Corona Virus

Dont we all live in caves?

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

 

Not in France. That would be a caverne or grotte. A cave is a cellar, basement type structure where you might store wine or cheese.....

 

Cake?

 

Yeah, it’s like the BAME thing, the BAME community appears to be more susceptible to Covid, so they are unfairly raising the death rates... so if we discount their deaths, the Covid rate really comes down!

 

Feckin too right, the old fuckers are near enough to the door, why vaccinate them? We could speed up the inoculation for more important people like me...........

 

Vitamin D. Plenty of evidence dark skins don’t help in Northern latitudes and plenty of us seriously Vit D deficient.

Seriously, Google it. Along with Vit C, Zinc etc. none of which Big Pharma can profit from, are THE most recommended treatments to minimise Covid infection impact and most deficient in worst affected ITU patients. I had cod liver oil as a kid. Vet father knew it fought off respiratory infections.

 

One article on the News today and one analyses of infection.

https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55550906

The number of new daily confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK has topped 60,000 for the first time since the pandemic started.

According to government figures on Tuesday, the number of people who have tested positive was 60,916.

As many as 54824 of these may be false positives

A further 830 people have died within 28 days of a positive test, up from 407 on Monday. By there own definition only 0.05% of these will have died of covid.Cause all we have here is people who have died, so if you have a car crash after a positive test that you showed no symptoms of requiring care for, then you sir are a covid death.
So have Covid somewhere on their death cert. ( Not tested at the time of death, and may be a false positive anyway. 90% of 830 = 747 may not have truly had the virus, at the time of death, may have been a false positive, even if tested

It comes as England and Scotland announced new lockdowns, with people told to stay at home.

At a press conference at Downing Street on Tuesday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said 1.3 million people had now been vaccinated in the UK.

He said 23% of people aged over 80 - some 650,000 people - in England had now had the vaccine.

Mr Johnson was joined by the government's chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty and chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.

Mr Whitty said data showed an estimated one in 50 people in private households in England had Covid-19 between 27 December and 2 January - "really quite a large number indeed".
What data? Where, show us the data. again 90% of one in fifty,so 1million 200,000 may ( its his guess , again no figures) have the virus. Carrying not symptomatic, not tested, not tested by reliable test, so we have to take 90% off that figure to then. That leaves 120000 that it is safe to say, had the virus that 2% of the population positive for flu ( Covid has been called flu for 20 years, Why stop now)

5 % of people with Covid will die so
Quoted from lock down sceptics
( Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I’ve spoken to, the word ‘case’ has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don’t doubt there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I’m confident it is not important.)

As he only says majority lets say 51%. So 49% of 5% of 120000 =2940

The number of new daily cases has consistently been above 50,000 since 29 December.
90% 0f 50,000 are false positives using this test so that leaves, 5000 new cases of which the majority show no signs of having the virus.So 2499 have signs. We have been told 0.05% will die so in fact 1 person
Back in the first peak of the pandemic in the spring, the number of daily confirmed cases never went over 7,000. Because the test used was completely different.

However, it is thought the true number of cases then was much higher but not picked up because testing capacity was limited. It was estimated that there were about 100,000 new infections a day at the end of March - but there was not the testing to detect it.
The more infections the more resistance, because, thats what vaccines are. And at the rate of 100,000 per day since last March ( say) thats 30 million already had it.Add to that the 1.3 million already
vaccinated.


https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/
Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it’s unclear to me if it does.

Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.

There were 616,014 deaths registered in the UK in 2018, an increase of 1.5% from 607,172 in 2017. There were 3,248 deaths registered to children aged under five years in the UK in 2018; the corresponding mortality rate was 4.4 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is the lowest rate on record.22 Nov 2019
1687 deaths per day, in a normal year
Vital statistics in the UK: births, deaths and marriages - Office ...


Disclaimer I am an ejit.

 

I ordered some last week.

 

I think what your saying is Its good when people live and bad when they die, if so I agree.

 

We're walking a fair bit at the moment so hopefully the watery sun will bung us a bit of Vitamin D. Got some tabs too

 

Naturally, as a fully paid up Covid denier, I have been taking it since September.

 

I find graphs showing excess mortality rates across age groups and national borders interesting. Well, during this pandemic, anyway. By studying excess mortality rates it doesn’t matter how the various doctors/hospitals/countys/nations count their Covid victims, the focus is on the big picture. At euromomo.eu you can generate your own graphs dependent on which countries/age groups/period you want to have a look at.

I just made a quick selection. Almost all nations will normally have a death spike during winter, flu season may be a probable cause. For 2020, the obvious eyecatcher is April. And there’s the increase in autumn.

The strategies have differed from nation to nation. At this stage I think it may be wise to not draw too definite conclusions on who’s done right and who has not when comparing, as the circumstances have been different too. Personally I believe that the whole thing has been a useful*) stresstest for our societies while we are waiting for the really lethal pandemic to strike.

*) For lack of better words, I am aware that the costs have been high.

 

Why does momo only go back 5 years?

 

Im just a young thing.

 

Ken.

 

Similar story here (not the vet bit) - been on vit d since August/September- the mrs takes it anyway for her MS

 

Been taking Vit D since 2015 and I can vouch for it's effectiveness. After having sinusitis several times over two winters plus tonsilitus three times over the same period then Henoch schonlein purpura, my GP suggested I take Vit D tablets to boost my immune system. I've had none of the aforementioned illnesses since.

 

"Seriously, Google it." The word oxymoron came immediately to mind when I read that.

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments about vitamin and mineral "treatments" or even "Big Pharma", Callumity, but to me "Seriously" and "Google it" don't belong in the same sentence fragment. Yeah, it's possible to find peer-reviewed published research on The Google available as full-text documents. But you still have to hunt. AND know what you're looking for. And what's available without having science journal subscription services is limited as well. But even if that weren't the case, the vast majority of people simply haven't had the training to be critical consumers of research. Part of the problem these days--far too many people think if they read on on the internet it must be true.

 

Hi Sandi, the Lancet had an article which was recommending large group trials of vit d back in August, but go on to say that due to the known benefits of vit d against respiratory issues vs potential harm of taking vit d ... they would recommend people take it anyway (paraphrasing a bit)

Pending results of such trials, it would seem uncontroversial to enthusiastically promote efforts to achieve reference nutrient intakes of vitamin D, which range from 400 IU/day in the UK to 600–800 IU/day in the USA. These are predicated on benefits of vitamin D for bone and muscle health, but there is a chance that their implementation might also reduce the impact of COVID-19 in populations where vitamin D deficiency is prevalent; there is nothing to lose from their implementation, and potentially much to gain.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(20)30268-0/fulltext

 

Thanks for this link, DCS. I know the Lancet and it definitely fits into the peer-review publications that I mentioned in my post. I actually started taking Vitamin D at the direction of my orthopedic surgeon and have continued taking it based on recommendations like those of the Lancet.

Apart from the comments on Vitamin C, D, zinc etc., I was actually making a broader point in my previous post about the myriad information available on The Google, some of which is factual and reputable and science-based and some of which is not. The key is knowing the difference. I know that there are many members on here who are very discerning consumers of research and information (and that definitely includes you, DCS). But unfortunately I don't know that I can say the same for the majority of the general public.