.
This period we’re all in is difficult. The proverbial rock vs hard place.
Some of us are, unfortunately, more prone to COVID-19 death than others. That, at least, seems to be clear. Nothing else in this epic is at all clear. History might have a clue for us as to the numbers dead of COVID versus the numbers dead due to COVID. It’ll probably reveal, as is History’s wont, how very little we understand of this thing now, while we’re in its midst.
I submit that, in the face of government shut-downs then open-ups, that the general public is in favor of keeping closed down for now – by hefty percentage points. The louder the open-uppers, the more they seem in number, but it ain’t so.
Reasonable fear keeps people inside at least as well as government “edicts”. Somewhat unreasonable fear keeps people from seeking help for chest pain, etc.
The prospect of the horror and agony of a drowning death by COVID (Look at autopsy pictures of lungs twice as heavy as they should be with clots and with bleeding and with pus and necrosis.) keeps people in.
Sure, there’s a small percent of a percent of the general population that will go that way, but plenty enough for the World to notice. Me next? You? Your own check-out clerk?
All we can know of the World is in our heads. The World ain’t us individuals; we ain’t it.
We must construct a working model from the windows of our senses… and sense, to the degree we have that. There’s no other way.
For each of us, that world of our minds works well for us – or not so much – largely depending on the degree to which it truly reflects our real circumstances in the real World and its real physical rules.
We’re each different. Some “worlds” are rich with imagination and creativity. Some are experienced only as hard work. Some are ethereal and magical. Some science-guided, and so all the closer to actuality. Some are simple and specialized. Some struggle in emotional poverty.
Some are just small.
A very pertinent link!!
JDPatten, what do you think about this comment on The Conversation article you provided?
logged in via Google
What no one seems to grasp is that we need to expose each other to the virus in order to develop an immune response to it as it has done for thousands of years. No one is saying that people who have recovered aren’t immune to the virus they are. This is how the human body works and everyone seems to have forgotten what science and medicine have learned over the last hundred years or so. We don’t need vaccines the human body can do this naturally without injecting a potentially hazardous substance into our body which as past flu seasons have taught us may not be effective in preventing infection anyway. These vaccines are also not brought up to the levels of scrutiny that we employ for other pharmaceuticals in addition to being exempt from prosecution if people do indeed become sick or even die from their use. When did everyone lose all common sense? If we continue down this course humanity will cease to exist.
Here’s what I think:
If the scenario you present is played out, the population at large will present with disease according to these rough categories:
• No symptoms at all or mild enough to be taken for a cold.
• Really quite sick enough to be taken for a bad flu
• Sick enough to want to go to hospital, but told to stay home till it’s even worse.
• Hospitalized for weeks, but recover – possibly with long-term or permanent disabilities.
• Wind up in the morgue with gangrenous limbs, failed kidneys, liver, heart, brain and/or, most likely, free blood, clots, pus, and necrosis filled lungs.
The top of this list is most likely; the bottom least likely – or so it seems for now.
But, looking at different likelihoods, the Seniors among us are far more likely to wind up in that last category than others. Deaths occur throughout, however.
What are the actual numbers you ask? ?? Ask again in a few years.
What is your current calculation? How many (last category) human deaths are warranted for the prospective Greater Good of as-yet-to-be-proven generalized improved immunity?
A perspective to consider: Anyone might feel more confident going into your scenario if they “calculate” their risk to be smallish. If you get it, you’ll be in one of those categories 100%. Which one? It’ll be the one you wind up in – whichever. You might even phase through a few categories on your way.
If you don’t get it, you’ll be in none of those categories 100%.
(A few years ago I recovered from a risky bacterial infection that attacked my vessel endothelial cells. My chances of getting the disease did not exist. 0% risk. I’m the only known case.)
No one has a crystal ball. I have 0% confidence in risk factor pronouncements.
For your further edification:
JDPatten, thanks for the link to Dr Mike Hansen’s presentation re coronavirus, he’s an impressive presenter. (I’ve also watched a couple of his videos on Vitamin D – interesting that YouTube has been censoring him!)
He says there’s never been a disease in the history of mankind that’s presented in so many different ways… I remain perplexed as to why apparently many, generally children and younger people, are not troubled by this disease, while (some) older people with co-morbidities are really badly affected, although it seems to be emerging that inappropriate treatments could be in play here too.
Dr Hansen’s video was useful for a layperson, although I admit much of the discussion is above my pay grade. I appreciate that he concluded “This is really, really, really complicated” and that he acknowledged “we still are just scratching the surface with just how much we know about it. There are so many pieces of the puzzle that we’re still putting together”.
In other words, he has the humility to admit there’s a lot that isn’t known and understood by the medical fraternity about the current SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 situation.
Which makes me wonder all the more, how can so many groups be going off in a ‘warp speed’ race for a vaccine?!?! With apparently very specific types of people adversely affected by the current situation, i.e. the elderly with co-morbidities, and apparently not children and young people, shouldn’t the focus be on appropriately treating the sick now? Just think of all the resources going off to questionable coronavirus vaccine research…
Is it appropriate to be thinking of a vaccine for this situation? Is it appropriate for Bill Gates to be leading the push for fast-tracked vaccination with novel/experimental coronavirus vaccine products for the entire global population? Which, if they eventuate, will probably be pressed as an annual revaccination?
I too was heartened by his willingness to admit how little is still known. What it does to some is pretty well known: Like, it’ll do pretty much anything anywhere given a free run. I noted that it can cause “pink eye”. What’s not known is HOW it ravages. WHY in some; not in others? HOW to stop it.
The desire to treat the more horrible cases in the face of almost total ignorance as to how to do it means that mistakes will be made with the best intentions. Perhaps it would be best to hold back on things that seem like they should work. “Observational” studies, subject to all sorts of biases and interpretations, aren’t much good at telling desperate docs how to go. Look at the wasted time, $, and, yes, some lives spent on hydroxychloroquine. Look at remdesivir: For the possibility of an admitted small benefit at best (The RCTs have a long way to go still.) you risk coming out of the hospital on dialysis and/or damaged liver.
Trouble is, there are thousands sick now, and the RCTs take a long time to be done properly.
Nafamostat as treatment looks very very good – in a petri dish. An RCT on that is due to finish April 1, 2021.
Of course vaccination development efforts should go full steam – AND according to strict protocol. Some enterprises are actually gearing up production capability, betting on a favorable outcome.
And then there are survivor antibodies:
JDPatten, you say: “Of course vaccination development efforts should go full steam – AND according to strict protocol. Some enterprises are actually gearing up production capability, betting on a favorable outcome.“
So you support coronavirus vaccination?
Who do you think should be vaccinated and why?
Here’s the scenario I would go with –– for myself!
The FDA (Finally!) approves one or more vaccines as being safe and effective. (They will have had a bit of time to reorganize under a new administration. 🙂 )
Wait a period for the frantic News to settle down.
The vaccines will then have spent enough time in actual clinical use for any unforeseen problems to show. (How long? Dunno.) My long-time family doctor will then need to feel that it’s safe and effective – as we agreed with the shingles shot. (No prob.) He’s pretty conservative in such matters.
And then, I would have to consider my own rationale.
Perceived risks at the time for COVID-19 or the vaccine itself – my doctor notwithstanding – time remaining to me if I do or if I don’t, (76 with underlying conditions) and, after fully socializing again – the prospect of getting this new big C from my granddaughter or, worse, giving it to her and her little family.
This is what I’m thinking now. Ask again in the eighteen months they’re still projecting.
But, to give up the vaccine effort or be forced to give it up would be the worst sort of human folly fueled by fear and ignorance. Herd panic is contagious.
And . . .
You ask who should be vaccinated, as if there was an autocratic authority already in place to order it. (What’s your country? 🙂 )
Better questions would ask who is in a position to most benefit from a vaccine and how to arrange for that if it’s requested? What requests ought to get priority with limited stock?
But, a vaccine at all??
This article seems pretty realistic as it presents the likely advantages of the pursuit of treatments over the pursuit of vaccines.
Would be more realistic if the report mentioned benefits of vitamins. Who paid the authors?
JDPatten, you refer to “…the prospect of getting this new big C from my granddaughter…”
Bearing in mind the possibility of coronavirus vaccination being added to children’s and adults’ vaccination schedules, what do you think about your granddaughter and other family members receiving what could be a fast-tracked and still experimental SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine?
Here’s a couple of articles with some background info:
Vaccine Ethics and Children: With COVID-19, Science Has Completely Lost Its Way: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-ethics-and-children-with-covid-19-science-has-completely-lost-its-way/
Rushing a Vaccine to Market for a Vanishing Virus – When Profits and Politics Drive Science: https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/06/rushing-a-vaccine-to-market-for-a-vanishing-virus/
Our discussion had been moving along nicely, but I’m not going to get involved in any dire warnings about an unknown future using scare-tactic-headlined articles as weapons. (I don’t think that would characterize the things I’ve shared, do you?)
Have a thought-through notion or two yourself, that you’ll express in your own words?
Here are some thought-through thoughts by a guy with no licensed expertise. Thinking hard and thinking independently makes such a difference.
JDPatten, you didn’t answer my question…
Again, bearing in mind the possibility of coronavirus vaccination being added to children’s and adults’ vaccination schedules, what do you think about your granddaughter and other family members receiving what could be a fast-tracked and still experimental SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine?
JDPatten you said: You ask who should be vaccinated, as if there was an autocratic authority already in place to order it. (What’s your country? 🙂 )
I live in Australia, where there is already ‘an autocratic authority’ to order vaccination…
For example, vaccination of children is mandatory to obtain benefits and childcare under the No Jab, No Pay Law, enacted in January 2016. Of course, many might argue vaccination of children is a no-brainer, but when a coercive law is in place this is very problematic, when people are being made compliant without question to an ever-increasing number of vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule.
Vaccine mandates for adults are also creeping in, e.g. vaccinations for healthcare workers, but again some of the vaccine mandates are arguable, e.g. annual flu vaccination. Similarly visitors and workers entry to aged care facilities is currently restricted if individuals haven’t been vaccinated for flu. I personally don’t think flu vaccination should be mandated, and have recently forwarded correspondence to politicians requesting the evidence backing annual flu vaccination.
And some politicians are very aggressive in their support for compulsory vaccination, see for example this opinion piece by Raff Ciccone, a Federal Labor Senator for the State of Victoria:
New Covid-19 restrictions will be needed for anti-vaxxers: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-covid-19-restrictions-will-be-needed-for-anti-vaxxers-20200616-p55330.html
To anti-vaxxers, I have one message: our tolerance for your wilful ignorance is over. We cannot afford, morally or economically, to give any ground to those who choose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Let me be clear. I’m not advocating that we vaccinate people against their will. That would be wrong. We must ensure that the safety of our community is the number one priority. That means that participation in everyday life cannot put others at risk. If you do not want to be vaccinated against COVID-19, you ought to bear the consequences of that decision.
As a community, we should consider to what extent we allow organisations to prevent those who object to being vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter their premises, participate in their activities and, in some circumstances, seek their employment.
Governments have gone some way to doing this by implementing policies such as withholding family tax benefits and preventing children from being accepted into childcare unless vaccinations are proven. Further restrictions would be a natural extension of these policies.
Restaurants could be allowed the right to refuse entry to those who are not vaccinated against COVID-19. Businesses, especially those involved in the care or service of vulnerable communities, might be allowed the right to refuse employment to those without a COVID-19 vaccination. Organisers of mass gatherings could deny the sale of tickets on this basis.
Etc, etc…see the article.
1st: Knowledge. There’s precious little of it concerning where we’ve been so far with COVID-19. There’s absolutely no knowledge as to where we’re going with it. We are the determinant factor – vector, if you will. The virus is not alive, much less having a will to do anything in particular. We give it life when it enters us. How do we then behave in the least harmful way for ourselves, for humanity. You don’t, I don’t, no one knows. That’s the nature of The Future, with no History to extrapolate from. Given that:
Everything in life is a balance. This cheap new application of an old steroid seems to be a bit of a benefit for treatment, but as with any silver lining there are clouds. Steroids have side effects.
A vaccine for children, grandparents, and other loved ones would be the same. Should some one or more vaccine become available – a huge presumption – anyone ought to weigh several aspects of their situation in a complex balance: Concerning the vaccine itself, Is there enough Knowledge concerning its degree of benefit vs its possible harms to make any sort of decision? Is there enough Knowledge about the direction the disease is taking in your own local population? Will you be contributing to herd immunity by risking taking it? Given that:
3rd: Ciccolini . . .
is talking through his hat. For now. (1st & 2nd)
Such measures might be called for if/when the worst case scenario occurs.
Consider for yourself: Given that this fictional future vaccine is reasonably safe and effective (Nothing’s perfect nor ever will be) AND that it’s starting to actually look like 1918 with the prospect of tens of millions of deaths or more, would you take the vaccine? Children? Would you, in that fictional future, allow somewhat for Ciccolini’s point of view?
All of this is conjecture. We humans find it hard to cope with the notion that there cannot be definitive answers to every problem. The future (which can only be in your mind) can be scary.
Check this out. Pay particular attention to the philosophy of Reality and to what the various bits of brain do:
I will believe the death statistics if there are only two main categories; CAUSE OF DEATH= old person with comorbidities testing negative for covid-19 virus, (and another category for positive tests).
from this twitter account (Peter Faber) https://twitter.com/PeterFaberSP/status/1267461913719590917
he mentions this article https://www.nu.nl/coronavirus/6054836/coronagevolgen-in-de-zorg-agressieve-jongeren-ouderen-stoppen-met-eten.html
“This article is in Dutch, but it says that a new problem in nursing homes is that elderly people refuse to eat because they’re not allowed to receive visitors. They simply want to stop living because of no visitors. ”
Don’t they know we are TRYING TO PROTECT THEM? How ungrateful. We must now force-feed them; insert naso-gastric tubes; we SHALL feed them; such is the power of our will.
Actually, I ran the article through google translate; it makes a very sad read;
the theme of “constant loneliness”: all they want is to see their relatives. “In an extreme case, a window on the ground floor was nailed shut after residents used it for ‘visitor escapes’. After all, if they are alone in their room all day, they cannot speak to fellow residents.” aren’t we all crazy? aren’t we all sanctimonious? Protect the elderly?
I think in India case is different .Death rate is low compared to vast population.Our PM has done Superb job by any standards .Some states where I live has more spread , purely due to mismanagement by local Govts.Anyway this is going to be never ending discussion.LOCK DOWN has helped India far more and better than any nation in world
Hi Kishan: re benefits of lockdown under-appreciated
The lockdown should also restrict access to food as appears to be the case in India from what was shown on TV.( Maybe only applies to poorer segments of society. }
For the majority of obese and diabetic people a 14 day lockdown without food would be beneficial, think of it as therapeutic fasting. Access to fast food outlets should be restricted so that people are forced to cook their own food and eat more vegetables. The countries with the most fast food outlets appear to be the hardest hit with covid-19.
Now time for breakfast, stir-fried nettles with butter and topped with 3 eggs and a bit of cheese.
I have learnt a lot from this virus and from the cholesterol business. It has reinforced my belief that most people find ignorance less stressful than enquiry and that it is generally pretty well impossible to change their mindsets. They may agree with or consider some of what you say temporarily, but once they are back talking to people who hold the general view of things they stop thinking.
The result is that I am the disadvantaged one because I am the cranky nut or eccentric. People respond enthusiastically to me when I’m talking about the weather, the peace, but once I cross the line the eyes glaze over or stare critically.
Well I’m not going to bother anymore. No more soap boxes. I shall not hide my basic stance on things but will not go further unless I’m asked a question. I am fed up being a mug. Life is too short to be constantly trying to help people who don’t want to be helped. That is too stressful.
What are others’ experiences?
I know just how you feel, Tish. When I found low carb/high fat 10 years ago, lost weight and arthritis, I tried telling people but they didn’t listen. I was labelled the strange gluten free one and offered all sorts of over-sweet, processed goodies. Now I just go my own way and let them get on with it.
Hi Tish, re your comment: “I have learnt a lot from this virus and from the cholesterol business. It has reinforced my belief that most people find ignorance less stressful than enquiry and that it is generally pretty well impossible to change their mindsets.”
I think it’s a matter of cognitive dissonance, many people just can’t bear the thought that settled ideas might not be all they’re cracked up to be. Many are not equipped to challenge ‘the experts’, and possibly afraid to think they can’t rely on ‘the experts’…because then the house of cards falls down…
Some of us take it upon ourselves to question the status quo. For example, I question vaccination policy. I claim no expertise in this area, but as a citizen I feel entitled to question these mass population medical interventions which are becoming increasingly mandatory, e.g. vaccination is mandatory for children in Australia to access benefits and childcare. Now we’re seeing mandatory vaccinations creeping in for adults too, for some jobs, and recently flu vaccination being required for people to visit aged care facilities, and footballers being required to have flu vaccination to play Aussie rules and rugby during the coronavirus situation.
Many in the general community believe it’s a no-brainer for children to have vaccination, and adults too. But it’s not that simple. More and more vaccine products and revaccinations are being added to the schedule, without consultation with the community. Mandates are forcing compliance without question, without informed consent – this is not a good situation, and emerging problems with vaccine products are not being properly acknowledged and considered.
And now in the space of a few months we see the push for coronavirus vaccination for the entire global population, and they haven’t even got a vaccine yet, let alone thought about the implications!
So, have to keep pushing on this, to seek transparency and accountability. It’s a difficult situation when so many are complicit in this lucrative racket…
Unfortunately that is what I have found. Even people who agree with my view just shrug and say why get worked up about it as it changes nothing.
I gave up trying to convince people long ago. If you talk about the power of exercise, they say it’s too late, and if you say that studies have shown amazing improvements in people of 90 who start to follow a programme of exercise suitably adapted. It makes me despair when I see how people prefer to be pill poppers rather than really alive
Tish, I’ve felt the same way too many times to count, but then I remember that I’ve completely changed my mind about some serious issues in life (human nutrition, supplements, vaccines, etc) as I’ve acquired more knowledge. While it still feels disheartening to realize that the majority already have their minds fully made up and do not welcome differing opinions, I realize that there may still be a few open minded individuals who could be helped to see that there may be another way to look at something and at least check it out for themselves.
Openness is one of the “big five” factors of personality recognized by many psychologists today. (The others are Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion.
I would guess that Dr Kendrick himself and most of the readers of his blog would turn out to be unusually high in Openness.
I know I am. One sign of this is that, egotistical as I am, I would rather be set right when I am mistaken than have everyone agree with me.
That personality trait makes it far easier to disagree with the consensus and to criticize people who “go along to get along”.
Many thanks ladies for your very welcome replies. Forbidden hugs to all.
The Phase II part of the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine human trials will include children aged between 5-12 years: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials
Bill Gates, who appears to be directing global vaccination policy, says: “My hope is that the vaccine we have 18 months from now is as close to “perfect” as possible. Even if it isn’t, we will continue working to improve it. After that happens, I suspect the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.” https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-COVID-19-vaccine
What do others think about children being in ‘COVID-19’ vaccine trials, and that a ‘COVID-19’ vaccine “will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule”?
I am appalled at the very suggestion that a newborn is vaccinated Elizabeth. It is truly ridiculous and terrifying, as is Bill Gates.
Tish: Every single day in the U.S. more than 10,000 infants are given the Hep B vaccine on the day of birth (~1% of mothers are positive for Hep B). In most the protective effect wanes long before they are of the age to engage in risky drug use or sexual behavior. This is a crime against humanity, in my view.
“My hope is that the vaccine we have 18 months from now is as close to “perfect” as possible”.
Those words of Bill Gates confirm my low estimation of him. Logically, of course any vaccine that exists in 18 months from now will be “as close to perfect as possible”. It obviously couldn’t be any more perfect than possible, or any less perfect than possible.
Politicians and businessmen talk that way – they throw words at their audience like a modern artist throwing paint at a canvas. They hope the audience will light up at the “hurrah!” words, and fail to notice the complete absence of meaning.
However doctors and scientists, and those who manage them, have no right to talk nonsense.
Presumably for a child between 5 and 12 years old to take part in a vaccine trial, approval would have to be given by its parents.
What kind of parent would give such approval?
I would think any decent, educated parent would be found standing in front of her children with a loaded shotgun.
Tom, “What kind of parent would give such approval?”
One who’s scared because they’ve been brainwashed by the media.
Elizabeth, I don’t think it’s the least bit hyperbolic to say that it’s a horrifying prospect to pump an infant full of vaccines before they can even crawl (or at any point afterward). What are we doing to children these days? I can remember so clearly how I felt as a new mother; I was prepared to do absolutely anything to ensure the health of my baby (and I know it’s a common feeling among parents). We simply didn’t have the same doubts about the few vaccines they got in the 70’s, as we do now. But since we’ve had a few generations to observe their effects, I can’t imagine having to decide yay or nay on vaccinating an infant these days. It must feel like Sophie’s Choice in many ways..
Hi teedee126, see below the current vaccination schedule in Australia. And just look at how many repeat revaccinations there are… What’s the justification for this do you think?
And now there’s talk of adding coronavirus vaccination to international schedules, potentially annually. Another nice little multi-billion dollar earner for the vaccine industry…
Vaccines on the taxpayer-funded schedule for children in Australia:
Birth: Hepatitis B (H-B-Vax II Paediatric – Merck Sharp & Dohme/Seqirus or Engerix B Paediatric – GlaxoSmithKline)
6 weeks: South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero – GlaxoSmithKline)
2 months: Multicomponent combined injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Hepatitis B, Polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa – GlaxoSmithKline); Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 – Pfizer); oral drops for Rotavirus are also given at this time (Rotarix – GlaxoSmithKline)
4 months: Multicomponent combined injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Hepatitis B, Polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa – GlaxoSmithKline); Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 – Pfizer); oral drops for Rotavirus are also given at this time (Rotarix – GlaxoSmithKline). South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero – GlaxoSmithKline)
6 months: Multi-component combined injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Hepatitis B, Polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa – GlaxoSmithKline)
12 months: Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 – Pfizer); multicomponent combined injection for Measles, Mumps and Rubella (M-M-R II – Merck Sharp & Dohme/Seqirus or Priorix – GlaxoSmithKline); Meningococcal ACWY (Nimenrix – Pfizer). South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero – GlaxoSmithKline)
18 months: Multicomponent combined injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis) (Infanrix – GlaxoSmithKline or Tripacel – sanofi-aventis); multicomponent combined injection for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella/Chickenpox (Priorix Tetra – GlaxoSmithKline or ProQuad – Merck Sharp & Dohme/Seqirus); Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) (Act-HIB – sanofi-aventis)
4 years: Multicomponent combined injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough (Pertussis), Polio (Infanrix IPV – GlaxoSmithKline or Quadracel – sanofi-aventis)
12-13 years: HPV (Human Papillomavirus) x 2 doses (Gardasil 9 – Merck Sharp & Dohme/Seqirus); multicomponent combined injection for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (Whooping Cough) (Boostrix – GlaxoSmithKline)
14-16 years: Meningococcal ACWY (Nimenrix – Pfizer)
Plus all and sundry are recommended to receive annual flu vaccinations, with flu vaccination for children 6 months to less than 5 years now on the taxpayer-funded schedule, in other words setting them up for a lifetime of flu vaccination…
As well as annual flu vaccination, adults are recommended to receive pneumococcal (65 years and over) and shingles vaccination (70-79 years), plus pertussis containing vaccination for pregnant women and others. And Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and other ‘at risk’ groups are recommended to receive additional vaccines. See the Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule: https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/immunisation/immunisation-throughout-life/national-immunisation-program-schedule%E3%2A
As far as I’m aware, there’s no research into the possibly deleterious consequences of all this vaccination throughout life…
Elizabeth, that list actually made me weep.
No wonder people are getting sick. This is enough to give most people permanent mental distress I would have thought. Despite what the lies of ‘just a scratch” from the misinforming medic, those needles BLOODY HURT!!!!!
Elizabeth, I get choked up just reading that list. I checked to see if I could find my kid’s immunization schedules from when they had them in the mid 70’s, but I likely had to present it to their school in kindergarten and didn’t make a copy. To the best of my recollection, though, they had the MMR and DTP and that’s it. They’ve never had booster shots as I recall (thank goodness) and nothing when they entered school or during any of their school years. That list you show is sickening and I hope you’ll continue to speak out as I will surely do, as well.
elizabethhart: In a world devoid of medical ethics would children be enrolled in a trial for an experimental drug or vaccine. They’ve gone mad. What parent would allow this?
This monster Gates is a raving nutter is one of the things I think.
I shudder to think what BIll Gates’ version of perfect might be!
It would be something like the stereotype pictures of the Rona virus, but instead of the protein spikes (or whatever they are) it would be bristling with hypodermic syringes. All resting on a huge bed of paper money.
Re the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine human trials including children aged between 5-12 years I mentioned in a previous comment.
How can it be ethical to include children in such trials as it appears children are not much troubled by SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19?
How can it be ethical for Bill Gates to apparently endorse that “the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”
Consider for example a Comment published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health which states:
Humanity has repeatedly faced epidemics of known and novel pathogens and the immune system has adapted to survive. Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new zoonotic pathogen, there is no pre-existing immunity and the whole of humanity is susceptible to infection and developing COVID-19 disease.
Adults can be infected with different outcomes, from asymptomatic, mild, moderate to severe disease, and death. Children can also be infected by SARS-CoV-2, but most paediatric cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are mild; severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare.
This Comment also suggests: “… studying the innate immune system of children might be the key to understanding protection against or susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2”.
I claim no expertise in the area of immunology, but the Comment in The Lancet is interesting. What do others think about this?
1. The immune system of children: the key to understanding SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30135-8/fulltext
Re my previous comment, I’m surprised nobody responded to these questions:
How can it be ethical to include children in such trials as it appears children are not much troubled by SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19?
How can it be ethical for Bill Gates to apparently endorse that “the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”
This is especially important to consider if the virus is disappearing, i.e.
Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute at Oxford, told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that his team was in “a race against the virus disappearing.”
Hill, who is a co-leader of the Oxford effort, said, “We’re in the bizarre position of wanting covid to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining.”
See: Coronavirus vaccine developers are chasing outbreaks before they disappear: https://www.newsindiatimes.com/coronavirus-vaccine-developers-are-chasing-outbreaks-before-they-disappear/
elizabethhart: It cannot be ethical to include children in a vaccine trial for a condition which does not affect them. It does not make any sense to include any demographic unaffected by a medical condition in either drug or vaccine trials for that condition. That they are using children in this trial simply exposes the real agenda here, and that is the gargantuan profits from vaccinating everyone. They won’t succeed. Too many people have functioning brains. What is worrisome is the enormous power governments have to coerce compliance with the pharma agenda, and it seems most governments are captured by this industry. Sweden seems to an exception.
In the Oxford coronavirus vaccine, ALL of the monkeys that took part in the trial are found to have contracted the disease; and 90% became infertile. All rhesus monkeys given the vaccine still became infected with Covid-19 and they have been able to spread the virus; as well the infertility. Oxford vaccine has already been steam-rolled into human trials; and 61 out of 64 women became infertile and 90% of the male; their testosterone, sperm count and libido dropped: accounting for infertility. Due to this vaccine it is estimated that in one generation the reproduction rate will drop so much that only 15% of the population remains.
Bill Gates has said publicly several times in interviews or presentations that the world population is too high, and needs to be reduced. In a 2010 TEDx talk he said ”The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”. And in a Ted Talk Houston 2017 he stated “We can wipe out a lot of humanity if we just get vaccines into more people”. At the CNN 4/23/20 he stated “We want to use Covid-19 as an excuse to ger everyone vaccinated” And at Reddit, AMA, April 2020, he stated “We want to get everyone vaccinated and then we’ll have an RFID chip implanted in them so we can track them“. In Aug- 2019 he already had arranged the contract for the track and trace App.
Bill (William) Gates 3rd follows his parental mission. Together with the Rockefeller dynasty; Bill Gates 2nd’ interest was Reproductive control, Planned parenthood, fit for purpose genes, the distribution of scare resources to the righteous (those who can justify their existence). For which they implemented the Eugenic Society, the Lasker foundation, the Population Council. The Eugenic society donated substantial funds to the Nazi for scientific research into, and the implementation of eugenics (e.g. concentration camps which were run by Faber & Faber and other pharmaceutical companies) companies and scientists which after WOII continued as Bayer, Merck and GSK and in DARPA.
‘Control Breeding’, with an interest in ‘trans-humanity’ was set up by Bill Gates (3rd) with his friend Jeffry Epstein; who shared his intent to inseminating women with semen with modified genes, according to CRISP technic as advised by the genetic biologist George Church. Gates wants that human’s primary first contact is with a machine; this aim of ‘trans-humanity’ is furthered by Elon Musk. Bill gates stated his RNA vaccine and RFID chip will end terrorism or every action that man does out of a religious conviction. This vaccine will provide a total control over the human behaviour.
A total violation of the Nuremberg code: to which all countries had signed up.
Bart – source of following info would be nice –
“Oxford vaccine has already been steam-rolled into human trials; and 61 out of 64 women became infertile and 90% of the male; their testosterone, sperm count and libido dropped”
Bart Lakeman, please provide a reference for the data from the Oxford vaccine.
I think I am going to ask if you can provide some evidence to support some of these statements. For instance 61 women became infertile. Infertility means an inability to become pregnant after a defined period of activity trying to become pregnant. Usually a couple of years. Some of the other statements are also somewhat unbelievable.
I am all for debate and discussion. But this seems to be tripping into strange conspiracy land.
I also ask how the infertility was spread?
I know we live in a world of conspiracy theories and fake news, but this is pushing the limits
Dr. Kendrick . . . thank Goodness!!
Methinks that putting the brakes on “conspiracies” a little earlier and a little more forcefully can only be healthful for the genuine intellectual pursuit you try to inspire here.
Agreed, there are too many conspiracy theories. In the UK there is a whole military department (77th Brigade) which has the task from the government to take down any information that doesn’t agree with the “official” narrative. Some of the official lines are “almost everyone dies from covid 19, any underlying conditions are not relevant”, “we care about the elderly” (actually this would be more accurate if it was “we take care of the elderly”), “anyone who suggests vitamin D might help is spreading misinformation” same for hydroxychloroquine. (There are much more effective ways of doing away with people, sorry, taking care of people”.
While the post that sparked this thread was totally evidence free, there are plenty of posts here which governments would have the majority believe are conspiracy theories, but the posts quote the supporting references.
Providing information which questions a claim is one thing, calling someone a conspiracy theorist is purely an attempt to silence them, and is not part of a reasoned discussion.
Hi elizabethhart: hypothetical reasons for newborn covid-19 immunization
This would makes perfect sense to a globalist. The virus pandemic has created the perfect environment to advance a new world order. The key requirement is to globally ID every individual (population control). A mandatory vaccine at birth coupled with a tracking device is feasible. All governments appear to be in favour of the vaccination plan. Bill is working on tracking devices.
The population has to be kept pressurized to accept vaccination as the only solution to a lockdown. Generating appearance of a second wave by more testing and mass media propaganda is easily accomplished if more time is requited.
Andy, re your comment “The key requirement is to globally ID every individual…”
It’s a good discipline to provide references to back up what you’re saying…
In this regard, see for example:
ID2020 and partners launch program to provide digital ID with vaccines: https://www.biometricupdate.com/201909/id2020-and-partners-launch-program-to-provide-digital-id-with-vaccines
The ID2020 Alliance has launched a new digital identity program at its annual summit in New York, in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh, vaccine alliance Gavi, and new partners in government, academia, and humanitarian relief.
The program to leverage immunization as an opportunity to establish digital identity was unveiled by ID2020 in partnership with the Bangladesh Government’s Access to Information (a2i) Program, the Directorate General of Health Services, and Gavi, according to the announcement.
Digital identity is a computerized record of who a person is, stored in a registry. It is used, in this case, to keep track of who has received vaccination.
Interesting info to consider re biometrics etc here: Australia, Canada look to digital identity solutions to get rid of physical ID cards: https://www.biometricupdate.com/201912/australia-canada-look-to-digital-identity-solutions-to-get-rid-of-physical-id-cards
Hi elizabethhart: thanks for the references. From a government’s point of view there are benefits in digitalizing its citizens, the virus and the universal push for a vaccine has given it legs. The next logical step would be to physically tag each citizen as already envisioned by Bill, they could be called smartpeople or ipeople. A placebo covid vaccination at birth to implant an ID tag could be one way to begin the process of global population monitoring. We are entering a dark forest, trees (references) might inform or distract.
I’ve forwarded an email to Professor Andrew Pollard today, querying the ethics of including children in Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine trial, posting here for information:
For the attention of:
Professor Andrew Pollard
Head of the Oxford Vaccine Group
Chair of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
Dear Professor Pollard, is it ethical to include children in SARS-CoV-2/COVID 19 vaccine trials?
The phase II part of the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trial in human volunteers is planned to include children aged between 5-12 years: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-22-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-begin-phase-iiiii-human-trials
It’s been reported that “most paediatric cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are mild; severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare”. (See comment published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health: The immune system of children: the key to understanding SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30135-8/fulltext )
How can it be ethical to include children in SARS-CoV-2/COVID 19 vaccine trials if most SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are mild, and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare?
Professor Pollard, can you please advise what type of ethical committee process was undertaken in regards to Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine trial involving children aged between 5-12 years?
I would appreciate your response on this matter.
Independent citizen investigating conflicts of interest in vaccination policy and the over-use of vaccine products
Thank you Elizabeth. I await the response with interest.
Linda Roy Lapta
16 mins ·
28 May at 18:13
Well! Well! Well! People are Waking up! Italy went against the WHO, saying no autopies on Covid-19, (wonder why?) Italy Did 50 autopsies and here’s something you all need to read, before the nonexpert experts from FB delete it!
Breaking Covid news! Italy has allegedly discovered covid is not a virus, but a bacterium. It clots the blood and reduces the oxygen saturation from dispersing throughout the body. They went against the World Health Organization’s that no bodies be autopsied. When Italian Ministry of Health ordered many autopsies, they found the blood was clotted in all of the patients veins. They immediately started using aspirin 100mg and a coagulant medication. And have had immense success. 14,000 people were released from the hospital as healthy and covid free. Italy is demanding Bill Gates and the World health Organization be held accountable for crimes against humanity for misleading, misdirecting, and withholding life saving information from the world, which cost the lives of thousands. Ventilators and ICU units were not necessary. A mandated vaccine is not necessary. Covid19 is a bacterium, easily
treated with aspirin and coagulant. Spread the word! Make this global. Hopefully our president will learn about this and do something about it! Before we lose all of our constitutional freedoms.
Another article regarding it:
Carlie J Gardipee 2020
Coronavirus / Health
Discovery: Autopsies Prove that COVID-19 is a Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (Pulmonary Thrombosis)
Posted by Chinonyerem Emmanuella
It is now clear that the whole world has been attacking the so-called Coronavirus Pandemic wrongly due to a serious pathophysiological diagnosis error.
According to valuable information from Italian pathologists, ventilators and intensive care units were never needed.
Autopsies performed by the Italian pathologists has shown that it is not pneumonia but it is Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (Thrombosis) which ought to be fought with antibiotics, antivirals, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants.
If this is true for all cases, that means the whole world is about to resolve this novel pandemic earlier than expected.
However, protocols are currently being changed in Italy who have been adversely affected by this pandemic.
The impressive case of a Mexican family in the United States who claimed they were cured with a home remedy was documented: three 500 mg aspirins dissolved in lemon juice boiled with honey, taken hot.
The next day they woke up as if nothing had happened to them! Well, the scientific information that follows proves they are right!
Also Read: Coronavirus: Safety Health Measures Beyond the Surgical Mask and Hand Sanitizers
“THE END OF COVID-19 IS NEAR”- GAIN AFRICA DIRECTOR DECLARES, BACKED W.H.O CHIEFS
This information was released by a medical researcher from Italy:
“Thanks to 50 autopsies performed on patients who died of COVID-19, Italian pathologists have discovered that IT IS NOT PNEUMONIA, strictly speaking, because the virus does not only kill pneumocytes of this type, but uses an inflammatory storm to create an endothelial vascular thrombosis.”
In disseminated intravascular coagulation, the lung is the most affected because it is the most inflamed, but there is also a heart attack, stroke and many other thromboembolic diseases.
In fact, the protocols left antiviral therapies useless and focused on anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting therapies. These therapies should be done immediately, even at home, in which the treatment of patients responds very well.
If the Chinese had denounced it, they would have invested in home therapy, not intensive care! So, the way to fight it is with antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants.
An Italian pathologist reports that the hospital in Bergamo did a total of 50 autopsies and one in Milan, 20, that is, the Italian series is the highest in the world, the Chinese did only 3, which seems to fully confirm the information.
In a nutshell, the disease is determined by a disseminated intravascular coagulation triggered by the virus; therefore, it is not pneumonia but pulmonary thrombosis, a major diagnostic error.
Some world leaders doubled the number of resuscitation places in the ICU, with unnecessary exorbitant costs.
According to the Italian pathologist, treatment in ICUs is useless if thromboembolism is not resolved first. “If we ventilate a lung where blood does not circulate, it is useless, in fact, nine (9) patients out of ten (10) will die because the problem is cardiovascular, not respiratory.”
“It is venous microthrombosis, not pneumonia, that determines mortality.”
According to the literature, inflammation induces thrombosis through a complex but well-known pathophysiological mechanism.
Unfortunately, what the scientific literature said, especially Chinese, until mid-March was that anti-inflammatory drugs should not be used.
Now, the therapy being used in Italy is with anti-inflammatories and antibiotics, as in influenza, and the number of hospitalized patients has been reduced.
He also discovered that many deaths, even in their 40s, had a history of fever for 10 to 15 days, which were not treated properly.
The inflammation does a great deal of tissue damage and creates ground for thrombus formation. However, the main problem is not the virus, but the immune hyperreaction that destroys the cell where the virus is installed.
In fact, patients with rheumatoid arthritis have never needed to be admitted to the ICU because they are on corticosteroid therapy, which is a great anti-inflammatory.
With this important discovery, it is possible to return to normal life and open closed deals due to the quarantine, though not immediately, but with time.
Kindly share so that the health authorities of each country can make their respective analysis of this information, prevent further deaths and redirect investments appropriately; the vaccine may come later….. Confirmation of last week’s post where I was consistently told I was spreading false info. Thanks Marsha Reed
Linda, aside from some glaring problems with this account, one thing jumps straight off the page: if C-19 were a bacteria rather than a virus, why would part of the treatment for it be an antiviral? Sort of reminds me of the people who insist on taking antibiotics whenever they have a viral infection. And sorry, but any ‘miracle cure’ that includes lemon and honey is–as always–too good to be true and just wishful thinking. I do think the aspirin was probably a good idea, though, but that’s just a wild guess. I’ll also agree that using ventilators was likely an unnecessary and possibly fatal error in treatment…Hopefully, we’ll get to the full truth of the matter one day soon.
Surely if it’s a bacterium, it could be identified by microscope and tests wouldn’t be useless?
Sorry, but COVID is not a bacteria, it is a virus. Whilst I have approved this comment, and agree with some of what is written, I find it terribly scatter-gun, and close to incoherent.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. All the reporting of cases and numbers are distorted by the reporting process and lack of autopsy. In engineering and process control, its common for equipment to fail and provide false readings. Unfortunately if you recalibrate during a trial, unless you know how much the failed equipment is out by, then the prior trial data needs to be scrapped otherwise its GIGO.
That makes me wonder about all the previous data that has been collected using sloppy methods. If all cause mortality on previous years is the baseline and it’s sloppy, then your conclusions are affected by comparing current measurements whether good or bad.
I have lot’s of hands on tuning live processes and understand non-linear systems operating in real time. Processes with lots of lag and delay with high gain and induced noise are beyond the average persons ability to figure out by linear reasoning. We have to hit the process with an implulse to generate a transient response that decays to a new steady state. It’s the transients that reveal the nuances of the system, not the steady state response.
This lockdown response by dropping the medical intervention to zero is the same thing as having a large influx from a natural disaster, just one is + and the other is -. It’s funny that the lack of medical intervention during this time frame hasn’t caused a huge wave of illness, cancer deaths, heart attacks etc. It’s now 2+ months since the hospitals have been locked down so some form of steady state may have been achieved by now.
I don’t think that the sky is gonna fall. I think that most of the patients that are under care will carry on if they follow thier treatment plans and can continue to fill prescriptions. Anyway, thats how real processes work. The step change didn’t really affect things so much. It makes you wonder if medicine is really all that effective or ineffective as you know a placebo achieves the same results in >50% of the cases compared to a pharmaceutical.
Kevin: “It’s funny that the lack of medical intervention during this time frame hasn’t caused a huge wave of illness, cancer deaths, heart attacks etc.”
Kevin, how are you so sure that the lack of medical intervention didn’t lead to deaths by heart attack, strokes, injuries, etc. at home? The lockdown and lack of concern for any other illness besides COVID-19 cases may not have led to a “huge wave of illness” as you assert, but how can you be sure that many people didn’t die from heart attacks, strokes or injuries that could have proved treatable had they been taken to hospital in time?. I lost my father to a fatal stroke with most of the damage done at home and on the way to the hospital, and the same with my mother 4 years later when she had a massive heart attack at home and was taken to hospital to try to save her, though much of the damage was already done, apparently . Technically, they both died in the hospital, but If their stroke and heart attacks had happened during this lockdown, they may not have even bothered to take them to hospital to try to revive them at all. Perhaps I’m missing something in what you’re saying, so I’m asking for clarification.
Malcolm, I understand the virus is SARS-CoV-2, and COVID-19 is the disease, although it seems to be getting complicated as to how describe this current novel coronavirus situation…
Jeremy Hammond has provided a thought-provoking article, see: Facebook “Fact Check” Lies about COVID-19 Fatality Rate: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/06/02/facebook-fact-check-lies-about-covid-19-fatality-rate/
His article bravely grapples with tricky statistics, and includes discussion on:
– The Crux of the Deception
– Falsely Characterizing Case and Death Numbers as “Confirmed”
– Confusing the Name of the Virus with the Name of the Disease
– Conflating Different Types of Mortality Estimates
– Lying about the Potential Number of COVID-19 Deaths
– How Lead Stories’ Primary Source Gets It Wrong, Too
– Is SARS-CoV-2 Ten Times Deadlier than Influenza?
– Are Extreme Lockdown Measures Doing More Harm Than Good?
How to avoid being a statistic https://youtu.be/AgifktrlMEQ
What’s the state of play in the UK? Confused? You will see why…….https://youtu.be/lIZEXeQ01uY
Regarding: “If COVID killed 30,000, and lockdown killed the other 30,000, then the lockdown was a complete and utter waste of time. and should never happen again.”
Logically, that does not follow at all. To say whether lockdown was a waste of time, and whether it should happen again, you have to know what would have happened without lockdown. Which of course gets to the contentious topic of models, which I don’t want to re-open. But the point is you cannot just assume that the no-lockdown case is benign.
Also, the choice is not just a binary choice between “lockdown” or “no lockdown”. There are numerous details of lockdown which could be varied in numerous ways. Eg, you could have a version of lockdown where infectious people were not sent back to nursing homes which were poorly prepared to quarantine them… (etc)
Here are precise numbers from JAMA. How many dead of, from, and because of:
Accurate? . . . um . . .