Coronavirus
- This topic has 1,592 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
From the BBC so it must be true.
as it is the only thing the sheople believe
First time a tragedy ….
thing is were was Niel Fergusson then and where is Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, now ~???
‘Mild flu’
But even as the pandemic plans were put into action, doubts had begun to surface. Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German doctor and former member of parliament, had been watching the spread of swine flu in Mexico City, and was puzzled at the reaction of the WHO.
“What we experienced in Mexico City was a very mild flu,” he explained, “which did not kill more than usual – which killed even less people than usual.
“This was suddenly, a fast-spreading mild flu, a pandemic. But this is not the definition of a pandemic I learned, which has to be severe, with a much higher than usual death rate.”
Others also had questions. Tom Jefferson, a researcher for the international Cochrane Centre, the world’s leading independent assessor of medical interventions and medical research, claims that the WHO changed the definition of what a pandemic actually was just weeks before it declared one on 11 June last year.
“On 1 May the WHO’s global pandemic website had the old definition of an influenza pandemic, which included very large numbers of cases, complications and deaths,” he said.
“By 4 May that definition had disappeared and what remained was simply a new virus which spreads rapidly and infects very many people.”
Dr Jefferson also believes that the WHO advice put emphasis on the use of vaccines and antivirals, ahead of effective and inexpensive measures like hand-washing.
‘Potential pressure’
The WHO has struggled to offer clear answers on the question of its definition of a pandemic, partly because of its policy of keeping the identity and the deliberations of its pandemic emergency advisory committee secret.
The only known member of the committee is its chairman, Australian flu specialist John MacKenzie.
Really the only people to benefit were the pharmaceutical companiesPaul Flynn, British MP
WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said names of those on the sitting committee had not been made public because of the potential “for bringing undue pressure on them when they are making decisions which have societal and economic impacts”.
The lack of transparency in its decision making process, together with the WHO’s advice to countries to begin widespread vaccination against swine flu, has led some observers to suspect undue influence from the pharmaceutical industry.
Looking at the balance sheets of the pharmaceutical companies it is clear that many did make a healthy profit out of swine flu. Vaccine producer Novartis, for example, posted an 8% jump in profit in 2009.
The company’s annual report cites swine flu vaccine sales as a major reason for the increase – though such a profit is, of course, not proof of any undue influence by the firm.
European enquiry
These medical products have cost national health budgets billions. France, for example, spent over 600m euros ($739m, £515m) on 94 million doses of vaccine, most of which have not been used.
“Who benefited from what happened?” asked British Labour Member of Parliament Paul Flynn. “Really the only people to benefit were the pharmaceutical companies. I’m not saying I’m drawing any firm conclusions, but there are legitimate questions here.”
We received phone calls from government ministers telling us to ship them more vaccine, and quickerAndrin Oswald, Novartis
Mr Flynn and a number of other European politicians have launched an official inquiry into the pandemic at the Council of Europe. A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4bn in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee, who then put pressure on the WHO to declare a pandemic.
But Andrin Oswald, head of vaccine production at Novartis, says he does not think the company’s influence is “too great”.
He says company officials interact in a “natural process” with the WHO, which supplies the firm with the virus for the vaccine.
“I don’t think that is influencing, that is working together to ensure that we do something that is reasonable for public health.”
He adds that any pressure over swine flu came from governments desperate to buy the vaccine, rather than from producers keen to sell it.
“We received phone calls from government ministers,” he recalled, “telling us to ship them more vaccine, and quicker. Some even threatened us that if we did not do so it might affect our future business in that particular country.”
Pandemic planning
Governments, of course, were under pressure to buy the vaccine because the WHO had declared swine flu to be a full “Phase 6” pandemic.
Here again, the WHO’s decision is questioned, from a somewhat surprising source – Dr Klaus Stoehr, who until three years ago was in charge of the WHO’s pandemic preparedness, and the man who drew up the influenza plans.
firms’ profits
“The pandemic planning I was involved with was always based on a severe public health event,” he explained. “Moving to Phase 6 meant that we wanted governments… to kick in their plans whether they thought it was urgent or not.”
“I personally think that moving to Phase 6 that early was, in hindsight, not needed.”
Dr Stoehr believes that, over the course of last summer, after a Phase 6 pandemic was declared, the WHO failed to read the signs about swine flu coming from the southern hemisphere winter.
“In July and August the Australia and New Zealand national influenza centres were indicating the southern hemisphere outbreak was mild,” he said.
“Virologists, myself included, thought well, it’s not so likely that this virus will become more severe.”
“At the end of August the WHO website was still calling the virus severe. I personally would have thought there could have been more assessments, and more advice to governments.”
The WHO has now launched its own review of its handling of the pandemic, a review the organisation claims is independent.
“The World Health Organization has done wonderful work over the years in eliminating diseases,” insisted British MP Paul Flynn. “It’s a body we all greatly respect, and we need it.”
“The great danger now is that the trust in the organisation has been undermined, and that will help no-one.”
Public views of the uk media and government reaction to the 2009 swine flu
Research article
Open Access
15 november 2010
Public views of the uk media and government reaction to the 2009 swine flu pandemic
BMC Public Health
volume 10, Article number: 697 (2010)
Aims and scope
BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
In the summer of 2009 UK newsprint coverage was at its height, coinciding with the first wave in swine flu cases. (Hilton, in submission) But by autumn 2009, despite a second surge in cases, swine flu was no longer a top news story. In October the swine flu vaccination programme commenced in the UK, first targeting those deemed to be at greatest risk, with the plan of rolling out the programme to the remaining population in the coming months. As the winter progressed it became evident that the virus was not as virulent as first predicted and the stockpile of vaccines would not be necessary, leading to some accusations of “over-hyping the pandemic” 7 8 By the spring of 2010 mortality data demonstrated that swine flu had been less lethal than first feared and case fatality rates compared favourably with previous influenza pandemics, accounting for less than 500 deaths in the UK and 18,000 worldwide 11 On the 10th of August 2010, 14 months after WHO declared the pandemic, the Director-General of WHO announced the pandemic officially over.
Suicides 2019
New data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows the number of people taking their own lives in Britain jumped to a record high in 4Q19, ….
ONS recorded 1,413 suicides for 4Q19, compared with just 1,130 over the same period in 2017, resulting in a massive 25% increase.
The rise in suicides come months before the country was thrown into a pandemic
The Institute for Employment Studies estimates that 1.5 to 2 million people have just lost their jobs across the country in recent weeks due to virus-related shutdowns. An economic depression is unfolding across the country:
That is an extra 1200 per year without lockdown!
ONS;
….We saw a significant increase in the rate of deaths registered as suicide last year which has changed a trend of continuous decline since 2013. While the exact reasons for this are unknown, the latest data show that this was largely driven by an increase among men who have continued to be most at risk of dying by suicide. In recent years, there have also been increases in the rate among young adults, with females under 25 reaching the highest rate on record for their age group…..
ONS recorded 1,413 suicides for 4Q19, compared with just 1,130 over the same period in 2017, resulting in a massive 25% increase.
But in real terms it’s a rise of only 283 individuals, as the size of the number of people who commit suicide is a relatively small number in terms of the overall population.
That is an extra 1200 per year without lockdown!
That is only a rise of that size if the trend from quarter 4 continues into the following 3 quarters of the year, you have no evidence to support this other than speculation on the results of the lockdown. It may well be that without the pressure of having to drag their bones out of bed every moring and go to work, some people are much happier having the chance to have a lie in, get some well deserved rest and enjoy a few box sets. Incidentally and in contrast, reports are that there has been a 82% drop in road deaths during the lock down and a 20% fall in violent crime
From your earlier post you quoted a epidemiologist saying about swine flu:
“But this is not the definition of a pandemic I learned, which has to be severe, with a much higher than usual death rate.”
The 2009 swine flu pandemic had a reported Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of 0.03% (from the same BBC article), with an estimate of between 700 million and 1.4 billion infections, this resulted in a total death toll of between 150,000 and 570,000
The current estimate is that there have been at least 1.87 million cases of Covid 19, and I accept that this is probably a big underestimate due to asymptomatic cases. So far there have been reported deaths of 108,000 people from Covid 19. An estimate (again probably an overestimate) of the CFR from the Chinese outbreak is 3%, the CFR from South Korea is 1.95%.
Your main argument seems to be that there is very little difference between the Covid 19 outbreak and the swine flu outbreak, the statistics show otherwise. This outbreak is “severe with a much higher that usual death rate”, it is by definition a pandemic. This outbreak has been linked to nearly as many deaths as the lower estimate for swine flu and this has been produced by an estimated 1.97 million cases. It took at least 700 million cases of swine flu to produce that level of morbidity. Even with the wildest allowances for poor statistics, the comparison is facile.
You made earlier attempts to compare this with seasonal flu which kills approximately 500,000 world wide annually. Coronavirus, as stated earlier, is estimated to have killed 108,000 people so far and has a doubling rate of between 7 and 8 days (Also consider that this is the rate of death and doubling that follows practically world wide distancing and lock down measures, which are not in place during the annual flu season). Therefore, at the current rate, and there is no reason to believe it will slow down, by 20th April the death toll will be 216,000, by the 28th April it will be 432,000 and by the 6th May it will be approaching 1,000,000. So in just over 5 months it will have doubled the annual death toll for seasonal flu and whilst it will not continue to rise at either an exponential or a geometric rate, it will continue to rise at more than an arithmetic rate. Once the outbreak moves into the slums and shanty towns of South America, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, the rate will increase again.
The idea that this is some kind of overreation is countered not only by the statistics but by the facts. Doctors and nurses who were not likely to die because of pre existing conditions are dying in numbers never seen during seasonal flu outbreaks and not seen during the swine flu epidemic. They are burying people in Central Park, ffs.
Research article
Open Access
Public views of the uk media and government reaction to the 2009 swine flu pandemic
BMC Public Health volume 10, Article number: 697 (2010)
Aims and scope
BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
In the summer of 2009 UK newsprint coverage was at its height, coinciding with the first wave in swine flu cases. (Hilton, in submission) But by autumn 2009, despite a second surge in cases, swine flu was no longer a top news story. In October the swine flu vaccination programme commenced in the UK, first targeting those deemed to be at greatest risk, with the plan of rolling out the programme to the remaining population in the coming months. As the winter progressed it became evident that the virus was not as virulent as first predicted and the stockpile of vaccines would not be necessary, leading to some accusations of “over-hyping the pandemic” [7, 8]. By the spring of 2010 mortality data demonstrated that swine flu had been less lethal than first feared and case fatality rates compared favourably with previous influenza pandemics, [9] accounting for less than 500 deaths in the UK [10] and 18,000 worldwide [11]. On the 10<sup>th</sup> of August 2010, 14 months after WHO declared the pandemic, the Director-General of WHO announced the pandemic officially over.
From BBC News
“The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a plea to crematoriums and local authorities to ensure they treat those who die during the coronavirus lockdown with dignity.”
Humans should have dignity when they die, the follower of the Nazareen Carpenter isn’t too bothered about them having dignity when they are alive.
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor” (Matthew 19:21),
Church of England net worth – £7.8 billion, £5.2 billion in investments.
Hypocritical old fucker
Dave.
I asked you to write to alert me when your posts don’t appear as they are full of links instead of duplicating them.
That is why the one above is out of synch.
I can’t be in here in the Forum all the time.
Maybe that’s what all this phoney shit is leading to.
What’s phoney about it? Do you think all the people in the hospitals, morgues and mass graves are “crisis actors”?
The archbishop of Canterbury has said inequalities must be addressed or even eliminated once the current “pestilence” is over.
Speaking on Easter Sunday on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, Justin Welby said there was a “huge, huge danger” of the coronavirus pandemic exacerbating inequality, but “that is our choice as a nation and as a world”.He added: “The next wave coming is the economic one … We have a choice there as a nation and as a society and as a world. Do we take hold of our destiny and make sure the differences are mitigated, abolished where possible – or do we just let things happen, do we let the market rule, in which case there will be enormous suffering.”
“We will then be a better and a happier and a more wonderful country and a better world.” The crisis had shown that “we depend on each other at the most fundamental level. Therefore we have to re-look at how we value each other. That includes how we value each other in financial terms, who bears the burdens of our society… If we don’t re-look at that, there is no justice in our society.”
Meanwhile, the pope called for global solidarity in fighting the coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout, urging the relaxation of international sanctions, debt relief for poor nations and ceasefires in all conflicts.
“This is not a time for indifference, because the whole world is suffering and needs to be united in facing the pandemic,” he said. “Indifference, self-centredness, division and forgetfulness are not words we want to hear at this time. We want to ban these words for ever!”BD, I think the real hypocrisy is that as believers in some sort of omnipotent entity, neither church leader is appealing for any divine intervention but instead hoping for the application of human solutions.
It seems God has been one of the early victims of coronavirus
The first cracks begin to appear in the proponents for capitalism
“I’m a big believer in capitalism – but some markets simply don’t function properly in a pandemic, and the market for lifesaving supplies is an obvious example”- Bill Gates
Alan, as Robert Tressell put it:
“mingling with part of the crowd were a number of well dressed individuals dressed in long garments of black cloth of the finest texture , and broad brimmed soft felt hats. Most of these persons had gold rings on their soft white fingers and glove like calf-skin boots on their feet. They belonged to the great army of imposters who obtain an easy living by taking advantage of the ignorance and simplicity of their fellow men, and pretending to be the “followers” and “servants” of the lowely Carpenter of Nazareth – the Man of Sorrows, who had nowhere to lay his head”
The Amish go out of their way to help others during catastrophes. They travel by train to far-off locations to help physically after earthquakes, etc.
“I’m a big believer in capitalism – but some markets simply don’t function properly in a pandemic, and the market for lifesaving supplies is an obvious example”- Bill Gates
So medicine, clothing, food, water and shelter are not lifesaving supplies unless there’s a pandemic?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.