planetf1.com

Continued from a thread in the F1 & Motorsport forum about the cancellation of the Australian GP. I don't want to get into a political argument about this, but it is an interesting discussion and being in Australia, I think we are experiencing a different kind of response to COVID that is interesting and has consequences for future international events that Australia hosts.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 6:58 am

oz_karter wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 6:26 am

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 07, 2021 6:41 am

Sure... I'm confused that you think I've said anything different. I'm not judging the policy.

It is true that even vaccines aside Australia is dealing with the situation a different way to most. A number of countries hosted GPs without a single person vaccinated for example. It's the ultra cautious stance Australia is taking (a stance I am not passing judgement on) that makes a GP unlikely in the near future regardless of vaccines.

It was more the comments in your following post that lead me to think there was some judgement, but I could have read too much into that.

The points you make here are reasonable. Australia (along with NZ) absolutely have dealt with COVID differently to most countries and the strict policies on arriving travellers will make international events like the F1 GP very difficult to achieve until there is a significant change. There is chat about that happening, but until the vaccines are in people's arms it is unlikely to happen.

I'm quite interested in what happens over the next few years over there. Do you think that the response to Covid has caused a bit of a mind shift in the populous? The attempt at basically zero Covid has kept deaths so low I wonder what would happen if say winter 2022 there is a bad season for flu. Now people are used to the risk aversion will that apply to other transmissible diseases?

I'm not critical of the policy at all. Anything that reduces death so effectively certainly has a lot of merit.

It's that that I think may prevent us from having a GP in Australia for sometime. Once you've done these things when the numbers of Covid are very low it's hard to then justify not being so careful if you come to a time when far more people are dying of flu. Again, not a criticism, just speculation on the future of the Aus GP.

As for the potential bad season of flu, it's been very interesting how the social distancing and other restrictions have affected that. The flu is basically non-existent compared to previous years. I don't think I've gone so long without a cold or flu (over 12 months now).

The flu was never really considered as a big issue before. I think the main change might be that employers will be more inclined to let people work from home if they are sick. They will have seen the effects on productivity over the past couple of years and keeping those illnesses out of offices may be a higher priority.

I do think the flu and COVID are thought of differently because COVID has a much higher death rate in people who contract it (certainly in Australia, where the flu does not kill many).

There have also been vaccines for the flu available for many years and while they have had varying effectiveness, it is seen as a bit of a personal responsibility if you chose not to get a flu shot and later caught the flu.

Australia has done really badly at procuring vaccines (put all our eggs in AstraZeneca production on-shore and dropped the ball on ordering Pfizer and Moderna vaccines early enough). So having such a low rate of vaccination means we are still in a place where perceived risks (incoming travellers) are going to be treated strictly.

Would the flu ever affect a future Australian GP? No, I don't think so.

Well, Australia may be a bit different than other countries. Isn't it possibly down to the fact that the country has a much warmer climate and generally viruses do not do well in hotter weather? The same reason that they allowed people to go on hols in the summer, as they expected the virus rates to go down?

I'm in no way an expert on this by the way!

I said at the start of the outbreak that along with NZ, Australia was possibly one of the best places on the planet to ride this bug out for a few reasons.

• Warm climate

• Non Contiguous

• Easily controlled borders

• 1st world country

• Great medical system

• Small population spread over a large area

• Relatively healthy population

Thankfully this appeared to be the case with an infection rate of only 0.12% (31,000 cases from a population of 25,000,000) & a mortality rate of those infected of 3% (910 deaths from 31,000 cases) . Interestingly, of those 910 people, the average age of those who died with Covid in Australia is 86 yrs old when the average life expectancy age is a tad under 83 yrs of age.

Our federal government early on did their job well by being one of the first countries to close our borders to international travel & establishing a national cabinet consisting of the Federal & all state governments to present a united & consistent approach to tackling this virus (Australia is very much like the U.S in how our Federal & State governments govern).

Part 1 of the game plan went well. Contain until a vaccine's available. We had our moments, & for some reason Victoria has had more than double of the infections than every other state combined, but overall we all did ok.

Now part 2 of the game plan, getting people vaccinated, hasn't gone as well. Yes the government made a tactical error in throwing all their eggs in the Astra Zeneca basket but everyone's a genius after the fact & yes, vaccine rates are low. Now there are a few reasons I could give as to why this is the case as a based on conversations i've had with other Australians, but as it appears judging by the above post that we've commenced our slide down the slippery slope of censorship, i'll simply say supply issues don't seem to be the only concern Australians have in this regard.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:37 am

Well, Australia may be a bit different than other countries. Isn't it possibly down to the fact that the country has a much warmer climate and generally viruses do not do well in hotter weather? The same reason that they allowed people to go on hols in the summer, as they expected the virus rates to go down?

I'm in no way an expert on this by the way!

Australia is a big country and still has a cold winter in most parts. Colder weather allows viruses to transmit easier because generally people are indoors more during colder weather. Influenza still occurs mostly in winter in Australia, so I’m not sure the climate has that much to do with it. We’ve had some outbreaks but eventually lockdowns and other restrictions have contained these. I think the low rates of infection are mostly down to the zealous actions taken by state governments (lockdowns with only a few cases, or in some instances no cases - just potential, internal border closures, etc).

oz_karter wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:44 am

Continued from a thread in the F1 & Motorsport forum about the cancellation of the Australian GP. I don't want to get into a political argument about this, but it is an interesting discussion and being in Australia, I think we are experiencing a different kind of response to COVID that is interesting and has consequences for future international events that Australia hosts.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 6:58 am

oz_karter wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 08, 2021 6:26 am

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 07, 2021 6:41 am

Sure... I'm confused that you think I've said anything different. I'm not judging the policy.

It is true that even vaccines aside Australia is dealing with the situation a different way to most. A number of countries hosted GPs without a single person vaccinated for example. It's the ultra cautious stance Australia is taking (a stance I am not passing judgement on) that makes a GP unlikely in the near future regardless of vaccines.

It was more the comments in your following post that lead me to think there was some judgement, but I could have read too much into that.

The points you make here are reasonable. Australia (along with NZ) absolutely have dealt with COVID differently to most countries and the strict policies on arriving travellers will make international events like the F1 GP very difficult to achieve until there is a significant change. There is chat about that happening, but until the vaccines are in people's arms it is unlikely to happen.

I'm quite interested in what happens over the next few years over there. Do you think that the response to Covid has caused a bit of a mind shift in the populous? The attempt at basically zero Covid has kept deaths so low I wonder what would happen if say winter 2022 there is a bad season for flu. Now people are used to the risk aversion will that apply to other transmissible diseases?

I'm not critical of the policy at all. Anything that reduces death so effectively certainly has a lot of merit.

It's that that I think may prevent us from having a GP in Australia for sometime. Once you've done these things when the numbers of Covid are very low it's hard to then justify not being so careful if you come to a time when far more people are dying of flu. Again, not a criticism, just speculation on the future of the Aus GP.

As for the potential bad season of flu, it's been very interesting how the social distancing and other restrictions have affected that. The flu is basically non-existent compared to previous years. I don't think I've gone so long without a cold or flu (over 12 months now).

The flu was never really considered as a big issue before. I think the main change might be that employers will be more inclined to let people work from home if they are sick. They will have seen the effects on productivity over the past couple of years and keeping those illnesses out of offices may be a higher priority.

I do think the flu and COVID are thought of differently because COVID has a much higher death rate in people who contract it (certainly in Australia, where the flu does not kill many).

There have also been vaccines for the flu available for many years and while they have had varying effectiveness, it is seen as a bit of a personal responsibility if you chose not to get a flu shot and later caught the flu.

Australia has done really badly at procuring vaccines (put all our eggs in AstraZeneca production on-shore and dropped the ball on ordering Pfizer and Moderna vaccines early enough). So having such a low rate of vaccination means we are still in a place where perceived risks (incoming travellers) are going to be treated strictly.

Would the flu ever affect a future Australian GP? No, I don't think so.

Flu and Covid are obviously very different.

What has changed though is that the populous have become assimilated to the concept of government protecting them from transmissible diseases.

The psychology of that in the medium term is totally unknown.

***Speculation alert***

I think it's very likely the all governments will become very jumpy in regards to transmissible diseases moving around the world. I think over the next few years most of us will be in and out of some levels of restrictions to protect from new diseases when they emerge and perhaps existing diseases that get particularly prevalent.

Given that Australia has been very risk adverse compared to others it's not a huge stretch to suggest that this may continue.

This will inevitably make the future of the Grand Prix in Australia difficult. F1 needs to plan along time ahead to send freight to Australia. Unless the authorities there are willing to absolutely guarantee there will be no restrictions at least 3 months in advance F1 won't be willing to take the risk. I don't see the authorities there being willing to do that.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 11, 2021 3:13 pm

What has changed though is that the populous have become assimilated to the concept of government protecting them from transmissible diseases.

Not much chance of that here. Australians are generally quite sceptical, especially of politicians and governments. There is certainly no mentality of "the govt has saved us".

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 11, 2021 3:13 pm

***Speculation alert***

I think it's very likely the all governments will become very jumpy in regards to transmissible diseases moving around the world. I think over the next few years most of us will be in and out of some levels of restrictions to protect from new diseases when they emerge and perhaps existing diseases that get particularly prevalent.

Given that Australia has been very risk adverse compared to others it's not a huge stretch to suggest that this may continue.

This will inevitably make the future of the Grand Prix in Australia difficult. F1 needs to plan along time ahead to send freight to Australia. Unless the authorities there are willing to absolutely guarantee there will be no restrictions at least 3 months in advance F1 won't be willing to take the risk. I don't see the authorities there being willing to do that.

I'm not sure a virus like COVID is going to be a common event. We've had nothing this bad for 100 years.

Although Australia was reasonably slow to close borders and impose restrictions, this came about because we were somewhat isolated at the beginning. We had the benefit of watching what was happening in the rest of the world and the different ways countries reacted and what the outcome was. In the end, a harder lockdown lead to a shorter lockdown and the economy reasonably bounced back because the virus was essentially eliminated from the community.

But that isn't to say there aren't ongoing issues. Hotel quarantine is not a perfect barrier and there have been outbreaks leading to deaths and further lockdowns. Lack of vaccine means the Delta variant is currently spreading in Sydney and there will be an extended lockdown there.

But overall, the strict and zealous actions taken by state governments has meant most of the population are well and can go about their lives mostly as normal (international travel is the obvious exception).

This may make it harder to have F1 (and other events) in the future. I know the world road cycling championships are planned for Australia next year as well as the women's football World Cup the following year. I would hope that COVID is well under control by then, but if not - losing those events is not the end of the world. I would rather have my family and friends healthy.

oz_karter wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:00 am

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 11, 2021 3:13 pm

What has changed though is that the populous have become assimilated to the concept of government protecting them from transmissible diseases.

Not much chance of that here. Australians are generally quite sceptical, especially of politicians and governments. There is certainly no mentality of "the govt has saved us".

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 11, 2021 3:13 pm

***Speculation alert***

I think it's very likely the all governments will become very jumpy in regards to transmissible diseases moving around the world. I think over the next few years most of us will be in and out of some levels of restrictions to protect from new diseases when they emerge and perhaps existing diseases that get particularly prevalent.

Given that Australia has been very risk adverse compared to others it's not a huge stretch to suggest that this may continue.

This will inevitably make the future of the Grand Prix in Australia difficult. F1 needs to plan along time ahead to send freight to Australia. Unless the authorities there are willing to absolutely guarantee there will be no restrictions at least 3 months in advance F1 won't be willing to take the risk. I don't see the authorities there being willing to do that.

I'm not sure a virus like COVID is going to be a common event. We've had nothing this bad for 100 years.

Although Australia was reasonably slow to close borders and impose restrictions, this came about because we were somewhat isolated at the beginning. We had the benefit of watching what was happening in the rest of the world and the different ways countries reacted and what the outcome was. In the end, a harder lockdown lead to a shorter lockdown and the economy reasonably bounced back because the virus was essentially eliminated from the community.

But that isn't to say there aren't ongoing issues. Hotel quarantine is not a perfect barrier and there have been outbreaks leading to deaths and further lockdowns. Lack of vaccine means the Delta variant is currently spreading in Sydney and there will be an extended lockdown there.

But overall, the strict and zealous actions taken by state governments has meant most of the population are well and can go about their lives mostly as normal (international travel is the obvious exception).

This may make it harder to have F1 (and other events) in the future. I know the world road cycling championships are planned for Australia next year as well as the women's football World Cup the following year. I would hope that COVID is well under control by then, but if not - losing those events is not the end of the world. I would rather have my family and friends healthy.

A virus like Covid is unusual but pandemic scares are not I.E SARS, swine flu etc. These things crop up every few years and in a post Covid world I don't see those scares being largely ignored as they have been in the past. Governments will be jumpy and I think Australia in particularly will be quick to close borders when such a risk crops up.

You seem to think I'm criticising the strategy Australia adopted? I'm really not. I've no idea what's best.

Mod Aqua wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:25 pm

Technnically, this thread does go against our policy on COVID discussion. That being said, it is inevitable that people will want to discuss the situations beyond how they affect the Grand Prixs as it is affecting our lives.

So the thread will be allowed, for now, providing the discussion stays professional in nature, and that speculation is kept to a minimum and clearly identified as such. This thread will be the only thread where such discussion is permitted to take place.

We reserve the right to lock the thread at any moment.

Other than the fact the thread is allowed to exist, all other rules regarding COVID posting apply. Any posting of conspiracy theories will be deleted and the user banned.

Also, we will not give any benefit of the doubt regarding transgressions, particularly relating to racism.

The primary purpose of this thread should be to discuss the contrasting COVID responses from different countries and the implications. They should have a foundation in facts (with anything stated as a fact properly sourced), with opinion clearly defined.

Any posts that trivialise the COVID pandemic will be deleted.

On that basis, equating it to the flu, or suggesting it is not serious and there has been an over reaction to it will be deleted, and users who do this on more than one occasion will be suspended.

The fact is, that despite multiple global lockdowns, shut downs ands restrictions imposed by the majority of the world's governments, over 4 million people have died, and the governments who responded the slowest or with the weakest responses have seen the largest death tolls.

I'm rather agnostic about Covid and I think that's the healthiest position to take. I find the position of your post thoroughly unhealthy. If it is indeed akin to 45 minute WMD threats (again, I'm agnostic), how would people learn if you suppress discussion of it? I know OfCom are mandating some media to adhere to officially approved narratives (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-o ... oronavirus) but I wouldn't imagine it applies to a tiny forum on the internet about F1 in the Off Topic section? If it does, please say on record that your hands are tied by the law so we are all clear that the PF1 forum is being controlled by state directives, we should at least know that, right? If it doesn't, for goodness sake relax your rules and allow an open discussion about a serious issue that has serious repercussions. A sensible rule would be to say that all claims or disagreements must have reasoned argument, preferably backed up by independently verifiable (not necessarily official) sources.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:26 pm

I'm rather agnostic about Covid and I think that's the healthiest position to take. I find the position of your post thoroughly unhealthy. If it is indeed akin to 45 minute WMD threats (again, I'm agnostic), how would people learn if you suppress discussion of it? I know OfCom are mandating some media to adhere to officially approved narratives (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-o ... oronavirus) but I wouldn't imagine it applies to a tiny forum on the internet about F1 in the Off Topic section? If it does, please say on record that your hands are tied by the law so we are all clear that the PF1 forum is being controlled by state directives, we should at least know that, right? If it doesn't, for goodness sake relax your rules and allow an open discussion about a serious issue that has serious repercussions. A sensible rule would be to say that all claims or disagreements must have reasoned argument, preferably backed up by independently verifiable (not necessarily official) sources.

Mod Aqua wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:25 pm

Technnically, this thread does go against our policy on COVID discussion. That being said, it is inevitable that people will want to discuss the situations beyond how they affect the Grand Prixs as it is affecting our lives.

So the thread will be allowed, for now, providing the discussion stays professional in nature, and that speculation is kept to a minimum and clearly identified as such. This thread will be the only thread where such discussion is permitted to take place.

We reserve the right to lock the thread at any moment.

Other than the fact the thread is allowed to exist, all other rules regarding COVID posting apply. Any posting of conspiracy theories will be deleted and the user banned.

Also, we will not give any benefit of the doubt regarding transgressions, particularly relating to racism.

The primary purpose of this thread should be to discuss the contrasting COVID responses from different countries and the implications. They should have a foundation in facts (with anything stated as a fact properly sourced), with opinion clearly defined.

Any posts that trivialise the COVID pandemic will be deleted.

On that basis, equating it to the flu, or suggesting it is not serious and there has been an over reaction to it will be deleted, and users who do this on more than one occasion will be suspended.

The fact is, that despite multiple global lockdowns, shut downs ands restrictions imposed by the majority of the world's governments, over 4 million people have died, and the governments who responded the slowest or with the weakest responses have seen the largest death tolls.

If I may query & question a couple of the forums COVID policies

Mod Aqua wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:25 pm

Any posting of conspiracy theories will be deleted and the user banned.

How exactly do you define a conspiracy theory?

If your definition is something like "any theory that goes against the official & / or generally accepted version of an event" then I suppose my question to this policy is why?

I find policies such as these particularly worrying. What they're basically designed to do is suppress critical thinking or the proposal of an alternative point of view that may be skeptical of the official line & instead just accept anything that governing bodies, experts & the various arms of the media tell you as gospel, & if you dare even hint that may not be the case you get labeled a conspiracy theorist.

Consider just 18 mths ago those who were saying vaccine passports were on their way were being shouted down by all & sundry & branded CT's. Well, 18 mths later, guess what?

Some were saying from very early on in the pandemic that a vaccine will be mandatory. They too were called CT's. While certain governments may not be able to lawfully mandate vaccines, they are just simply in the process of creating a 2 tier society and making having any semblance of a normal life unlivable for those who aren't vaccinated until they too eventually capitulate & get the injection.

Anyone who dare poses the theory that the virus somehow escaped from that lab in Wuhan & is not naturally occurring, also faces censure. Yet Occam's razor, a bit of common sense, the statements of people who worked at the lab, and the release of communiques from the odd governing body, the speed at which the Chinese shut down their cities & erected hospitals & the speed at which the vaccine was developed & released, hint that all's perhaps not what it may seem & we're not being told the entire story. But you're generally not allowed to say that without risking being shut out from civil discourse.

It simply terrifies me to think this may be the way society is heading.

Mod Aqua wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:25 pm

The primary purpose of this thread should be to discuss the contrasting COVID responses from different countries and the implications. They should have a foundation in facts (with anything stated as a fact properly sourced), with opinion clearly defined.

Can you define the term properly sourced facts ? I mean I'm sure I can source articles citing the world is indeed flat & the moon's made of cream cheese. Would these be considered properly sourced facts? With COVID, apart from it actually being a thing & has killed people, what are the facts? Just because someone tells you something, no matter what piece of papers hanging on their office wall, doesn't make it factual.

Everyone has an agenda & I think the one thing most of us have heard at least once or twice in our live, "Never trust the Government".

Mod Aqua wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:25 pm

Any posts that trivialise the COVID pandemic will be deleted.

On that basis, equating it to the flu, or suggesting it is not serious and there has been an over reaction to it will be deleted, and users who do this on more than one occasion will be suspended.

Again please define trivialising & over reaction? They're subjective terms so we have no real idea if we've stepped over the line until we get a kick in the behind for it. If we don't know where the line is then how can we possibly be expected to know if we're about to go over it?

Mod Aqua wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:25 pm

The fact is, that despite multiple global lockdowns, shut downs ands restrictions imposed by the majority of the world's governments, over 4 million people have died, and the governments who responded the slowest or with the weakest responses have seen the largest death tolls.[/color]

How can we really know what the true numbers are? I think it's fairly common knowledge now that medical bodies & governments around the globe were recording people who died of an unrelated cause, but had COVID, as actually dying OF COVID. There's also evidence indicating hospitals are receiving financial assistance if they record a patient as having COVID.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/veri ... 97e6593745
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 000638001/
At the very least these schemes create a financial incentive for medical centres to inflate COVID numbers & we should all be very skeptical of these practices. I can also add some anecdotal evidence of fraudulent practices taking place under such schemes as a colleague of mine had an elderly relative die of natural causes. The hospital she died in approached her family asking if they could record this persons death as COVID related as they would receive a payment if they did. But not only did the hospital make this request, the funeral director also approached the family offering them a sizable discount in the funeral costs if they too could record this persons cause of death as COVID related.

Now of course I don't know if this story's true or not but knowing this person, noticing the emotional way she told me this, as well as knowing medical centres are indeed receiving payments for COVID related illnesses & deaths, i've no reason to not believe her. These issues alone should cause one to pause & reconsider if we know what the actual infection & death toll is. I would certainly be putting an asterixis with a notation attached to any numbers I reference.

So in summary, yeah I know i've probably been quite pedantic with my questions here, but I get extremely concerned when policies are introduced that are designed to stifle free speech, no matter how dumb or how controversial it may be.

We're all adults here & we should all be mature & intelligent enough to be able to conduct our own enquiries & draw our own conclusions without needing others telling us what we should believe is the right & wrong narrative. As long as comments don't risk legal action to the individual or the site, & they're posted in a reasoned way that doesn't resort to personal insults, then I see no reason not to allow posts to remain. If the posts dumb, it'll either be ignored or shot down. By putting these policies in place, I feel you are, & I hope quite unintentionally, simply discouraging critical thinking & free enquiry & you're telling us that only the official line as passed on to us by entities who, by nature we should always be skeptical & critical of, is the truth & if you question this line or offer an alternative position, you'll simply be removed from the discussion.

When we have people burn down 5G transmitters because they think they cause COVID, people believe the vaccines allow Bill Gates to track them, people taking Horse Tranquiliser as a COVID cure because of things they read on the internet it both shows that being an adult isn't a qualification for determining the truth and why as a forum of public discourse why we should adopt a stricter policy towards the posting on the topic.

The things you listed as 'Conspiracy Theories' that came true are nothing of the sort. Vaccine passports are a valid tool for use in dealing with pandemics and similar tools have been used throughout history in dealing with outbreaks of contagious diseases. It was inevitable that they would be on the table for discussion.

Politicians in power of some countries, of course, denied they would consider them - because it is unpopular - but that is not a conspiracy theory. That's just a politician saying something populist and later having to backtrack on it.

I am not going to provide a 'list' of conspiracy theories that are would be met with a zero tolerance policy because such a list could never be exhaustive and new things and variations would be added all the time. But it is referring to the "5G gives you COVID" / "Take Horse Dewormer as cure" / "Denying there is even a pandemic" end of the spectrum, not questioning government policy.

The arguments are you are making about the COVID pandemic can literally be applied to anything in the world. You can argue anyone has an agenda and cannot be trusted. The same thing goes about sources. The point about sources is that if gives people reading a better idea of how credible it is.

Ultimately though, this is an F1 forum, not an Epidemiology forum, so we don't need to have a thread here. If a discussion cannot take place following an expectation that they meet a relatively trivial bar to clear, then we can lock the thread and not had the discussion at all. There are plenty of other places to discuss the pandemic on the Internet.

But it's not a trivial bar, what if the contrary to official but still scientific sources say that Covid is indeed akin to a bad flu or that masks & vaccines don't work very well?

Like these (trust the science, to use a propagandized phrase)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPd ... %2900069-0

You are dictating what the conclusions cannot be, regardless of the evidence, specifically threatening bans for people who do draw such conclusions.

Frankly I don't see why you would presume to regulate a discussion about Covid at all, this is an F1 forum in the Off Topic section. It's bad enough when officialdom dictates it, let alone places like this. Are you under instructions from the law or not? You didn't answer that question last time. It's important (because of how telling it is) for us to know the answer.If not, let it go and let people share their musings. If so, be worried when they suppress your opinions next time (and why wouldn't they after this episode).

As far as I'm aware, the forum's owners are ultimately deemed responsible in certain jurisdictions for what is allowed to remain on the forum. Which means if the mods elected not to regulate the discourse, they could find themselves and the owners in a very deep legal mess.

Although I believe PF1 is based in South Africa, I am unsure what their laws are and which other countries can reasonably ask that their laws be enforced in any given case involving an SA-based website. As such, the mods are doing broadly the right thing, even if I'm sure every individual here would have a slightly different take on it.

I'm curious exactly what you meant by being agnostic about COVID?

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:45 pm

As far as I'm aware, the forum's owners are ultimately deemed responsible in certain jurisdictions for what is allowed to remain on the forum. Which means if the mods elected not to regulate the discourse, they could find themselves and the owners in a very deep legal mess.

Although I believe PF1 is based in South Africa, I am unsure what their laws are and which other countries can reasonably ask that their laws be enforced in any given case involving an SA-based website. As such, the mods are doing broadly the right thing, even if I'm sure every individual here would have a slightly different take on it.

I'm curious exactly what you meant by being agnostic about COVID?

That's pretty much as I expected, governments regulate private businesses to an extent that private businesses are effectively arms of governments. Banks are a big example. But when they can tell forums what can and can't be said (YouTube especially) then we live under authoritarianism wherever you are in the modern world.

I mean I'm agnostic insofar as I've seen disputing evidence and arguments either way, and it's hardly the case that the official narrative is clearly more cogent than the deniers', if at all.That's all the more important to have it all laid out so everyone discuss it openly. It's as though the masses are children and that we need to be show what to think and not think for ourselves. The blatant propagandizing (adverts, selected new stories, even outlets like Twitter so-called "independent fact checkers" and TV shows) reduces my trust in what they are saying, for one thing, having the opposite effect of what they no doubt seek to achieve from them.

So on the one hand they present a narrative which opposing evidence challenges quite robustly, while suppressing that disputing evidence and argument with things like Twitter & Facebook's "independent fact checkers" who's "checked facts" are as disputable as anything else, and government stats like the "within 28 days of a positive test" which throws the true death figures completely up in the air. Is there any surprise that many people are not taking the official narrative with any degree of trust.

With the death figures, they're probably more accurate than both sides believe. COVID directly hasn't killed every COVID death stat. On the other hand, it is responsible for causing people with potentially terminal illnesses to die due to a lack of treatment. Those numbers are likely to correlate more than diverge. The fact you're willing to listen to people who deny the over 217 million recorded cases worldwide rather calls into question your credibility.

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:37 pm

With the death figures, they're probably more accurate than both sides believe. COVID directly hasn't killed every COVID death stat. On the other hand, it is responsible for causing people with potentially terminal illnesses to die due to a lack of treatment. Those numbers are likely to correlate more than diverge. The fact you're willing to listen to people who deny the over 217 million recorded cases worldwide rather calls into question your credibility.

But I don't require somebody to find me credible (sorry), the only thing required is a free discussion regardless of fallacious reasoning like that. I'll listen to anybody, that's healthy. Most people who die in hospital are already very ill, when they are all then tested for Covid then the whole "with" covid stats raise an question as to the true figures. Do you know the true figures? Do I know? The answer in both cases is no. Why shouldn't we? What I have yet to hear an explanation for is why they deaths are recorded "with" covid, and why within 28 days. It's a reasonable enough request, and I've yet to hear that explanation. If you have one, I'll hear it with an open but critical mind. Go ahead...

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:37 pm

The fact you're willing to listen to people who deny the over 217 million recorded cases worldwide rather calls into question your credibility.

And this is why the forum needs a blanket ban on the discussions. Because you get people asking other non medical based people to prove it or else the non-believers may be correct. It's like religion, you can't prove God doesn't exist so he might but the opposite way around. All the proof you need is to watch someone close to you die of Covid and suddenly they change their minds on it but the forum rules in place are correct as instead of allowing people to be brainwashed either way it stops the sharing of this stupid notion Covid may not be real.

100% agree.

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

IDFD wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:22 pm

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:37 pm

The fact you're willing to listen to people who deny the over 217 million recorded cases worldwide rather calls into question your credibility.

And this is why the forum needs a blanket ban on the discussions. Because you get people asking other non medical based people to prove it or else the non-believers may be correct. It's like religion, you can't prove God doesn't exist so he might but the opposite way around. All the proof you need is to watch someone close to you die of Covid and suddenly they change their minds on it but the forum rules in place are correct as instead of allowing people to be brainwashed either way it stops the sharing of this stupid notion Covid may not be real.

Even the most ardent deniers don't deny the existence of the virus, they deny the severity of it.

The problem (which its why open discussion is needed to weed out the people on both sides talking crud) is it's become a tribal argument, which is part of the issue of getting accurate figures from either side. It's gone from what we thought could be an existential crisis for humanity, to the discussion being a parody of itself. It's become Brexit 2.0. People have chosen their tribes and are arguing from within that tribe. Hence I remain agnostic with questions people don't answer well. Hence the need for continued free discussion. You think you and I will get to the facts when one tribe bans the arguments of the other across the internet and in real life? That's ludicrous. The human condition has failed itself yet again. You may think you know the facts, you don't. Not as long as you remain in your tribe while arguments (including scientific ones) are banned.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:56 am

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

The UK had 100,000 more deaths than normal in the first year of the pandemic which broadly matched the number of deaths that were recorded as a COVID death. This is 22% more than normal. As of now, 1 in 500 people in the UK have died from it.

Source: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-re ... -2021.html

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:09 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:56 am

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

The UK had 100,000 more deaths than normal in the first year of the pandemic which broadly matched the number of deaths that were recorded as a COVID death. This is 22% more than normal. As of now, 1 in 500 people in the UK have died from it.

Source: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-re ... -2021.html

Interesting figures, but scientific data suggests lockdowns themselves have increased the excess deaths:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/

Which is correct and why? Explain your conclusion.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:16 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:09 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:56 am

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

The UK had 100,000 more deaths than normal in the first year of the pandemic which broadly matched the number of deaths that were recorded as a COVID death. This is 22% more than normal. As of now, 1 in 500 people in the UK have died from it.

Source: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-re ... -2021.html

Interesting figures, but scientific data suggests lockdowns themselves have increased the excess deaths:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/

Which is correct and why? Explain your conclusion.

Source: Our World in Data

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:16 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:09 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:56 am

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

The UK had 100,000 more deaths than normal in the first year of the pandemic which broadly matched the number of deaths that were recorded as a COVID death. This is 22% more than normal. As of now, 1 in 500 people in the UK have died from it.

Source: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-re ... -2021.html

Interesting figures, but scientific data suggests lockdowns themselves have increased the excess deaths:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/

Which is correct and why? Explain your conclusion.

It's pretty obvious that both are connected. Without COVID nobody would have considered lockdowns necessary, so their adverse effects would never have happened.

Let's address the effects listed in that paper you linked to. First, there's the mass unemployment. While yes, this is clearly an issue that a lot of people are fighting, it's not the whole story. Some businesses are expanding, new shops are opening. I doubt they're yet enough to cover every lost job, but in time that will be rectified. And any country with a halfway decent welfare system will ensure that people can at least survive. It won't always be easy, sure, but that shouldn't contribute hugely to the excess death rate.

Poverty and food insecurity go hand in hand to a greater degree. It's very difficult to know, at least here in the UK, how much food supply is affected by COVID versus other factors like Brexit, both of which will be causing supply chain bottlenecks and a rise in prices. There are of course ways around this, but I don't think rationing would be especially popular. So we end up with a society of haves and have nots. But this is nothing new. For years we've had stories across the countries of parents starving themselves to avoid their kids going hungry. Or of pensioners who have to become nocturnal because energy prices are lower at night and they simply can't afford to do everything during the day. COVID hasn't changed all that much in this regard.

Healthcare has indeed been interrupted. I told you as much when pointing out spikes in cancer deaths etc should be linked directly to COVID. However, it would also have been interrupted had we let COVID spread like wildfire through society, and the same results would have happened. We would have had an overwhelmed healthcare system rather than a partially suspended one, but either way the routine but essential care it offers would have been massively reduced.

Education would be interrupted either way. If we'd let society carry on as normal, kids would have been in and out of school variously with diseases, and having to attend funerals of relatives, or in some cases missing months on end due to the effects of long COVID. We're seeing that last one already, although right now the schools haven't yet gone back so it's difficult to gauge exact numbers. I don't see how this affects the death rates though.

Deterioration of mental health is definitely a killer, I agree with you and the paper on that. However, these aren't lumped into the COVID death stats. They will be listed as suicides. I'm sure there's been a spike in those too, but they would be recorded separately so don't affect the official COVID numbers. So your question to Alien is negated there. You can of course find out the approximate scale of the spike to use as a counterpoint - I somehow doubt it comes close to the 4.52 million deaths worldwide from/with COVID.

Domestic violence goes up in so many situations. Without a percentage increase attached to this it's pure speculation as to how much of a problem this is. When the England football team plays, violence increases 20-35%. Nobody is proposing we ban football.

...Of course, Alien's graph said all this far more succinctly.

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:48 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:16 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:09 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:56 am

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

The UK had 100,000 more deaths than normal in the first year of the pandemic which broadly matched the number of deaths that were recorded as a COVID death. This is 22% more than normal. As of now, 1 in 500 people in the UK have died from it.

Source: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-re ... -2021.html

Interesting figures, but scientific data suggests lockdowns themselves have increased the excess deaths:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/

Which is correct and why? Explain your conclusion.

Source: Our World in Data

Is that UK or worldwide? Can you provide the direct link + article for context?

Tufty wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:49 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:16 am

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:09 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:56 am

Tufty wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:36 pm

It's more or less impossible to know what actually killed someone who has, say, COVID and lung cancer. Which one was the final straw for that person's lungs to fail? And even if it was the cancer, the extra strain on the immune system COVID adds surely made it harder for the body's defences to hang on. Even if it did happen a week or two prior. So again, those numbers are more accurate than you are choosing to imply.

I had asymptomatic COVID last year, and somehow managed to develop long COVID from it. Mostly I'm fine, but some days I can't breathe without coughing. If I already had a pre-existing breathing condition, this would wildly exacerbate it. If I died during one of those coughing fits, that would also be COVID-related, even if I don't test positive for it right now.

Does that make sense?

How do you know that? What measuring facilities do you have available to you to make that determination?

You haven't answered my question though. Why measure within 28 days? Were Ebola deaths measured within 28 days of a positive test? No it wasn't. Was the 2009 swine flu deaths measured within 28 days? No it wasn't. Was the Spanish Flu pandemic 100 years ago measured by deaths within 28 days? No it wasn't. So why this? It's a reasonable question for which I'm still waiting for answers.

The UK had 100,000 more deaths than normal in the first year of the pandemic which broadly matched the number of deaths that were recorded as a COVID death. This is 22% more than normal. As of now, 1 in 500 people in the UK have died from it.

Source: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-re ... -2021.html

Interesting figures, but scientific data suggests lockdowns themselves have increased the excess deaths:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952324/

Which is correct and why? Explain your conclusion.

It's pretty obvious that both are connected. Without COVID nobody would have considered lockdowns necessary, so their adverse effects would never have happened.

Let's address the effects listed in that paper you linked to. First, there's the mass unemployment. While yes, this is clearly an issue that a lot of people are fighting, it's not the whole story. Some businesses are expanding, new shops are opening. I doubt they're yet enough to cover every lost job, but in time that will be rectified. And any country with a halfway decent welfare system will ensure that people can at least survive. It won't always be easy, sure, but that shouldn't contribute hugely to the excess death rate.

Poverty and food insecurity go hand in hand to a greater degree. It's very difficult to know, at least here in the UK, how much food supply is affected by COVID versus other factors like Brexit, both of which will be causing supply chain bottlenecks and a rise in prices. There are of course ways around this, but I don't think rationing would be especially popular. So we end up with a society of haves and have nots. But this is nothing new. For years we've had stories across the countries of parents starving themselves to avoid their kids going hungry. Or of pensioners who have to become nocturnal because energy prices are lower at night and they simply can't afford to do everything during the day. COVID hasn't changed all that much in this regard.

Healthcare has indeed been interrupted. I told you as much when pointing out spikes in cancer deaths etc should be linked directly to COVID. However, it would also have been interrupted had we let COVID spread like wildfire through society, and the same results would have happened. We would have had an overwhelmed healthcare system rather than a partially suspended one, but either way the routine but essential care it offers would have been massively reduced.

Education would be interrupted either way. If we'd let society carry on as normal, kids would have been in and out of school variously with diseases, and having to attend funerals of relatives, or in some cases missing months on end due to the effects of long COVID. We're seeing that last one already, although right now the schools haven't yet gone back so it's difficult to gauge exact numbers. I don't see how this affects the death rates though.

Deterioration of mental health is definitely a killer, I agree with you and the paper on that. However, these aren't lumped into the COVID death stats. They will be listed as suicides. I'm sure there's been a spike in those too, but they would be recorded separately so don't affect the official COVID numbers. So your question to Alien is negated there. You can of course find out the approximate scale of the spike to use as a counterpoint - I somehow doubt it comes close to the 4.52 million deaths worldwide from/with COVID.

Domestic violence goes up in so many situations. Without a percentage increase attached to this it's pure speculation as to how much of a problem this is. When the England football team plays, violence increases 20-35%. Nobody is proposing we ban football.

...Of course, Alien's graph said all this far more succinctly.

I'll address the graph once I've analysed it's context.

Is there a good reason why you're not answering why they are using the within 28 days of a positive test for Covid when they haven't for Ebola, Swine Flu, Spanish Flu, etc, and then why they record deaths with Covid and not of it, unlike for Ebola, Swine Flu, Spanish Flu, etc? It's an important question. If you don't know the answer then that's fine, it simply means you shouldn't be as sure of your belief about Covid as you are, which is my point.

28 days is a fairly arbitrary line, given how most people who die spend several days or even weeks declining in hospital before they suffer completely respiratory failure of some sort. I have no idea what point you think you’re making with Ebola, swine flu or any other disease. It’s not an important question at all.

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:11 am

28 days is a fairly arbitrary line, given how most people who die spend several days or even weeks declining in hospital before they suffer completely respiratory failure of some sort. I have no idea what point you think you’re making with Ebola, swine flu or any other disease. It’s not an important question at all.

Given that the vast majority of people who die in hospital die of things other than Covid (https://deathmeters.info/ [sources linked there]) and 100% of people in hospital are being tested for Covid, therefore the death figures with Covid will be different to the figures of Covid. Isn't that obvious? That's why the question is important - What is your answer to the question - why with Covid within 28 days to count as a Covid death and not actually of it? Wouldn't we get more accurate figures that way? They don't do this for other diseases so why Covid? Answer the question if you know the answer. If you don't know then say so, that would be a valid answer.

It's only recorded as a covid death if the coroner puts covid as an underlying reason for the death on the report regardless of if they've tested positive in the last 28 days.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... statistics

Also 28 days was used as a cut off because they wanted to see the more immediate impact on society due to Covid. Previously to this it was 60 and that was brought down to 28 and then they readujsted the numbers to suit and the count went down. So it could easily be said the number of covid deaths should be higher. As not everyone that dies of covid dies within 28 days.

The idea of being a covid non believer simply isn't a thing. It's just being in denial of the current reality.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

PF1 Mod Team wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:36 pm

When we have people burn down 5G transmitters because they think they cause COVID, people believe the vaccines allow Bill Gates to track them, people taking Horse Tranquiliser as a COVID cure because of things they read on the internet it both shows that being an adult isn't a qualification for determining the truth and why as a forum of public discourse why we should adopt a stricter policy towards the posting on the topic.

What you're talking Mod Team is wanting to suppress open & free dialogue due to the actions of a very, very minute & extreme section of the population who are taking the whole CT thing to these lengths. A much larger proportion of the population harbour what are not unreasonable concerns regarding certain aspects of the virus, be it the numbers, it's origin, the vaccine, the whole passport thing or other related issues. You shut down discussion or ban people who dare challenge the official line, you'll only be assisting to entrench their beliefs. Most members only want to express opinions & engage in a cogent, respectful & robust debate on these issues & who knows, some of the more educated among us might even manage to change a few of the more skeptical minds here. I've little doubt if someone posted such CT's as you've pointed out here, they'd be flamed by the members here in no time flat, & rightfully so.

PF1 Mod Team wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:36 pm

The things you listed as 'Conspiracy Theories' that came true are nothing of the sort. Vaccine passports are a valid tool for use in dealing with pandemics and similar tools have been used throughout history in dealing with outbreaks of contagious diseases. It was inevitable that they would be on the table for discussion.

I don't believe I said they were CT's. I said people who dared suggest any scenario outside of the official narrative were called CT's, & yet it's turning out, in the cases I mentioned at least, that they may have actually not been far off the mark. Now these same very people, on some platforms, could well have faced a censure or banning for expressing these views, views which ultimately could well turn out to be accurate.

PF1 Mod Team wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:36 pm

Politicians in power of some countries, of course, denied they would consider them - because it is unpopular - but that is not a conspiracy theory. That's just a politician saying something populist and later having to backtrack on it.

Is there any evidence of this because I can't believe politicians would be so short sighted.
In your explanation, the end result has to be that not only have the politicians empowered the CT's by flipping on their word & ultimately proving them right, but also angered & planted the seed of distrust in the minds of those who may have previously looked upon the CT's with a large does of skepticism. Now those same people have just cause to distrust the official line a little more & pay a little more attention to the CT's.

It makes no sense to me but then again it could be just me

PF1 Mod Team wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:36 pm

I am not going to provide a 'list' of conspiracy theories that are would be met with a zero tolerance policy because such a list could never be exhaustive and new things and variations would be added all the time. But it is referring to the "5G gives you COVID" / "Take Horse Dewormer as cure" / "Denying there is even a pandemic" end of the spectrum, not questioning government policy.

As someone who feels the freedoms of civil discourse & critical thinking must be protected at almost all costs, especially in adult exchanges, i'm still concerned with the banning threats, although I do find it slightly reassuring that you're looking at the more extreme CT's out there instead of the ideas & theories that are more likely to be discussed on this platform by the members here.

PF1 Mod Team wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:36 pm

The arguments are you are making about the COVID pandemic can literally be applied to anything in the world. You can argue anyone has an agenda and cannot be trusted. The same thing goes about sources. The point about sources is that if gives people reading a better idea of how credible it is.

I guess the difference is that almost everything else in the world isn't being monitored or censored like this pandemic is. I maintain everyone should be skeptical of their government or of multi national organisations. The US Patriot Act has been abused by various US government agencies, A recent update for apple devices allows Apple authorisation to access the photo gallery on your device under the very noble guise of monitoring for evidence of child pornography. While naturally I think anyone who deliberately harms any child in any way needs to die a very slow & very painful death, I do not want to sacrifice my privacy in such a way for even this cause. History is full of examples of governments & big business, including pharmaceutical companies, using nefarious tactics disguised as nobel causes. Yet now we're told not that we SHOULD trust these entities, but that we MUST trust them, and if you don't & you speak out then you're just a CT and you need to be silenced.
Personally on the topic of a vaccine passport, I don't know the in's & out 's of them, but unless I can be convinced my information will be stored locally on my device only & not in some central data bank, I'll be pushing for a hard copy passport, which I think will need to be provided anyway for those who might not be tech savvy or own a smart phone. I see absolutely no reason for that data to be stored anywhere other than solely on my device & if it is I'd want to know why.

PF1 Mod Team wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:36 pm

Ultimately though, this is an F1 forum, not an Epidemiology forum, so we don't need to have a thread here. If a discussion cannot take place following an expectation that they meet a relatively trivial bar to clear, then we can lock the thread and not had the discussion at all. There are plenty of other places to discuss the pandemic on the Internet.

Then what's the purpose of having an "Off Topic" section ?

IDFD wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:50 am

It's only recorded as a covid death if the coroner puts covid as an underlying reason for the death on the report regardless of if they've tested positive in the last 28 days.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... statistics

Also 28 days was used as a cut off because they wanted to see the more immediate impact on society due to Covid. Previously to this it was 60 and that was brought down to 28 and then they readujsted the numbers to suit and the count went down. So it could easily be said the number of covid deaths should be higher. As not everyone that dies of covid dies within 28 days.

The idea of being a covid non believer simply isn't a thing. It's just being in denial of the current reality.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Early doors, people in high positions were speaking out about how NHS coroners incorrectly recorded Covid as an underlying reason for death, 28 days or no 28 days.

Skip to 13:30: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQAQ

Yes, this NHS professor (if you like to appeal to authority like that) says the real death toll is a much as half.

Are you neutral enough to consider this? I ask because you saying things like "denial of the current reality" leaves you wide open to error. Listen and report back, without tribalism or preconception.

As an extra note, I have the opposite discussions with skeptics on their platforms and their responses almost exactly mirror what we've been getting here. Tribalism is not good.

In Brazil they had to bulldoze a small area of rainforest outside Manaus to clear a new graveyard for Covid victims. In India they were running out of wood to burn bodies in farmers fields, because the crematoriums were all fully booked.

I don’t know the exact boundaries between ‘died with Covid’ and ‘died from Covid’ but all the stats on total deaths seem to roughly back up the Covid stats.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:15 pm

Are you neutral enough to consider this? I ask because you saying things like "denial of the current reality" leaves you wide open to error. Listen and report back, without tribalism or preconception.

As an extra note, I have the opposite discussions with skeptics on their platforms and their responses almost exactly mirror what we've been getting here. Tribalism is not good.

I'm not neutral at all. I'm fully aware of how this has impacted many people close to me, in a professional and health way. One of my very best friends is the head of emergency care for London and the South East and was the person responsible for getting the numbers to Boris throughout the initial pandemic phase, putting in plans for emergency hospitals and I watched the toll it took on her because she was faced with the reality of it. Another of my very close friends is the head of the ICU at St George's, another is the head nurse for the ICU at Epsom. I've seen the impact it's had on them. The mental health issue that will follow with the NHS stuff will hit critical point.

Whilst I am happy to discuss numbers I put a lot more value in real world experience and talking to these three and watching them go through it professionally as well as losing friends to Covid means I don't have a neutral stand point as it's clear to me that it obviously exist, it clearly has taken a lot of lives and arguing over the numbers or how those numbers are recorded is a little strange when the real issue is just we do have large numbers of people dying.

Tribalism shouldn't be needed you're correct. People shouldn't be in a position where they're burying their heads in the sand, ignoring the current reality of the situation and often ignoring the experts to discuss fields they know little about (You may know a lot or even be a doctor yourself but I'd guess much like myself and most others you've spent very little time outside of the last 18 months researching these fields. Where others have dedicated their lives to it). Which is why I said you're asking a bunch of people on a Motorsport forum and not those in a medical field. If this discussion was 12 months ago I'd probably have a lot more time for it but I've given up banging my head against a brick wall with Covid deniers. You aren't going to convince me with any paper you bring to the discussion it doesn't exist or that it isn't a large scale killer because my lived experience says otherwise.

IDFD wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:22 pm

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:15 pm

Are you neutral enough to consider this? I ask because you saying things like "denial of the current reality" leaves you wide open to error. Listen and report back, without tribalism or preconception.

As an extra note, I have the opposite discussions with skeptics on their platforms and their responses almost exactly mirror what we've been getting here. Tribalism is not good.

I'm not neutral at all. I'm fully aware of how this has impacted many people close to me, in a professional and health way. One of my very best friends is the head of emergency care for London and the South East and was the person responsible for getting the numbers to Boris throughout the initial pandemic phase, putting in plans for emergency hospitals and I watched the toll it took on her because she was faced with the reality of it. Another of my very close friends is the head of the ICU at St George's, another is the head nurse for the ICU at Epsom. I've seen the impact it's had on them. The mental health issue that will follow with the NHS stuff will hit critical point.

Whilst I am happy to discuss numbers I put a lot more value in real world experience and talking to these three and watching them go through it professionally as well as losing friends to Covid means I don't have a neutral stand point as it's clear to me that it obviously exist, it clearly has taken a lot of lives and arguing over the numbers or how those numbers are recorded is a little strange when the real issue is just we do have large numbers of people dying.

Tribalism shouldn't be needed you're correct. People shouldn't be in a position where they're burying their heads in the sand, ignoring the current reality of the situation and often ignoring the experts to discuss fields they know little about (You may know a lot or even be a doctor yourself but I'd guess much like myself and most others you've spent very little time outside of the last 18 months researching these fields. Where others have dedicated their lives to it). Which is why I said you're asking a bunch of people on a Motorsport forum and not those in a medical field. If this discussion was 12 months ago I'd probably have a lot more time for it but I've given up banging my head against a brick wall with Covid deniers. You aren't going to convince me with any paper you bring to the discussion it doesn't exist or that it isn't a large scale killer because my lived experience says otherwise.

The numbers are only the very beginning though. Then there is the response. Lockdown like Aus or be freer like Sweden. What is the Vax's safety level. Why no sue sue. Will passports lead to more personal data unrelated to covid. If people can't even agree on the severity of the virus (and I'm sorry but there are skeptic Drs who have also devoted their lives to the subject which you may have heard of if not for all the censorship. I don't accept that appeal to authority fallacy and neither should you. That's the problem with believers, they have a devout belief in the authority of those who tell them about it), then the consequences have even more questions as long as the severity is robustly disputed by scientists on both sides whether believers like it or not.

I'm sorry for your experiences and I could go to town on anecdotal perceptive biases, but I'm sure they were stressful for you and even though they add no weight to the case at all, out of respect I won't challenge your own personal experiences and stick to the wider issue. I would ask you to refrain from anecdotes if you wish to continue though.

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:04 pm

In Brazil they had to bulldoze a small area of rainforest outside Manaus to clear a new graveyard for Covid victims. In India they were running out of wood to burn bodies in farmers fields, because the crematoriums were all fully booked.

I don’t know the exact boundaries between ‘died with Covid’ and ‘died from Covid’ but all the stats on total deaths seem to roughly back up the Covid stats.

That's what the news told us. The news is an industry which sell sensationalism. The news bulletins are not evidence.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence does anyone actually have that this virus is as deadly as the marketing for it claims. Watching a press conference by the Health Secretary or reading the letter posted to you from the NHS doesn't constitute evidence.

Even if the figures are correct ("with" covid in the past 28 days and all) for healthy under 30s, officialdom's own blurred figures say their survival rate is 99.9999%, so why the massive vax push for them? The vax marketing resembles a pyramid scheme (everyone must get it so we'll all be richer/safer).

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:57 pm

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:04 pm

In Brazil they had to bulldoze a small area of rainforest outside Manaus to clear a new graveyard for Covid victims. In India they were running out of wood to burn bodies in farmers fields, because the crematoriums were all fully booked.

I don’t know the exact boundaries between ‘died with Covid’ and ‘died from Covid’ but all the stats on total deaths seem to roughly back up the Covid stats.

That's what the news told us. The news is an industry which sell sensationalism. The news bulletins are not evidence.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence does anyone actually have that this virus is as deadly as the marketing for it claims. Watching a press conference by the Health Secretary or reading the letter posted to you from the NHS doesn't constitute evidence.

Even if the figures are correct ("with" covid in the past 28 days and all) for healthy under 30s, officialdom's own blurred figures say their survival rate is 99.9999%, so why the massive vax push for them? The vax marketing resembles a pyramid scheme (everyone must get it so we'll all be richer/safer).

This is the kind of argument which shows you have anything but an open mind on the issue. When presented with evidence of tens of thousands of mass graves which proves there are a large number of excess deaths one way or another, you speak as if it's all made up.

99.9999% of healthy people in their thirties don't die from hypothermia, so why do all these sheep spend money on warm clothes in winter?!?!

myattitude wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:57 pm

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:04 pm

In Brazil they had to bulldoze a small area of rainforest outside Manaus to clear a new graveyard for Covid victims. In India they were running out of wood to burn bodies in farmers fields, because the crematoriums were all fully booked.

I don’t know the exact boundaries between ‘died with Covid’ and ‘died from Covid’ but all the stats on total deaths seem to roughly back up the Covid stats.

That's what the news told us. The news is an industry which sell sensationalism. The news bulletins are not evidence.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence does anyone actually have that this virus is as deadly as the marketing for it claims. Watching a press conference by the Health Secretary or reading the letter posted to you from the NHS doesn't constitute evidence.

Even if the figures are correct ("with" covid in the past 28 days and all) for healthy under 30s, officialdom's own blurred figures say their survival rate is 99.9999%, so why the massive vax push for them? The vax marketing resembles a pyramid scheme (everyone must get it so we'll all be richer/safer).

What evidence would you accept?

One more thing before I go off traveling, the tone about scientists is as though scientists are something ethereal, almost special in a way that you and I can't comprehend. This is false. If you stopped absorbing and started learning instead, you'd be as informed as any scientist put in front of you on the TV. I didn't absorb, I learned, and I could now debate a pro-covid scientist on their science quite robustly. They are not more intelligent or learned than any of you.

Also, some people sources to back up the pro-narrative are also poor. ONS are a government sanctioned agency, they are not independent. Using their figures to question their veracity is more investigative. Other "independent" sources roaming the internet such as FullFact, or anything with ".org" in their URL, are not independent just because they look authoritative. FullFact for one are very partisan. Wikipedia has turned full on tabloid regarding scientists who have challenged the official claims. Any sources, independent or otherwise, should be treated with investigation, not used as a top trump as though in a card game.