How long can this website carry on with misinformation?

Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: How long can this website carry on with misinformation?

Post by miahoneybee »

Dobedobedo and speedstick.. I take my hat off to amuses me why some people on here even bother being on a LOCKDOWN SCEPTICS site when clearly they are no more a lockdown sceptic than wanksock and co or what they aim to achieve. I can only guess at government stooges as I have seen no arguments that suggests they are lockdown sceptics or the point of any posts other than to state black is white..
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:52 am

Re: How long can this website carry on with misinformation?

Post by GT380man »

Hello, I agree I WAS wrong that herd immunity had been achieved in a widespread manner by the early summer, and have often said so.
I do maintain that the PANdemic was over by then. Analysis by Joel Smalley & others showed clearly that the autumn / early winter resurgence took place regionally, were not synchronised & were each self limiting. These were local epidemics which never qualified as a public health crisis.
My major error in my piece here “What SAGE got wrong” was to have over estimated the % of the population who’d by then been infected, because I wrongly used a global IFR value, when I should have used a higher figure. The effect is this was to reduce the susceptible population to approximately 50% not 70%. Not national herd immunity.
I’d always predicted a winter resurgence & my error led to this being around 50% of the spring value. I’d expected it to be smaller.
But my thesis remained intact, that a resurgence would be far, far smaller than first exposure of an immunologically naive population. I further predicted that because the resurgence as would occur mostly in regions with lower population fatality ratios, the mean of the daily deaths v time plot would be much flatter than in spring, as actually happened. Note that London, hardest hit in spring, had no excess deaths until the January event, despite attributing thousands of deaths to the virus. This accounting oddity led to there being apparently fewer & fewer all other causes of deaths. That’s absurd given the restricted access to the NHS for six months. I think that’s strong evidence for widespread misattribution arising from flawed testing & diagnosis.
SAGE was arguing that nothing had changed and that was categorically incorrect. I don’t see them acknowledging their errors & offering corrections. Their models still don’t account for any possibility of prior immunity nor immunity gained from infection. Then they also fail to account for seasonality. Their models are so flawed that they’re worse than useless, but dangerous.
As to what happened in January, I’m keeping an open mind. What is extremely unlikely is that a second peak of excess winter deaths arose from the same pathogen closely adjacent in time to an earlier peak, which would be unprecedented & immunologically implausible.
Where are we now? Well, at last, multiple sources do acknowledge that 30% of the population have been infected. Even using a conservative value for IFR & Covid deaths gets you there. The US CDC have said similar (25%). The evidence for a substantial minority of the population having prior immunity/ cross protection from previous infection by antigenically related viruses has only become stronger as more literature is published. I saw an estimate of 40% only last week & this should not be seen as surprising.
I believe the combination of prior immunity, recently acquired immunity from infection plus vaccination means it’s literally impossible for there to be even a true national epidemic. I do expect local outbreaks but again, these don’t constitute a public health emergency.
But I’m long passed being bothered by what people think about what I offer as a reasoned argument. Science doesn’t care what any of us think.
I’d ask those who still believe that “the prevalence of the virus is still very, very high” as stated by politicians recently to examine the results of mass screening of the population using lateral flow tests. In recent weeks, the rate of positive results has trended down to 0.3%. This is the operational false positive rate. In hundreds of thousands of tests per day using LFTs, we’re finding no clinical infections at all. I think Covid19 has become a disease almost wholly confined to institutions (hospitals & care homes) and that coupled with the levels of immunity above, it’s been safe to lift all restrictions now. I think it was safe to have done so last May. It’s certainly true now.
MichaelH wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:35 pm I've rather admired your pluck, Charles, in posting stuff here and have been disappointed though not altogether surprised at the abusiveness of some of the responses. I don't agree with most of what you say but to me it's healthy that this forum is open to people who want to debate alternative viewpoints in such a complex and challenging area. It's a bit rich for us sceptics to complain about the lack of diversity in MSM if we can't tolerate a bit of diversity here. What are we afraid of?

I think Charles is basically missing the main thrust of the anti-lockdown case. It's not that lockdowns have NO effect on the spread of the virus but that that effect is of dubious longterm value and that the enormous collateral damage caused by lockdowns are so horrific that the cure is definitely worse than the disease.

Similarly with fon and other's comments in favour of vaccines. I'm not antivax but (beginning to sound a bit like I'm not a racist but...!) but it seems to me that THESE vaccines are being over-hyped as a solution. But we can surely debate this without being nasty.

It seems to me that one reason that we sceptics (or as I prefer anti-lockdowners) fail to gain support is that we have tended to stick dogmatically to our views in ways that are actually very off-putting to the genuinely open minded. The issue of false positives is a case in point. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to understand that a 1% false rate is a big problem when you have very low prevalence but pales into insignificance when a large percentage of people being tested actually ARE positive. Yet I still hear people routinely dismissing any case figures as "just false positives". Or repeating the mantra that this is just a casedemic. That may have been the case a few months ago but if you don't think many people really have Covid now you need to get out a bit more or talk to somebody actually working in the NHS (yeah, I know it's dysfunctional system).

I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me likely that we all too readily swallowed the line from Yeadon, Cummins, Levitt et al that the epidemic was over in the summer. Events now would suggest they were flat out wrong. So it does us no credit to hang on to what is now a very fringe view when the facts as far as we can ascertain still don't justify a lockdown.

Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:01 am

Re: How long can this website carry on with misinformation?

Post by jmc »

Speedstick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:36 pm Your latest post was actually very good and valid Fon however have you never heard of the Peterloo Massacre, Sunday Bloody Sunday, or the disgusting cover up following the Aberfan disaster. You talk as if government's always act with integrity and in the best interests of the populace. I am afraid sadly they do not! Whether you call that is a conspiracy, a cover up, dishonesty or just disingenuous is l would accept is subjective depending on your viewpoint. Forty percent of children in Leicester already live in poverty my primary concern is l would like to fight to stop this figure getting any worse than it is already, l feel the consequences of lockdown will sadly skyrocket that figure!!
We owe it to our children to fight for their future, l hope that you agree with me Fon.
Funny you should mention Aberfan. Because it is very apposite to the subject at hand.

All the details of the criminal negligence and then cover-up by the National Coal Board and the Labour Government was very well known at the time. I remember an exceptionally powerful World In Action documentary from Granada TV on the subject around 1968/1969. And the Sunday Times Insight Team had printed a whole bunch of damning articles on the subject. As had the Observer. Yet not one single NCB official, government ministry official or anyone else responsible for the death of those one hundred plus children due to gross negligence was ever charged, ever went to prison, or even lost their job. Not one.

Why? Politics. Nothing else.

If a private company had been responsible for those deaths you could be 100% certain that the senior management would have been charged with criminal offenses. And gone to jail. But the nationalized industries were untouchable. No mater how criminally incompetent. And with a Labour government in power there was no way any of their political sacred cows would be allowed to be dragged through the courts for all the deaths they had caused through gross mismanagement and criminal incompetence. Which is all it was. Absolutely no malice aforethought involved.

Sound familiar?

Post Reply