Nobody getting out of here.

[Returnofrros]

10 in 13.....even I might wear a mask.....then again probably no.

[BCram]

They have been selective in the extreme, how many times can Ferguson be wrong? Still there pedalling his nonsense.

An example yesterday on the stuff they put out......new strain is 30% more deadly.

They take a very small sample age group 60 -62 year olds and say that there is a 13 in 1000 chance of dying after contracting rather than 10 in 13.

Dig a bit deeper and this is on a sample of 8% of the deaths of 60 to 62 year olds.

Now the amount of 60 -62 year who have died must be small, those who have died with no underlying almost miniscule.

Technically 30% is correct but jeezo it's fear mongering.

This analysis was broadcast on Breakfast TV, BBC main news programme today. The percentage was now 40%, and it is a statistical expression. The media are determined to paint their truth as black and as dark as possible. But there was an interesting segment when they discussed the probability that this disease is now endemic which means it is in society for ever. Getting rid of it, killing it, is being discussed as a probability and vaccination needs to be worldwide to try to get it out of the population. Smallpox and polio are given as examples of successes brought about by vaccinations.
We are on the right track with the vaccines and I am waiting for my letter.
Does 1 in 100 sound a smaller stat than 10 in 1000? I think 1 in 100 feels smaller.

[Taintedice]

Now up to 6000 people killed by buses in England over 4 days. Bloody buses, totally out of control.

[Taintedice]

They point out how low the number of deaths are. In Scotland it's less than 6000 out of a population of about 6m.

This is with lockdown and restrictions, what are you not getting about that? I've said before, almost 3000 deaths linked to covid occurred by the end of April 2020, then the restrictions kicked in and deaths started to level off down to zero by August. So 3000 in 2 months before lockdown had an impact, 3000 in the 9 months since. And there has been no lockdown in the UK since last July, even then, thousands of people were coming into the UK and allowed to move freely.

[Deeranged]

This analysis was broadcast on Breakfast TV, BBC main news programme today. The percentage was now 40%, and it is a statistical expression. The media are determined to paint their truth as black and as dark as possible. But there was an interesting segment when they discussed the probability that this disease is now endemic which means it is in society for ever. Getting rid of it, killing it, is being discussed as a probability and vaccination needs to be worldwide to try to get it out of the population. Smallpox and polio are given as examples of successes brought about by vaccinations.
We are on the right track with the vaccines and I am waiting for my letter.
Does 1 in 100 sound a smaller stat than 10 in 1000? I think 1 in 100 feels smaller.

It's like the daily testing statistic. We're told every day (simplified example) that 1000 people were tested and 140 were positive which is 14% positive and this is sold to us like 14% of the country is actually positive which is of course absolute nonsense. But the majority of the population will swallow it and will believe we have this green mist of virus waiting at every corner to surround them, make straight for their lungs and choke them to death. Note that it's never sold as 86% negative. On 22nd January it was 6.9% positive but has been as high as 14% so I'll stick with that.

The fact is though that the way to get a correct and meaningful percentage would be to take the number of positives over a length of time and consider it relative to the population as a whole and, of course, this information is available if you just look for it - refer https://www.gov.scot/publications/co...-for-scotland/

The population of Scotland is circa 5,460,000

As at 22nd January there have been 169,999 positive tests

169,999 expressed as a percentage of the actual population is 3.11%. That's right 3.11% of us have tested positive for Covid-19 as at 22nd January 2021 since the start of the outbreak. That number of tests will include people that have been tested twice or more but I can't find the data on the number of discrete individuals tested, they'll likely never have that.

Let's go back to the testing - there has been 1,521,121 tests completed in Scotland since the start of the outbreak with 169,999 positive. That can tell us that's 11.5% positive total or, as I'd prefer to think of it, 88.5% negative. Now these are people that are experiencing symptoms or they're key workers such as doctors and nurses or care home workers who will be tested as part of their employment and as already said many will have had multiple tests.

Interesting to note that the report mentions in several places a '95% credible interval'. This seems to suggest that the 95% significance level is being applied to the data. If that's the case then anything less than 5% positive cases is in fact statistically insignificant which begs the question why on earth are perfectly healthy people being locked down, with their freedom and liberty severely restricted, when the data is showing that the number of positive tests per head of population is in fact statistically insignificant?

Lets look at deaths - now the fact remains that any death whether Covid-19, cancer, accident or whatever is a tragedy to someone so in no way am I belittling any death related to Covid-19 before a particular poster starts - if he'd take his fingers out his ears and stop shouting laa laa laa laa that is. Total deaths in Scotland where Covid-19 has been mentioned on the death certificate since the start of the outbreak as at 17th January 2021 = 7,448.

7,448 is 4.38% of the 169,999 total positive tests reported

7,448 is 0.14% of the population of Scotland

Bear in mind that 5% or less is statistically insignificant.

I think I've made my point so won't go on but for those that don't fully understand what the above means I'll put it into words - Covid-19 is killing people, of course it is, however it is not like the virus that's portrayed in movies like I Am Legend, it's more like a bad flu outbreak. Governments are throwing numbers at us such as '71 people died on 22nd January having tested positive for Covid-19 in the preceding 28 days' - this sounds horrendous to us as living, feeling, emotional people and the figures are spun, to target those feelings and emotions. What they don't tell us however is that in reality Covid-19 hasn't actually affected more than 4.5% of the population.

[Deeranged]

This is with lockdown and restrictions, what are you not getting about that? I've said before, almost 3000 deaths linked to covid occurred by the end of April 2020, then the restrictions kicked in and deaths started to level off down to zero by August. So 3000 in 2 months before lockdown had an impact, 3000 in the 9 months since. And there has been no lockdown in the UK since last July, even then, thousands of people were coming into the UK and allowed to move freely.

A respiratory virus became less prevalent over the summer months because of lock down? Or was it maybe because that's how respiratory viruses work?

[BCram]

This is with lockdown and restrictions, what are you not getting about that? I've said before, almost 3000 deaths linked to covid occurred by the end of April 2020, then the restrictions kicked in and deaths started to level off down to zero by August. So 3000 in 2 months before lockdown had an impact, 3000 in the 9 months since. And there has been no lockdown in the UK since last July, even then, thousands of people were coming into the UK and allowed to move freely.

Sorry Tainted, could you give me the monthly breakdown of covid deaths? If we can agree the Scottish figures then we can perhaps discuss the pros and cons of lockdown. I think there must be a way out of this and it will not be based on lockdowns.

[Returnofrros]

Sorry Tainted, could you give me the monthly breakdown of covid deaths? If we can agree the Scottish figures then we can perhaps discuss the pros and cons of lockdown. I think there must be a way out of this and it will not be based on lockdowns.

With the best will in the world the discussion 'of cons of lockdown would take forever and full extent of cons won't be known for years, perhaps decades to come.

[BCram]

With the best will in the world the discussion 'of cons of lockdown would take forever and full extent of cons won't be known for years, perhaps decades to come.

Rross, I was just trying to find something as an agreed base to try to find a way forward. I was very disappointed to hear scientists say that they thought covid was now endemic. The point they made was that it would be a world problem and it was too simplistic to think that we could vaccinate all our population and we would be able to carry on as before.

[Returnofrros]

Rross, I was just trying to find something as an agreed base to try to find a way forward. I was very disappointed to hear scientists say that they thought covid was now endemic. The point they made was that it would be a world problem and it was too simplistic to think that we could vaccinate all our population and we would be able to carry on as before.

Yeah you are a very fair poster so I know what you're trying to do but it's kinda pointless when phrases like covid denier is getting bandied about.....I know you said you have plenty time to waste though.

I have tried to point out from they start that they continually move the goalposts.....think they will do that till time immemorial from now.

Either Govts admit they overeacted or the people start saying no, no more.....preferably both.

Until either or both of these things happen this is how life will be.

harder to control people in better weather so we will get out to play for a spell under tier system but this is the long haul Bcram until A, B or both happen.