Covid - reality - the lies.

[sinkov]

a Gay bankers boy hiding behind a fake marriage...?

I'd gladly help him out in his fake marriage Norder, she scrubs up bloody well for her age.

[sinkov]

Sinkov

China got rid
Attachment 17299

We didn’t
Attachment 17300

Sorry OC, the graphs are too small, I can't make anything of them. What I can see though is the bottom one says 'Daily New Cases', while under it you've put 'Total Coronavirus Deaths. It can't be both, but whatever, it doesn't negate the point I made, which you've chosen to ignore, that we reduced deaths in this country down from 1,000 a day in April to single figures in July, and all without the public being required to wear masks. In fact quite the opposite, even in early July the 'expert' advice from the NHS, PHE and our government was not to wear them, they're a waste of time.

So which 'experts' do you listen to ?

[oldcolner]

QUOTE=Norder;39610165].

so Colner - you say (post 43) deaths without testing "wouldn't count" - then when I pointed out the contrary , that iindeed they did count, being that guidance during the Emergency period...advised cause of death to be defined as C'vid, even without test - or any verification - You then reversed your position (post 49) saying that a cold like symptom "would count" as proper diagnosis for cause of death......nullifying all other health problems, why ?....because of an uncertain sniffle. Do you see how shabby your argument, but worse...it concluded in agreement with a now established abberation.



[/QUOTE]


Not sure where you are trying to go Norder but below is an article you might enjoy.

In 49 I was referring to the coroner notes, I took that out in responding to save space. I didn’t understand your non sentence at the end.

Kings Fund article https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publica...eaths-covid-19

The Department of Health and Social Care releases daily updates (on GOV.UK) on the number of deaths in the UK and its constituent countries in all settings that occur within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19, based on figures reported by public health agencies up to the previous day. These are deaths in people with Covid-19 and not necessarily due to Covid-19, and do not include deaths in people where Covid-19 was suspected but a laboratory test was not done or was negative. Some negative tests may be ‘false negatives’ if, for example, the virus was present in small amounts, or the specimen from the throat or nose wasn’t taken correctly, or because the tests are not always accurate.

Until 12 August, the data for England reported on GOV.UK included everyone who died after testing positive for coronavirus, however long after the test they died, whereas the data for the rest of UK included only deaths within 28 days of testing. Concerns that Covid-19 deaths in England could be over-stated without a cut-off date, as it increased the risk of including people dying from other causes, and the discrepancy with the definition used in the rest of the UK, led the Department of Health and Social Care to ask Public Health England to review its methodology for reporting daily Covid-19 deaths in England. Following the review, the definition used for reporting daily Covid-19 deaths in England was changed on 12 August to bring it into line with the rest of the UK.

The headline measure now reported on GOV.UK for the UK and its constituent countries is defined as the number of deaths that occur within 28 days of a first positive laboratory-confirmed test for Covid-19. This measure is intended to provide an indication of the impact of recent epidemic activity.

In addition, a supplementary measure will be the number of deaths that occur within 60 days of a first positive test and deaths that occur after 60 days if Covid-19 appears on the death certificate. This measure includes people who suffer a prolonged period of illness from Covid-19 before dying, and will provide a more complete measure of the burden of the disease over time.

Both the new measures reduce the cumulative number of Covid-19 deaths in England (and correspondingly in the UK) compared with the previous definition.

What I keep saying is these definitions reduce the number of COVID deaths and don’t inflate them unless you work in Bolton. Lol

[Norder]

I'd gladly help him out in his fake marriage Norder, she scrubs up bloody well for her age.

knock yourself out....Sinkov.



fur sure -that is one cooky lookin bird...!

.

so Colner - you say (post 43) deaths without testing "wouldn't count" - then when I pointed out the contrary , that iindeed they did count, being that guidance during the Emergency period...advised cause of death to be defined as C'vid, even without test - or any verification - You then reversed your position (post 49) saying that a cold like symptom "would count" as proper diagnosis for cause of death......nullifying all other health problems, why ?....because of an uncertain sniffle. Do you see how shabby your argument, but worse...it concluded in agreement with a now established abberation.

Not sure where you are trying to go Norder but below is an article you might enjoy.

In 49 I was referring to the coroner notes, I took that out in responding to save space.


Kings Fund article https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publica...eaths-covid-19

What I keep saying is these definitions reduce the number of COVID deaths and don’t inflate them

Colner we were discussing death certified by covids cloudy crystal ball of perplex air castles....and you said, "Yes of course they would count as those were the symptoms they died of".........a sniffle ?

anyhow - as for the numbers....the trick just changed hands - deaths being of less importance of recent....it's more about getting those highly questionable tests, and ramping up the Positives.

explained here...by a pro in his field btw.




Cheers.

[sinkov]

The new way of counting has reduced stated deaths to one quarter of what they were, you and BT with his conspiracy theories seem to think the opposite and they are overstated now.

No that's not the case OC, it was on August 12th that the change was brought in, it reduced the number of deaths by 5,377, about 12%.

"Public Health England has changed its definition of deaths. The new definition is now death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 test and died within (equal to or less than) 28 days of the first positive specimen date will now be reported. What this means is that England has had 36,695 deaths using this definition as opposed to the previous reported 42,072 – a difference of 5,377.

It's interesting that when the previous flawed method was pointed out by a journo to Hancock, he claimed he was unaware of the problem and ordered an inquiry. This was bizarre, the flawed method of counting had been discussed in the media for several days by then, I was certainly aware of it, and it may even have been mentioned on here. But the Health Secretary claimed he was unaware of it ? I have no idea why he wasn't sacked, if he wasn't aware that a discrepancy with his method of reporting deaths was being questioned in the public domain, he was spectacularly incompetent and should have been sacked, if he was aware but decided to lie about it, he should have been sacked, and it was one or the other.

But no, the media, which had whipped itself into a frenzy over Dom Cummings, didn't seem too concerned and he was allowed to continue wreaking havoc on the good folk of England. What have we done to deserve this tw@t?

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Jesus Christ, that old French bird really needs to get the Polyfilla tub out. She's got more wrinkles than a nun's bed sheet.