"Facts about COVID-19": Swiss Propaganda Research Article

[Hip]

Pictures of some of the 19 UK NHS doctors and nurses who have died from coronavirus infection so far, while heroically treating coronavirus patients.

 

[Hip]

There is more than one model. The one chosen by the UK Gov was the most alarmist. When a decision is made that will result in millions becoming unemployed, thousands of busineses being destroyed, trillions being spent, the removal of the basic human rights as to who you associate with, what you do in your own time and where you go then that decision has to be based on accurate scientific information. As I say those who did the modelling are making a guess based on incomplete data. That is not very scientific. It's more to do with faith. May as well just toss a coin.

Are you not confusing the model with the strategic response?

Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong were just as alarmed as Western countries about the pandemic, in fact they were more alarmed.

But these Asian countries were astute and wise, and because they saw this pandemic coming from miles away, implemented measures such as comprehensive testing and, in the case of Taiwan, the opening up of 60 new factory production lines to make face masks for every person in the country.

Because of mask use, testing and other measures, these Asian countries have not needed to go into lockdown, and life and the economy carries on normally. And they have very low numbers of deaths, just 5 deaths in Taiwan for example.

Whereas in the West, our governments and many of our scientific advisors were just too incompetent to see the pandemic coming, and so did nothing to prepare for it. Then when it finally arrived and lots of people started dying, our leaders started running around like headless chickens. That's why tens of thousands have died so far in Western countries, because nobody took coronavirus seriously.


So no, lockdown is nothing to do with the model chosen. Lockdown is a strategic response, the response of the governments who did not anticipate this pandemic.

We in the West need to learn from the foresight and wisdom of the Asian countries, rather than bury our heads in the sand.

 

[pamojja]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/coronavirus-is-only-part-of-the-excess-fatality-mystery.html

And since I've been traveling many years of my life, one deathly certain effect of a shut-down in developing African and South-Asian countries is simply thirst, hunger and disease. To an extent nobody here even started to fathom.

Further in the same article:

Reliable data establishing which deaths were directly caused by COVID-19, which were indirectly caused by COVID-19 because of failed health-care systems, and how many people would have died anyway may not be available for months or years. In the meantime, the best guide for how to think about these trade-offs may be earlier epidemics, like Ebola. With that outbreak, cases of malaria in West Africa shot up when hospitals were overwhelmed by patients seeking treatment for Ebola between 2014 and 2016. Several studies have tried to quantify the indirect effects of the Ebola epidemic on mortality, factoring in interruptions in malarial control programs like distribution of bed nets, and found that more people died of the indirect effects than the virus itself.

Emphasis by me. Why we never learn from history?

 

[valentinelynx]

I receive in my email several physician's blogs or online magazines. Two Covid-19 related articles caught my eye today (Sat, 4/11) for the pictures they paint of the clinical presentation of this disease. It's a completely different approach to this question of the severity and significance of the illness. Yes, it's anecdotal, but, unless you dispute the truthfulness of the sources, this kind of first person clinical experience is valuable, especially in understanding new diseases. Truth can be obscured and even deliberately buried in large compilations of statistics.

From Medscape, April 9, 2020: "From Fine to Failing: Rapid Declines in COVID-19 Patients Jar Doctors, Nurses". (I thought this would be about a decline in numbers of cases until I started reading...). Medscape requires an account to read, but it's free to sign up. If you prefer, however, I attached a .pdf copy (below).

From ReachMD, an audio submission from an anonymous "emergency physician from a small, community hospital that was already overwhelmed" in New Orleans, Louisiana, published April 2, 2020: "One Emergency Physician’s Cheat Sheet to COVID-19". It contains a fair amount of medical jargon but the overall gist is quite plain. You can listen to the audio file, or read the transcript.

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

Truth can be obscured and even deliberately buried in large compilations of statistics.

We've got to work together to become smarter than that.

 

[pamojja]

So no, lockdown is nothing to do with the model chosen. Lockdown is a strategic response, the response of the governments who did not anticipate this pandemic.

I would almost agree. Though you have to understand that the strategic response of the strict shutdown of society is based on (in the west in most countries already shown) not manifesting worse-case scenario-models, not based on any previous experience with respiratory infection pandemics. That is what is communicated and believed, by most. Just look back the many pages of this thread and you'll see yourself.

Furthered by China's initial intransparency, and therefore their seemingly overreacting with the complete and unprecetented shutdown of their economy (why would China with its countless human-rights violation ever harm its own economy, if not really forced to?). Feeding fears in the west the worse case could become the most likely. Looking at worse-case models. And proceeding to panicky shutdowns, once it seemed to manifest.

While Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Hongkong all have closer relations and experiences with China and such pandemics. Therefore just implemented their already proven less panicky meassures right from the start. With a far better outcome untill now. Than those countries just mimicking China's strict shut-down, once the media-driven panic was in full fledge.


And to be utterly honest: the opposition encountered to this very thread here and by yourself against trying to differentiate in severity of the outbreak in different countries, as well as differentiating the effects of very proven meassures with those of strict-shut downs. Along with the everywhere building-up pressure of the public to react (very well exemplified in the beginning of this treat, where members openly pressured for immetiate and strickt lock-downs) - ...If I found myself in the position as politician I initially too would have conceded to this immense public pressure. And after finding allies in renowed specialists of epidemiology, would have started an information-campain about the existing real data of more intelligent meassures already employed elsewhere, compared to strict lock-downs with their potential of much greater harm. To appease public panic, and implement more inteligent ones instead, as soon as public opinion allows. You woudn't have conceeded to this initial pressure? - Even found in our forum here?

It is always easiest to critizise, if not in the shoes of those one critizises. And make it appear only their fault. We all play our part in this.

 

[pamojja]

We've got to work together to become smarter than that.

We ought to. But look what happened in this thread. One site thought the strict meassures is all what one could do to save life, by implication the other site to go easy on risking lifes. In short, the puplic opinion advanced by mass-media.

I wanted to give voice to the other site in starting this thread for a more comprehensive and balanced view, considering the site til then neglected by mass-media and also this forum: To those who think more targeted meassures will save more lifes, by unavoidable implication the other site would be risking more lifes. Receiving of course massive opposition.

Being utterly divided, by the inherent implications of each site of opinion not allowed to voice on this forum. But omminously inherent.

I think we can only work together, if we appreciate that inherently both sites only wants nothing more than the maximum of saved lifes. We are far from there yet. We are divided and therefore not smarter.

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

I think we can only work together, if we appreciate that inherently both sites only wants nothing more than the maximum of saved lifes.

Inherently, I want to save my life. However, I prefer that include others.

I don't expect everyone to give a fuck though.

 

[pamojja]

Inherently, I want to save my life. However, I prefer that include others.

I don't expect everyone to give a fuck though.

So no working together and getting smarter? - Giving a fuck about saving lifes? Just argue for arguments sake and discredit the opposing opinion for feeling better oneself?

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

So no working together and getting smarter? - Giving a fuck about saving lifes? Just argue for arguments sake and discredit the opposing opinion for feeling better oneself?

I can speak for myself.

 

[pamojja]

I can speak for myself.

So can I. That doesn't mean humans are not in the posession of the faculty of comprehension and compassion. And by both getting smarter. Ultimately giving a fuck only will give fuck back to oneself.

And such pain can encourage not looking back to one's own fuck one didn't give.


(by the way, I feel a bid funnily self-contraticted talking with this ambigous swear-word about, living many decades without. And not looking back.)

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

So can I. That doesn't mean humans are not in the posession of the faculty comprehension and compassion. And by both getting smarter.

How would you speaking for yourself mean that humans are not in the possession of the faculty of both comprehension and compassion?

 

[pamojja]

How would you speaking for yourself mean that humans are not in the possession of the faculty of both comprehension and compassion?

You misunderstood.

That doesn't mean humans are not in the posession of the faculty of comprehension and compassion.

Sorry for the double negation. I of course meant, they do have this potential.

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

I of course meant, they do have this potential.

I agree.

(by the way, I feel a bid funnily self-contraticted talking with this ambigous swear-word about, living many decades without. And not looking back.)

Pardon me, I tend to use that more as an exclamation than swearing.

 

[Bergkamp]

The epidemiologists are making predictions based on data that lacks a crucial element. How many people have been infected?. This can only be determined by antibody testing. Without this information they are making a guess. How qualified they are is not relevant.

They aren’t making a guess. They are making an estimation, based on statistics, research, analysis etc. And yes, how qualified they are is extremely relevant to make that estimation.

Somehow strange when comparing with the following report:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/coronavirus-is-only-part-of-the-excess-fatality-mystery.html

I read the article. What is strange exactly? The article is exactly saying what I’m saying: deaths are heavily underreported. Some of those deaths are indeed attributable to a rise in deaths from other illnesses, which is also a result of corona.

If you want to learn from history don't make the mistake of Ancel Keys, who 'proved' with the 7-country study that cholesterol is bad for health. Only to be disproved by reviewers, who showed that his result was only derived by selecting 7 countries out of many more to prove his point.

In fact, the only Asian country (I suppose that’s what you mean with Eastern) that imposes a real lockdown is China.

Like in this case, where the strictest lock-down added less returns.

How do you know? You said yourself that the strictest measures were imposed on the 23rd of March and that it takes 3 weeks for them to be visible. It’s not even 3 weeks since the 23rd and actually the number of deaths has significantly decreased today. Obviously you need more data to confirm a trend -

But it should be also clearly obvious, that Netherlands doesn't reflect the situation of most European countries, nor of this world.

It would highly surprise me if the numbers are extremely different from England, France, Spain or Italy, as the Netherlands is not hit much worse than those countries.

 

[Hip]

Though you have to understand that the strategic response of the strict shutdown of society is based on (in the west in most countries already shown) not manifesting worse-case scenario-models, not based on any previous experience with respiratory infection pandemics.

There are two things wrong with this statement:

First of all, for any new virus whose characteristics are not fully understood, you can only work with models. You cannot use previous experience because there is none for a new virus. That should be patently obvious.

Maybe some people who suffer from anxiety or OCD, and therefore become panicked by all the news coverage of coronavirus. I can understand that. However, that is an issue of mental health; it is not because the model is wrong.

I don't feel any sense of panic about coronavirus, because I approach the subject with a rational mind, and I educate myself about how to protect family members and friends.


Secondly, the Imperial College London model of the pandemic, on which the UK and US governments are basing their response, is certainly not a worse-case scenario. I have seen papers which predict a far worse outcome. The Imperial model seems to be accurate so far, and what we want is a model which tells us what is going to happen, not a model which downplays the truth.

So it is not correct to call the Imperial model a worse-case scenario. It's a good model.

While Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Hongkong all have closer relations and experiences with China and such pandemics. Therefore just implemented their already proven less panicky meassures right from the start. With a far better outcome untill now. Than those countries just mimicking China's strict shut-down, once the media-driven panic was in full fledge.

Yes, Taiwan in particular has a whole government department dedicated to detecting the beginnings of possible pandemics anywhere in the world, and then coherently dealing with them. The Chinese outbreak thus came on Taiwan's radar very early, and triggered alarm buttons in that department, causing the whole Taiwanese government and the whole of Taiwanese society to start making plans and preparations very early. That's why they have no lockdown, yet only a handful of deaths.

Even as late as the beginning of March, medical experts in the UK were still saying that there is very low risk to the UK. They got that very wrong.



I think the West needs to try to emulate what has been done in these Asian countries. We should be asking industry to make masks on an emergency schedule, as Taiwan did. And while we wait for the masks, governments should do what the CDC recently did, which is to recommend people wear improvised masks or cloth coverings over the face when in public.

I can't believe the UK government is still following the garbage advice from the WHO, that face masks have no benefit in controlling pandemics. The WHO have given out some good pandemic advice, like the need to test as much as possible; but they may have got the mask issue badly wrong.



Bottom line, @pamojja, is that the reason we are in lockdown in the West, at great risk to our economies, is because governments greatly underestimated the danger of coronavirus, and made no preparations. So when you try to convince us that coronavirus is no more dangerous than seasonal flu, remember that this kind of thinking put the West into this dire lockdown position in the first place.

This pandemic needs to be taken seriously, and we need to start using intelligent means to control it, as they did in Asia.

 

[percyval577]

I got this from a Twitter twit. The poster writes it is from the 11.4 report.

It´s not clear in itself wether "deaths per million population" refers only to corona deaths or to all deaths, but obviously its the corona ones.

Only a comparison to overall mortality will really tell what´s going on.

I read the article. What is strange exactly? The article is exactly saying what I’m saying: deaths are heavily underreported. Some of those deaths are indeed attributable to a rise in deaths from other illnesses, which is also a result of corona.

The article is referring what you are saying in the paragraphs 3-5.

Then the author cites: "They [the Italians] are now beginning to see a rise in incidents and morbidity and mortality with non-coronavirus-related illness."

The further point the author makes is, that indirect deaths by being overwhelmed, and by situations somehow comparable to lockdowns have been shown to be much more detrimental than an original treated disease had been (Ebola, 2009 recession). (I would say though, that Ebola needs to be constraint.)

So the article is not saying what you are saying.


I admit that "somehow strange" might be not the words I really like to choose, but I have. I take critics anyway.

I still think that the situation is still unclear, and what´s best cannot already be said. Maybe one could have closed the borders, or could have introduced face masks, wearing them until a vaccination is found. I don´t know what I would have done if I were a politician. The article is not all stupid though, and what is easily implemented in Asia might not be so in Europe.

 

[percyval577]

All deaths mortality in the US, from this site:https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-CDC-death-data-thru-Week-10-2020-02.jpg

In contrast to the Netherland there is/was low mortality on the shorter run, but it now rises quickly.

The Netherland had high all death mortality since quite a while (according to @Bergkamp ´s source) which even rose/or still rises/would rise quickly on top of that.

Switzerland had a low all death mortality for a longer periode than the US, but then it rose/or still rises/would rise quickly.

"still rises/would rise quickly" cannot be clear by now, and might need to be evaluted in a detailed manner.

 

[roller]

with that strange and misleading figures published and especially how and what is presented, one may indeed wonder if this is the biggest hoax of all times...

fact is:
- 80 percent have no severe symptoms and get over it easy.
- death rates are similar to other flues, or lower than car fatalities in some of the countries

huge numbers of ppl are tested this year and guess - also other flu viruses run high in the population.
in fact, they may not at all, but due to frequent testing they are just found more often.

what if we ... in order to come close to the TRUE "pandemic" DEATH RATE ... we compare
- all deaths in a country per months, except fatalities from accidents (car) and murder
(compare with the same figures from previous years and month within the country)

exactly graphs like the ones posted by percyval.
per country, each month of the year, previous years and this year.

one of those statistics problem is, that often there is "covid 19" on the death certificate.
it may be that the diseased indeed was infected, but they died from other things.
entirely unrelated to the virus infection.

if we just compare "fatalities" from disease, it should give a good figure for the covid surplus ?

means counting all deaths per country/per month/per year... natural and from disease
... needs to take out
- accidents (car etc)
- murder
- suicides
... car accidents and murder may be lower this year due to lock downs, while suicides and murder within families will soar.

could we so get the covid-surplus ?

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

with that strange and misleading figures published and especially how and what is presented, one may indeed wonder if this is the biggest hoax of all times...

It's the biggest something.